SOUND LAW IS NEEDED TO SEIZE CRIME ASSETS

Crackdown: Any action must stand up in court There's nothing we'd like more
than to see organized crime in this country -- and that includes the
weakened remnants of the Mafia, the motorcycle gangs, Asian and Jamaican
extortion-and-drug rackets and fraudulent telemarketing scams -- take a
financial kick in the teeth.

It's difficult to take to heart the adage that crime doesn't pay when bikers
drive $80,000 Lincoln Navigators, lowlife hoods sport luxurious jewelry and
mansions, and vast amounts of cash flow through the drug trade like a river.

For those reasons alone, we'd love to endorse Ontario Attorney-General James
Flaherty's announcement at a summit in Toronto this week on fighting
organized crime that the province will go after proceeds of crime -- even
without criminal charges being laid.

"Freeze their assets, seize their bank accounts, take away their luxury
cars, sell off their homes they bought under other people's names," Flaherty
thundered. "... If they say crime pays, we say Ontario will make you pay it
back."

We'd really like to jump on Flaherty's bandwagon.

But until he can provide some details -- and some assurances -- we have to
be skeptical.

The precept is laudable, but legislation that aims to circumvent the proper
process of law has to be, in the end, judged bad law. While property rights
are not guaranteed by the constitution, due process is. And, as demonstrated
this week by a lower-court rejection of Alberta's well-intentioned
child-prostitution law, legislation that will not withstand the scrutiny of
the courts is not worth the paper on which it is printed.

Will the province use the civil courts, with its assurances of due process,
to sue for cash and property?

That seems a safe and cautionary route, but may be too cumbersome and slow
to get hold of fast-disappearing assets. Will it seek court warrants to
seize property, then be prepared to defend the seizure in court?

That's fast, but with accountability. Or will this government, whose respect
for individual rights is sometimes outweighed by its disdain for following
the rules, simply seize and be damned?

The public would probably be delighted, until the courts threw the
legislation into the trash can -- or until some poor schmo loses his house
and car for not filing his taxes properly.

Any enabling legislation has to include an onus on the Crown to show reason,
and reasonable belief, for the seizure; and it must clearly define both
assets and criminal activity.

We worry, too, about Flaherty's pointed reference to Ontario receiving just
a $3.84 million share of Ottawa's $230 million in seizures from federal
proceeds-of-crime legislation. This provincial government has a serious
addiction to cash flow, seen in this week's announcement that its three
commercial casinos brought in $2 billion in revenues in the last fiscal
year. Proceeds-of-crime legislation should be a deterrent and can be
punitive. But if it's just another cash cow for the government, there's an
increased potential for abuse in order to keep the cash flowing in.

But we are not completely cynical and we believe Flaherty's heart is in the
right place.

We like the idea of a crackdown.

We applaud the intent.

Yes, it may force criminal organizations to hide their assets, but that
wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

The critically important thing, however, has to be in the execution.

It has to be in line with democratic and constitutional principles because,
as this country's highest courts have repeatedly ruled, good intentions mean
nothing if the law is bad.