GROW-OP OWNERS CAN'T GET HOUSE BACK

B.C. Court Of Appeal Refuses To Overturn 2005 Order To Forfeit
Property After Couple Convicted

A Nanaimo dad has lost his bid to overturn the forfeiture of the
family home after he and his wife were convicted of running a
sophisticated marijuana grow-op in the house.

After RCMP executed a search warrant at the two-level, single-family
residence in September 2003, Cuc Van Bui and his wife, Thu Thi Tran,
were convicted of production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for
the purpose of trafficking and theft of electricity.

At the time of the police search, Bui and his wife were living with
their four children in the home.

Police found the couple in a crawl space tending a 625-plant grow-op
and also seized $6,000 in cash.

The crawl space was accessed through a trap door in the master bedroom
and had been specially outfitted to grow marijuana crops. It was
capable of producing annual revenues of between $587,000 and $991,000.

The couple each received a 12-month conditional sentence, with the
trial judge ordering the home, assessed at $314,000 in 2005, to be
forfeited.

Bui later paid B.C. Hydro $14,000 for the theft of
electricity.

Tax returns for the couple reported "relatively little" income, a
significant part of which was employment insurance.

Bui appealed the forfeiture, arguing that it was "disproportionate" in
that the trial judge failed to consider that the home was the
principal dwelling of two of his four children.

After the home was searched, the children continued to attend school
in Nanaimo, with one graduating at the end of the school year. The
following year, three of them were enrolled in school in Maple Ridge,
but they moved back to the Nanaimo residence in 2005.

In rejecting the appeal, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice David Frankel
noted that the home was not the principal residence for the children
during the 281/2-month period between when the charges were laid and
the forfeiture.

Frankel said there was nothing in the record to indicate where and how
family members lived during the time they were away from the property,
or why they returned when they did.

"It is entirely possible, as the Crown argues, that Mr. Bui brought
his children back to Nanaimo just prior to the original date for the
forfeiture hearing only, for the purpose of being able to shield the
property from forfeiture."