ANTI-CRIME LAW REACHES TOO FAR

Provincial Proceeds-Of-Crime Legislationlets Government Seize
Property Too Easily

Attorney General John Les made it sound so sensible on May 15: "We
have brought in civil forfeiture legislation, which will target
organized crime and allow us to seize the profits of unlawful
activity," he reminded MLAs. "We want to send a clear message that
criminals in this province will not benefit from unlawful activities."

Most of us would probably agree that those who smuggle drugs across
the border should lose their vehicles if they're caught. Most of us
think unscrupulous people in white collars who bilk poor widows out
of their savings should lose the mansions and jets they acquire from
their ill-gotten gains.

But the Civil Forfeiture Act goes considerably farther than that. It
seems designed to snare more than criminals, organized or not. It
makes it possible for the government to seize property, goods or cash
deemed to have been gained by or used in the breach of any law or
regulation -- cars that break the speed limit, for instance.

Even anything -- cellphones? computers? -- "likely to be used" to
break a federal or provincial law is fair game. Cars, boats or houses
could be seized even when the owner hasn't been charged with a
criminal offence or for breaking any other law, civil liberties groups warn.

The B.C. government may make the seizures if a judge says it may --
using the civil standard of "a balance of probabilities" to make the
order, rather the criminal standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

While the judge ponders the application, assets may be frozen,
rendering them unusable by the owner.

Anyone with a part interest in, say, a house that is used for growing
pot without his knowledge, can lose it, unless he can prove that he
or she is not "indirectly engaged" -- whatever that means -- in the
unlawful activity. That's the dread reverse-onus requirement that
civil libertarians find unfair and unjust.

The legislation says the proceeds of liquidating seized assets "may"
be used to compensate victims of crime or contribute to crime
prevention. But these funds can just as easily end up in general
revenue to help pay for roads for the 2010 Olympics.

All this to combat organized crime? It's a wonder Les didn't call it
an anti-terrorist measure, too.

This law is unnecessary, since there's already a federal statute on
the books to confiscate criminal proceeds. It's plainly designed by
the province to horn in on the federal take.

It casts its net too wide and offends the rights we devised the
charter to protect. And when the courts say so, this enterprise will
be exposed as a waste of money -- the unlaundered kind.