Date: 20100913
Docket: T-2026-09
Citation: 2010 FC 911
Vancouver, British Columbia, September
13, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny
BETWEEN:
SUKHVIR
SINGH SIDHU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of the decision of Kathy Rush, Manager,
Adjudications Division, Recourse Directorate, for the Minister of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness (the Minister’s delegate), dated October 26, 2009.
The Minister’s delegate determined that the Applicant had contravened the Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) triggering
the seizure of the currency he was carrying. She also determined that he
had failed to provide sufficient evidence of lawful origin of the currency
seized and hence confirmed the forfeiture of the funds.
[2]
The
Applicant seeks an Order, pursuant to s. 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts
Act, quashing the decision and order of the Tribunal, or setting aside the
decision and order and referring the matter back to the Tribunal and/or such
further and other orders or relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
[3]
Having
carefully read the records submitted by the parties, as well as their oral and
written submissions, I have decided that the conclusion of the Minister’s
delegate – that there was insufficient evidence regarding the lawful origin of
the seized funds – is reasonable. Accordingly, this application ought to be
dismissed.
I.
Facts
[4]
On
January 13, 2009, Sukhvir Singh Sidhu attended at the Vancouver
International Airport to board a
flight destined for Frankfurt, Germany, while in the possession of $16,940.
According to the detailed report of the CBSA officer, the events unfolded as
follows. The Applicant did not report to Customs that he was exporting from Canada currency of
a value equal to or greater than $10,000, contrary to s. 12(1) of the PCMLTFA.
To the contrary, even after his legal obligation was explained to him by a
Customs official at the airport, the Applicant stated that he did not need to
complete a currency report. In fact, he was asked a second time by a Customs
official whether he needed to make a currency report and after confirming that
he understood the questions, he once again denied that he needed to make a
currency report. When asked how much currency he was carrying, Mr. Sidhu
said he was unsure.
[5]
In
response to the Customs official’s request to produce any currency in his possession,
the Applicant produced two white envelopes containing large bundles of currency
from his pockets, and when asked if this was all of the currency he had, he
replied “Yes”. The first envelope contained $4000 in $100 denominations and the
second envelope contained $2000 in $100 denominations. The Applicant was then
asked if he had a wallet. He confirmed that he did, opened his wallet and
produced $3500. When asked again if that was all of the currency he had, he
retrieved a further $1400 from his wallet. When asked yet again if he was
carrying any more currency on his person, he produced a further $6000 from his
back pocket.
[6]
At
this point the Customs official made the decision to remove the Applicant from
his flight for further examination in the secondary examination area. While
walking towards that area, the Applicant stated that he was involved in the construction
business although he could not provide any details about his construction
company, other than that he and his brother built houses from time to time. He said
that he had no current employment or occupation as he was unable to work
because of a heart condition. He had not worked in the previous five years and received
disability payments.
[7]
When
the Customs official asked the Applicant about the origin of the currency, he
stated that it was from “loans”. When asked to explain further he stated that
it was from “loan sharking”. The Customs official then asked the Applicant why
he did not report this currency. The Applicant responded that he was not sure
that he had to, and that he did not want the hassle.
[8]
While
in the secondary examination area, the Applicant confirmed to the Customs
official that he did not file a tax return in the previous year, and does not
report any income other than $1000 per month he receives as a disability
payment. In response to questions about the origin of the currency, the
Applicant initially stated that the money was from business loans that he gave
his brother. When asked where the principal money came from, he replied “from
other loans”. The Applicant also stated that he could not prove how much
he earns from his business as he did not have any documents or paperwork to
show any transactions or involvement in the business. Through further
questioning, he admitted that he loans money to his brother to fix and sell
cars, and that he is repaid the loan plus interest. Additionally, he said that
he loaned money to an individual named “Dan” but could not provide a last name
for “Dan” or identify the name of “Dan’s” business or its office location.
Despite further questioning, the Applicant could only account for $2000 that he
might have withdrawn from a bank two months previously. He claimed the
remainder of the currency was kept at his home. Finally, the Applicant claimed that
he had $100,000 in two bank accounts, earned from previous employment. He later
said that he had spent the money that he earned from this employment since he
had a family of five to take care of. He could not provide an explanation
as to why he would continue to have funds originating from that employment.
