BC goes after "unexplained wealth". | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

Most likely true but a number of provinces, and especially BC, has been very lax at pursuing the acquisition of wealth by criminal organizations.

Look at how long it took BC to even consider the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership (and not just legal ownership) at land titles, and how long it took to implement it. I still do not think they do anything much to validate it, i.e. they take form content at face value.

We have a major problem in BC and the government is complicit through its financial gains from land transfer taxes. It is a huge conflict of interest.

AltaRed said
Most likely true but a number of provinces, and especially BC, has been very lax at pursuing the acquisition of wealth by criminal organizations.

Look at how long it took BC to even consider the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership (and not just legal ownership) at land titles, and how long it took to implement it. I still do not think they do anything much to validate it, i.e. they take form content at face value.

We have a major problem in BC and the government is complicit through its financial gains from land transfer taxes. It is a huge conflict of interest.  

That may be so, but this seems like it may not pass a Charter challenge...if it goes there. Those guilty of such things are likely less likely to mount a Charter challenge, so it will likely take someone actually innocent to mount that challenge... 🙁

We've always had civil forfeiture, but that has been on somewhat tenuous legal ground; in other words, it has not been a slam dunk for the B.C. government. This, at first blush, seems to potentially overstep.

Also, the land ownership transparency registry, while initially supported by me, has been a big disappointment. The B.C. NDP originally promised it would be subject to the B.C. Open Data (i.e., free) provisions, but they have walked that back on implementation, and you still have to pay a search fee (which was always available under the existing myLTSA system).

Meh. The link posted by the OP is more than a year old. The amendments have already been made. The first test will happen in just over a month, in January, as the province attempts to take control of a $1.8 million property owned by a couple of fraudsters in the US. It's already reality, and I like it. Billions of laundered dollars here in BC, with a lot of it purchasing real estate. Besides, there's already similar legislation in place in Manitoba, New Zealand, Ireland, and the U.K.

AltaRed said

The first test of this law is now in progress https://vancouversun.com/business/bc-seeks-first-ever-order-to-explain-wealth

A 'Key' quote from that ⬆ article :

“Significantly, this is the first unexplained wealth order in Canadian legal history,” Farnworth said in a statement on Thursday.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out !

Dean

I am glad to see prosecution of criminals and fraudsters, but I am unable to see any legal or moral justifications for reverse-onus proceedings.

The BC law has already been tested on the HA clubhouses, hasn't it? They exhausted all appeals and the assets siezed and sold or demolished.

Surely this is aimed at those who spend “ill gotten” money in Canada rather than at those who move to South America. I think the issue is that Canada itself has been and still is a bit of a safe heaven for dodgy money. And its not just tax evasion.

The seizure of profits of crime is a goal to be applauded.

The seizure of assets without any allegation or proof of crime, any due process or any clear standard of how to prove innocence is clearly a violation of the presumption of innocence and due process. Not to mention leaving the dispossessed entity then being left with no assets to get legal representation. There are right and wrong ways to do things.

Worse, as I understand it BC seizures are turned over to police forces and not the provincial treasury. That's a serious conflict of interest, like the US judges who sentence people to imprisonment in prisons owned by the judges.

So far, BC has been issuing those orders on the judgement of police without any examination or evaluation of the claim, or any opportunity to defend against the claim. That's what "without due process" means. And the seizure can and sometimes does leave targets without the financial means to legally attempt to recover their funds.

We have no standards or transparency as to why police choose their targets, or those they choose NOT to target. It's just "trust us."

The issue in such claims is whether the funds are the proceeds of crime or not. Think about how you'd try to prove where your cash came from. How much data and evidence would you have? And some assets are subject to random changes in value.

The proof of guilt and defense should come BEFORE the seizure. We already have legal means to stop flight of assets that could be used without leaving targets without any cash or even a home.

Seems to me a huge difference between enforcement of a civil contract between private parties-- and the government seizing assets with no due process. To me, anyway, flies in the face of centuries of common law