GRABBING CRIME PROCEEDS GETTING EASIER

Public Safety Minister Shirley Bond gets sensitive at suggestions the
new seize-as-youplease law amounts to an end run around the justice system.

And NDP MLAs appear equally sensitive about leaving any impression
they are soft on crime as they scrutinize the administrative forfeiture bill.

Which makes for a lot of careful footwork during debate on the first
attempt in Canada to allow seizure of goods and cash from suspected
criminals with no judicial oversight.

Once it passes, B.C. will be the first province with "administrative
forfeiture." If unlawful activity is suspected, the government will
be able to seize property or cash under $75,000 by simply filling out a form.

In the six years civil forfeiture has been in place, it's been aimed
mostly at bigger ticket items - drug houses and expensive cars. Those
seizures require expensive court processes. So attempting to seize
lower value items wasn't considered worth the effort.

The bill before the legislature would let authorities seize goods or
cash under $75,000 without going to court, even if no crime is
proven. If the seizure goes uncontested, the Crown gets it.

The piles of cash that police often display after drug busts is a
good example. Although the standard photo op leaves the impression
the cash has been seized, it sometimes winds up being returned to the
suspect if the case falls apart.

With the new law, the authorities will be able to keep it, no matter
what happens to the criminal charges, if the suspect doesn't bother objecting.

The seizure would stand if "the balance of probabilities" indicated
the cash or possessions were the fruits of criminal activity,

NDP critics were treading lightly in questioning the bill. The party
has always wrestled with law-and-order issues. One wing prefers to
concentrate on the social problems behind crime, rather than support
the crackdowns against criminals. Others are conscious that's not
always a winning stand, politically.

As NDP MLA Nicholas Simons told the legislature, "When we have
criticisms .. the Liberals are the fastest to jump to: 'Why do you
criticize police officers?' "

New Democrat MLA Kathy Corrigan suggested at one point that it will
occur to police now that "if they can't be successful in the criminal
law, there's another avenue."

Bond disagreed. "I can assure you that the civil forfeiture office,
the director and the police agencies in B.C. do not use this process
to circumvent other ones," she said.

Corrigan said one concern is that police and the civil forfeiture
office would "come to an understanding that prosecution of a case
might be difficult and they would be tempted to start using this act
as a different way to get around the requirements of the Criminal
Code, which requires that you have to prove an offence beyond a
reasonable doubt." It doesn't sound like an outlandish scenario.

But it was obvious the NDP suspicions about the bill aren't deep
enough to stop them from voting against it.

The revenue being raised also came up for discussion. Authorities
have seized $17 million over the past several years and the figure
will climb in the years ahead.

It's enough to make the civil forfeiture office self-funding and to
help fund victim services as well.

It's a popular use of money generated by a program that appeals to
people frustrated by crime.

But the other problem that wasn't discussed is the secrecy around
administrative forfeiture.

It's similar to the impaired driving changes last year. Serious
sanctions that used to be imposed in open court are now being handled
privately, out of the public eye.

Most proceedings under the current civil forfeiture program can be
obtained by anyone with an interest in a case, because there are court files.

When administrative forfeiture comes in, the office will simply issue
a public notice that a seizure is underway. That's the extent of the
information available.

There may be smaller values involved. But the big questions about
what the authorities are up to won't be easily answered.