[9]
Because
the Applicant’s currency had not been reported to Customs officials, it was
seized as forfeit pursuant to s. 18(1) of the PCMLTFA. In addition, since
the Customs official believed that there were reasonable grounds to suspect
that the currency was proceeds of crime, no terms of release were offered,
pursuant to s. 18(2) of the PCMLTFA.
[10]
On
January 14, 2009, the Applicant requested, through his counsel, a Minister’s
Decision in regards to the seizure, pursuant to s. 25 of the PCMLTFA.
Submissions were made by the Applicant’s counsel by letter dated January 21,
2009. It was submitted that the Applicant had complied with the legislation,
that he was not offered an opportunity pursuant to s. 13 of the PCMLTFA to
decide whether he wanted to continue with the export of the currency, and that
he was not afforded the opportunity to speak to legal counsel.
[11]
Receipt
of the Applicant’s s. 25 PCMLTFA request was acknowledged by the Canada
Border Services Agency (CBSA) on February 6, 2009, and was forwarded to the
CBSA Recourse Directorate. On March 19, 2009, the CBSA provided the Applicant
with the written Notice of the Circumstances of the Seizure pursuant to s.
26(1) of the PCMLTFA. After explaining the basis of the enforcement
action, the Notice invited the Applicant to furnish any evidence in the matter
that he desired to furnish pursuant to s. 26(2) of the PCMLTFA, and
stated the following:
Moreover, I would like to
advise you that based on the information it would appear that you failed
to meet your reporting requirements with respect to the seized currency.
However, should you be able to provide sufficient evidence of the legitimate
origin of the seized currency, a reduction of the level of action taken may be
appropriate. That would result in the return of the seized currency, upon
payment of a monetary penalty.
[12]
Considerable
correspondence passed between the parties in the process leading up to the
Minister’s decision. The Applicant claimed that the majority of his funds
originated from loan repayments from a Mr. Muni Nadan, to whom he had lent
money, and that the remainder came from cash rent payments he received from the
tenant of his basement suite. He furnished a copy of a loan agreement with Mr.
Nadan, a letter from TD Canada Trust bank confirming that he purchased a
$50,000 bank draft payable to Mr. Nadan, a copy of the bank draft payable to
Mr. Nadan, a residential tenancy agreement and photocopies of receipts
confirming payment of rent in cash.
On June 15,
2009, CBSA Recourse Directorate Adjudicator Jonathan Ledoux-Cloutier sent a
letter to the Applicant. The letter said that the CBSA had received the
submissions of documentary evidence pertaining to the origin of the funds. It
said that if the submissions were accepted, “consideration would be given to
reducing the level of action taken”, which would result in the return of the
seized currency.
[13]
In
an undated document that may also have been sent on June 15, 2009, CBSA
Recourse Directorate Adjudicator Jonathan Ledoux-Cloutier sent the CBSA a
carbon copy of the letter described in the paragraph above. To this letter, he
appears to have added a post-script, in which he explained that “the Agency is
considering accepting this documentation and reducing the level of infraction”.
This post-script does not appear to have been sent to the Applicant.
[14]
On
July 11, 2009, the officer who originally apprehended the Applicant sent an
internal email to Mr. Ledoux-Cloutier, wherein he expressed his doubts as to the
authenticity of the Applicant’s documentary evidence, suggesting that it may
have been fabricated. The officer saw the evidence as inconsistent with the
Applicant’s original statements at the airport; he said that during the
original questioning, the Applicant at no time suggested that the unreported
currency originated from rental income or from this specific loan repayment.
[15]
On
or about October 5, 2009, the CBSA adjudicator issued a document titled “Case Synopsis
and Reasons for Decision,” which summarized the material received in the
context of the ministerial review and contained a recommendation to the
ministerial delegate, to whom authority has been delegated to render decisions
pursuant to ss. 27 and 29 of the PCMLTFA. All of this material (i.e. the
material received by the adjudicator in the context of the ministerial review
and the Case Synopsis prepared by the adjudicator) was then provided to
the ministerial delegate, Ms. Kathy Rush, for the purpose of enabling her
to render the appropriate decision as required by the PCMLTFA.
