CIVIL FORFEITURE ACT GOES TOO FAR

To the Editor,

British Columbia's Civil Forfeiture Office maintains that the
legislation does not, by any means, allow police or the government to
arbitrarily seize lawful property, and that proceeds from successful
civil forfeiture proceedings are used to compensate victims and for
crime prevention and remediation activities across the province.

In my opinion, the creation of this 'reverse-onus' requires
defendants to prove they did not gain the asset from unlawful activity.

Examinations for discovery are conducted and cases are decided on the
civil standard of proof - the balance of probabilities - rather than
the higher criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proponents of seizure suggest that it is a necessary tool to prevent
drug trafficking or other crimes. However, in jurisdictions that have
introduced civil forfeiture legislation, such as Italy, South Africa,
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Fiji, the provinces of Ontario, Alberta,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, individual states within Australia and
Antigua, statistics indicate that asset forfeiture has failed to
prevent methamphetamine drug crime.

In those jurisdictions, there are hundreds of documented cases of
innocent citizens wrongfully deprived of their homes, businesses and
livelihoods. For example, 80 per cent of properties forfeited in the
U.S. were seized from owners who were never even charged with a crime.

This double-edged sword has created opportunity for agencies to
abandon investigations, and creates a conflict of interest between
effective crime control, the courts and creative fiscal management
that will persist so long as law enforcement agencies remain
dependent on civil asset forfeiture.

William Perry

Victoria