[16]
By
letter dated October 26, 2009, Ms. Rush advised the Applicant that she had rendered
a s. 27 and s.29 PCMLTFA decision.
II.
The Impugned Decision
[17]
In
coming to her decision, the Minister’s delegate reviewed the Case Synopsis, the
enforcement action, the evidence, and the applicable law as well as the
documentation provided by both parties. In particular, she explicitly
acknowledged each of the Applicant’s assertions and pieces of evidence
pertaining to the lawful origins of the money.
[18]
In
her view, the evidence established that the Applicant did contravene s. 12(1)
of the PCMLTFA in respect of the currency that was seized. The reason
for this determination was the fact that the Applicant declared to a Customs
official that the currency in his possession did not exceed the $10,000
reporting threshold when this was untrue.
[19]
She
also found that the CBSA did indeed have reasonable grounds to suspect that the
currency was the proceeds of crime. She therefore determined, pursuant to s. 29
of the PCMLTFA, that the forfeiture of the seized currency shall be
maintained, since the evidence provided by the Applicant was not sufficient to
prove the lawful origin of the currency. The reasons for that decision appear
to be twofold:
… although the multitude of
documents and submissions provided by your counsel suggested that the entire
amount of the seized currency was legitimate, the documentation and submission
provided did not clearly substantiate the legitimate origin of the seized currency.
Your counsel only emphasized that the vast majority of the seized currency
originated from this loan’s repayments you received and the additional amount
was cash rental payments received. Furthermore, by acknowledging that the
currency was kept at your residence, this created an undocumented void between
a potential legitimate origin and the seized funds.
[20]
On
December 3, 2009, the Applicant commenced the present application for judicial
review to challenge the s. 29 PCMLTFA decision.
III.
Issues
[21]
Counsel
for the Applicant has raised essentially three issues:
a) Was the
decision of the Minister’s delegate to confirm the forfeiture of the seized currency
reasonable, considering the evidence that was before her?
b) Did the
Minister breach his duty of fairness and of full disclosure by not forwarding
to the Applicant the postscript attached to the Recourse Directorate
Adjudicator’s letter of June 15, 2009?
c) Did the
Applicant have the opportunity to decide not to continue with the exportation
of the currency?
IV. Analysis
[22]
Before
turning to the issues raised in this application for judicial review, it is
worth looking at the statutory cross-border currency reporting regime to
situate this case within its legislative context.
[23]
The
objectives of the PCMLTFA are clearly set out at s. 3 and include the
following:
(a) to implement specific
measures to detect and deter money laundering and the financing of terrorist
activities and to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of money
laundering offences and terrorist activity financing offences, including
(…)
(ii) requiring the reporting
of suspicious financial transactions and of cross-border movements of currency
and monetary instruments.
(…)
(b) to respond to the threat
posed by organized crime by providing law enforcement officials with the
information they need to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their criminal
activities, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are put in place to
protect the privacy of persons with respect to personal information about
themselves; and
(c) to assist in fulfilling Canada’s international commitments
to participate in the fight against transnational crime, particularly money
laundering, and the fight against terrorist activity.
[24]
In
order to implement the objective specified at s. 3(a)(ii), Part 2 of the PCMLTFA
provides for a currency reporting regime whereby importers and exporters of
currency must make a report to a Customs official whenever they import or
export large quantities of currency or monetary instruments into or out of
Canada.
[25]
The
relevant reporting requirements in the case at bar (which involves an
exportation of currency) stem from ss. 12(1) and 12(3)(a) of the PCMLTFA
along with ss. 2, 3 and 11 of the Cross-border Currency and Monetary
Instruments Reporting Regulations (SOR/2002-412). These provisions
require every person who exports currency from Canada worth
$10,000.00 or more to report this exportation in writing and without delay to a
Customs official.
[26]
In
the event that a person exports currency from Canada worth $10,000.00 or more
and fails to report the exportation, the currency is subject to seizure as
forfeit by a Customs official pursuant to s. 18(1) of the PCMLTFA, if
that official believes on reasonable grounds that s. 12(1) has been contravened.
[27]
Pursuant
to s. 18(2) of the PCMLTFA, the Customs official must then decide
whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the currency is proceeds
of crime or funds for terrorist financing. If the official answers this
question in the affirmative, the seized currency must remain forfeit. If the
official answers this question in the negative, he or she must return the
currency upon receipt of the prescribed penalty, which ranges from $250 to
$5,000.
[28]
Furthermore,
s. 23 of the PCMLTFA provides that currency seized as forfeit pursuant
to s. 18(1) of the PCMLTFA is automatically forfeited to Her
Majesty in right of Canada from the time of the contravention of s. 12(1) in
respect of which it was seized and no act or proceeding after the forfeiture is
necessary to effect the forfeiture.
[29]
As
per s. 24 of the PCMLTFA, the forfeiture of seized currency is final and
is not subject to review or to be set aside or otherwise dealt with except to
the extent and in the manner provided by the review and appeal procedure
provided by ss. 24.1 and 25 of the PCMLTFA.
[30]
Specifically,
s. 25 of the PCMLTFA permits the person from whom the currency was
seized to request a decision of the Minister as to whether s. 12(1) of the PCMLTFA
was contravened, provided such a request is made in writing within 90 days
after the date of the seizure.
[31]
If
a decision is requested under s. 25 of the PCMLTFA, the President of the
CBSA is obliged to serve that person with written notice of the circumstances
of the seizure, pursuant to s. 26(1) of the PCMLTFA. That person is then
entitled pursuant to s. 26(2) of the PCMLTFA to provide any evidence in
the matter that he or she desires to furnish. The Minister must then, pursuant
to s. 27 of the PCMLTFA, make a decision with respect to whether s.
12(1) of the PCMLTFA was contravened. This decision of the Minister can
be termed the “Section 27 Decision”.
[32]
If
the Minister decides that there was no failure to report, the currency or the
assessed penalty must then be returned, pursuant to s. 28 of the PCMLTFA.
[33]
If,
on the other hand, the Minister decides that there was a failure to report, the
Minister must then render a second decision, as per s. 29 of the PCMLTFA,
with respect to the appropriate sanction for the infraction. This decision is
effectively a review of the quantum of the sanction imposed by the Customs
official pursuant to s. 18(2) (i.e., full forfeiture or a penalty ranging from
$250 to $5,000). Section 29 of the PCMLTFA requires the Minister to
either confirm the Custom official’s decision with respect to the sanction or
to reduce it to some lesser penalty. This second decision of the Minister can
be termed “the Section 29 Decision”.
[34]
Section
30 of the PCMLTFA allows the person who requested a Section 27 Decision
to appeal that decision by way of an action in the Federal Court. However, a
person who wishes to challenge a Section 29 Decision must do so by means of a
judicial review application pursuant to s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts
Act.
[35]
The
Applicant and the Respondent agree that the appropriate standard of review is
reasonableness. Indeed, this is consistent with various decisions of the Court
of Appeal and of this Court on this issue: see, most recently, Ayobe v. The
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2009 FC 264, at para.
18, as well as Dag v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness, 2008 FCA 95, at para. 4; Sellathurai v. Minister of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2008 FCA 255, at para. 25; Yang v.
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2008 FCA 281, at
para. 9.
[36]
Therefore,
the impugned Section 29 Decision in the case at bar warrants significant
deference. In accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidelines in Dunsmuir
v. New
Brunswick,
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, it should be set aside only if the decision is not one of
a number
of possible, reasonable conclusions that was available to the Minister.
a) Was the
decision of the Minister’s delegate to confirm the forfeiture of the seized
currency reasonable, considering the evidence that was before her?
[37]
The
Applicant claims to have provided sufficient documentary evidence proving the
legitimate source of the money seized. To prove that much of the funds came
from the repayment of a loan he had made, he submitted the loan agreement, a
copy of a bank draft showing the transfer of funds from his account to the
borrower, and a confirmation of this draft from his bank. He argues that this
evidence of a legitimate loan should countervail the weight attached to his own
use of the term “loan sharking,” which is central to the seizing officer’s
report. In addition, to prove that the balance of the funds came from rental
income, he submitted copies of rental receipts indicating that he received
payments from his tenant in cash.
[38]
Contrary
to the Applicant’s submissions, I am satisfied that these documents were duly
considered in the “Case Synopsis and Reasons for Decision” prepared by the CBSA
Adjudicator and in the decision of the Minister’s delegate. They are all listed
and discussed in both the Case Synopsis and the decision. The fact that this
evidence was not found to satisfactorily substantiate his claims does not mean
that it was not considered.
[39]
Counsel
for the Applicant also argued that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect
that the money itself was proceeds of crime. However, this argument is turning
the test on its head. The Applicant’s submission erroneously implies that
the Respondent has the burden of proving that the currency was the proceeds of
crime. Yet, the jurisprudence is quite clear that the onus falls on the
Applicant to persuade the Minister that the seized currency is not the proceeds
of crime.
[40]
The
Federal Court of Appeal in Sellathurai held that the only question for
determination under s. 29 of the PCMLTFA is whether the Minister will
exercise his discretion to grant relief from forfeiture, either by returning
the funds or by returning the statutory penalty paid to secure the release of
the funds. The Applicant must persuade the Minister to exercise his discretion
to grant relief from forfeiture by satisfying him that the funds are not
proceeds of crime. Where the Minister is satisfied that the seized currency
comes from a legitimate source, it follows that the currency cannot be proceeds
of crime. If the Minister is not satisfied that the seized currency comes from
a legitimate source, it does not mean that the funds are proceeds of crime. It
simply means that the Minister has not been satisfied that they are not
proceeds of crime. These principles have been stated quite explicitly in the
following two paragraphs of the Sellathurai decision:
[49] Where the Minister
repeatedly asks for proof that the seized currency has a legitimate source, as
he did in this case, it is a fair conclusion that he made his decision on the
basis of the applicant’s evidence on that issue. The underlying logic is
unassailable. If the currency can be shown to have a legitimate source, then it
cannot be proceeds of crime.
[50] If, on the other
hand, the Minister is not satisfied that the seized currency comes from a
legitimate source, it does not mean that the funds are proceeds of crime. It
simply means that the Minister has not been satisfied that they are not
proceeds of crime. The distinction is important because it goes directly to the
nature of the decision which the Minister is asked to make under section 29
which, as noted earlier in these reasons, is an application for relief from
forfeiture. The issue is not whether the Minister can show reasonable grounds
to suspect that the seized funds are proceeds of crime. The only issue is
whether the applicant can persuade the Minister to exercise his discretion to
grant relief from forfeiture by satisfying him that the seized funds are
not proceeds of crime. Without precluding the possibility that the Minister can
be satisfied on this issue in other ways, the obvious approach is to show that
the funds come from a legitimate source. That is what the Minister requested in
this case, and when Mr. Sellathurai was unable to satisfy him on the issue, the
Minister was entitled to decline to exercise his discretion to grant relief
from forfeiture.
[41]
The
Applicant was unable to demonstrate the origin of the currency seized by
Canadian Customs Officials or to otherwise satisfy the Minister’s delegate that
the seized currency was not proceeds of crime. The Applicant was given
numerous opportunities to provide evidence to establish that the currency
originated from a legitimate source. When asked initially about the origin of
the funds, the Applicant informed the Customs official that the funds were
obtained through “loan sharking”. While the Applicant later submitted a loan
agreement and receipts for rental income received in cash, the documentation
did not establish the source of the currency.
[42]
When
initially questioned by the Customs official, the Applicant admitted that he
had not worked in the past five years because he was disabled by a heart
condition. He then claimed that the currency in his possession was from
business loans that he made to his brother and an associate named “Dan”.
Curiously, he was unable to provide a last name, a business name or address for
“Dan” even though it was someone to whom he had loaned money.
[43]
The
Applicant also acknowledged that he was unable to provide documentary evidence of the
currency’s origin because the currency was kept at his residence as opposed to
a financial institution.
[44]
Based
on the evidence that was before her, the Minister’s delegate confirmed the
forfeiture. It cannot be said that her conclusion was unreasonable; her finding
that the evidence failed to establish that the currency originated from a
legitimate source was definitely one of the number of possible, reasonable
conclusions that was open to her.
[45]
Finally,
the Applicant submitted that his right to know the case against him was
breached, because was he not informed as to what evidence would be sufficient
to dispel the view that the seized currency was illegally obtained. I find this
argument devoid of merit. The correspondence made it clear that the CBSA was
looking for documentary evidence proving the legitimate origin of the
funds. As was made clear in at least two letters to the Applicant, it was not
enough to show that part of the money originated from a loan repayment; what
was requested was additional evidence documenting the specific origin of the
money that was lent in the first place. Accordingly, I find that the Applicant
was adequately informed of the case that needed to be met.
b) Did the
Minister breach his duty of fairness and of full disclosure by not forwarding
to the Applicant the postscript attached to the Recourse Directorate
Adjudicator’s letter of June 15, 2009?
[46]
Counsel
for the Applicant contends that the CBSA “post-script” described above at
paragraph 14 of these reasons indicates that the adjudicator had decided to
reduce his infraction and return the funds, kept that decision secret from him,
and then revoked it. To use the Applicant’s words, this would amount to a
“conspicuous” breach of the duty of fairness and full disclosure.
[47]
In
my view, the Applicant overstates the significance of this post-script. The
body of the letter sent to the Applicant contains the same essential message as
does the allegedly secret post-script: that the CBSA was considering reducing
the infraction and returning the funds. The disclosure of the post-script
would have been of no benefit to the Applicant. It is true that the Agency was
“considering accepting” the documentation provided by the Applicant, and
reducing the level of infraction. However, no decision had yet been made and
further information was thereafter communicated to the Adjudicator by the officer
who had originally seized the currency. Moreover, the Adjudicator was not the
person authorized to make the decision on behalf of the Minister. It cannot be
said, therefore, that he revoked his decision, since no decision had been made
or could have been made when the letter to which the post-script was attached
had been sent.
c) Did the
Applicant have the opportunity to decide not to continue with the exportation
of the currency?
[48]
Finally,
the Applicant argues that he was never given the opportunity to decide whether
to continue to proceed with the exportation of the currency, and that the
CBSA officers thereby breached s. 13 of the PCMLTFA.
[49]
In
making this argument, the Applicant appears to understand s. 13 as imposing a
positive obligation upon the officer to explicitly offer the person an
opportunity to halt the exportation. However, a fair reading of s. 13 offers no
indication that such a positive obligation exists. Furthermore, there is no suggestion in
the record that the Applicant gave any signal communicating a desire to cease
the exportation during the approximate 2.5 hours of questioning before the
money was seized. As such, he cannot avail himself of s. 13.
[50]
For
all of the foregoing reasons, I am therefore of the view that this application
for judicial review ought to be dismissed, with costs.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the
application for judicial review is dismissed, with costs.
“Yves
de Montigny”
ANNEX “A”
Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act / Loi sur le recyclage des
produits de la criminalité et le financement des activités terroristes.
Relevant Provisions
|
3. The object of this Act is
(a) to implement specific
measures to detect and deter money laundering and the financing of terrorist
activities and to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of money
laundering offences and terrorist activity financing offences, including
(i) establishing record
keeping and client identification requirements for financial services
providers and other persons or entities that engage in businesses,
professions or activities that are susceptible to being used for money
laundering or the financing of terrorist activities,
(ii) requiring the reporting
of suspicious financial transactions and of cross-border movements of
currency and monetary instruments, and
(iii) establishing an agency
that is responsible for dealing with reported and other information;
(b) to respond to the threat
posed by organized crime by providing law enforcement officials with the
information they need to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their criminal
activities, while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are put in place to
protect the privacy of persons with respect to personal information about
themselves; and
(c) to assist in fulfilling Canada’s international commitments
to participate in the fight against transnational crime, particularly money
laundering, and the fight against terrorist activity.
12. (1) Every person or
entity referred to in subsection (3) shall report to an officer, in
accordance with the regulations, the importation or exportation of currency
or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the prescribed
amount.
(…)
(3) Currency or monetary
instruments shall be reported under subsection (1)
(a) in the case of currency
or monetary instruments in the actual possession of a person arriving in or
departing from Canada, or that form part of their baggage if they and their
baggage are being carried on board the same conveyance, by that person or, in
prescribed circumstances, by the person in charge of the conveyance;
(b) in the case of currency
or monetary instruments imported into Canada by courier or as mail, by the
exporter of the currency or monetary instruments or, on receiving notice
under subsection 14(2), by the importer;
(c) in the case of currency
or monetary instruments exported from Canada by courier or as mail, by the exporter
of the currency or monetary instruments;
(d) in the case of currency
or monetary instruments, other than those referred to in paragraph (a) or
imported or exported as mail, that are on board a conveyance arriving in or
departing from Canada, by the person in charge of the conveyance; and
(e) in any other case, by
the person on whose behalf the currency or monetary instruments are imported
or exported.
13.
A person or an entity that is required to report currency or monetary
instruments may, at any time before they are retained under subsection 14(1)
or forfeited as a result of a contravention of subsection 12(1), decide not
to proceed further with importing or exporting them.
14. (1) Subject to
subsections (2) to (5), if a person or an entity indicates to an officer that
they have currency or monetary instruments to report under subsection 12(1)
but the report has not yet been completed, the officer may, after giving
notice in the prescribed manner to the person or entity, retain the currency
or monetary instruments for the prescribed period.
(2) In the case of currency
or monetary instruments imported or exported by courier or as mail, the
officer shall, within the prescribed period, give the notice to the exporter
if the exporter’s address is known, or, if the exporter’s address is not
known, to the importer.
(3) Currency or monetary
instruments may no longer be retained under subsection (1) if, during the
period referred to in that subsection,
(a) the officer is satisfied
that the currency or monetary instruments have been reported under subsection
12(1); or
(b) the importer or exporter
of the currency or monetary instruments advises the officer that they have
decided not to proceed further with importing or exporting them.
(4) The notice referred to
in subsection (1) must state
(a) the period for which the
currency or monetary instruments may be retained;
(b) that if, within that
period, the currency or monetary instruments are reported under subsection
12(1) or the importer or exporter decides not to proceed further with
importing or exporting them, they may no longer be retained; and
(c) that currency or
monetary instruments retained at the end of that period are forfeited to Her
Majesty in right of Canada at that time.
(5) Currency or monetary
instruments that are retained by an officer under subsection (1) are
forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada at the end of the period referred
to in that subsection, and the officer shall send any incomplete report in
respect of the forfeited currency or monetary instruments made under
subsection 12(1) to the Centre.
18. (1) If an officer
believes on reasonable grounds that subsection 12(1) has been contravened,
the officer may seize as forfeit the currency or monetary instruments.
(2) The officer shall, on
payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount, return the seized currency or
monetary instruments to the individual from whom they were seized or to the
lawful owner unless the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the currency
or monetary instruments are proceeds of crime within the meaning of
subsection 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code or funds for use in the financing of
terrorist activities.
(…)
23. Subject to subsection
18(2) and sections 25 to 31, currency or monetary instruments seized as
forfeit under subsection 18(1) are forfeited to Her Majesty in right of
Canada from the time of the contravention of subsection 12(1) in respect of
which they were seized, and no act or proceeding after the forfeiture is
necessary to effect the forfeiture.
24. The forfeiture of
currency or monetary instruments seized under this Part is final and is not
subject to review or to be set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the
extent and in the manner provided by sections 24.1 and 25.
24.1 (1) The Minister, or
any officer delegated by the President for the purposes of this section, may,
within 30 days after a seizure made under subsection 18(1) or an assessment
of a penalty referred to in subsection 18(2),
(a) cancel the seizure, or
cancel or refund the penalty, if the Minister is satisfied that there was no
contravention; or
(b) reduce the penalty or
refund the excess amount of the penalty collected if there was a
contravention but the Minister considers that there was an error with respect
to the penalty assessed or collected, and that the penalty should be reduced.
(2) If an amount is refunded
to a person or entity under paragraph (1)(a), the person or entity shall be
given interest on that amount at the prescribed rate for the period beginning
on the day after the day on which the amount was paid by that person or
entity and ending on the day on which it was refunded.
25. A person from whom
currency or monetary instruments were seized under section 18, or the lawful
owner of the currency or monetary instruments, may within 90 days after the
date of the seizure request a decision of the Minister as to whether
subsection 12(1) was contravened, by giving notice in writing to the officer
who seized the currency or monetary instruments or to an officer at the
customs office closest to the place where the seizure took place.
26. (1) If a decision of the
Minister is requested under section 25, the President shall without delay
serve on the person who requested it written notice of the circumstances of
the seizure in respect of which the decision is requested.
(2) The person on whom a
notice is served under subsection (1) may, within 30 days after the notice is
served, furnish any evidence in the matter that they desire to furnish.
27. (1) Within 90 days after
the expiry of the period referred to in subsection 26(2), the Minister shall
decide whether subsection 12(1) was contravened.
(2) If charges are laid with
respect to a money laundering offence or a terrorist activity financing offence
in respect of the currency or monetary instruments seized, the Minister may
defer making a decision but shall make it in any case no later than 30 days
after the conclusion of all court proceedings in respect of those charges.
(3) The Minister shall,
without delay after making a decision, serve on the person who requested it a
written notice of the decision together with the reasons for it.
29. (1) If the Minister
decides that subsection 12(1) was contravened, the Minister may, subject to
the terms and conditions that the Minister may determine,
(a) decide that the currency
or monetary instruments or, subject to subsection (2), an amount of money
equal to their value on the day the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services is informed of the decision, be returned, on payment of a penalty in
the prescribed amount or without penalty;
(b) decide that any penalty
or portion of any penalty that was paid under subsection 18(2) be remitted;
or
(c) subject to any order
made under section 33 or 34, confirm that the currency or monetary
instruments are forfeited to Her Majesty in right of Canada.
The Minister of Public Works
and Government Services shall give effect to a decision of the Minister under
paragraph (a) or (b) on being informed of it.
(2) The total amount paid
under paragraph (1)(a) shall, if the currency or monetary instruments were
sold or otherwise disposed of under the Seized Property Management Act, not
exceed the proceeds of the sale or disposition, if any, less any costs
incurred by Her Majesty in respect of the currency or monetary instruments.
30. (1) A person who
requests a decision of the Minister under section 27 may, within 90 days
after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action
in the Federal Court in which the person is the plaintiff and the Minister is
the defendant.
(2) The Federal Courts Act
and the rules made under that Act that apply to ordinary actions apply to
actions instituted under subsection (1) except as varied by special rules made
in respect of such actions.
(3) The Minister of Public
Works and Government Services shall give effect to the decision of the Court
on being informed of it.
(4) If the currency or
monetary instruments were sold or otherwise disposed of under the Seized
Property Management Act, the total amount that can be paid under subsection
(3) shall not exceed the proceeds of the sale or disposition, if any, less
any costs incurred by Her Majesty in respect of the currency or monetary
instruments.
|
3. La présente loi a pour objet
:
a) de mettre en oeuvre des
mesures visant à détecter et décourager le recyclage des produits de la
criminalité et le financement des activités terroristes et à faciliter les
enquêtes et les poursuites relatives aux infractions de recyclage des
produits de la criminalité et aux infractions de financement des activités
terroristes, notamment :
(i) imposer des obligations de
tenue de documents et d’identification des clients aux fournisseurs de
services financiers et autres personnes ou entités qui se livrent à
l’exploitation d’une entreprise ou à l’exercice d’une profession ou
d’activités susceptibles d’être utilisées pour le recyclage des produits de
la criminalité ou pour le financement des activités terroristes,
(ii) établir un régime de
déclaration obligatoire des opérations financières douteuses et des
mouvements transfrontaliers d’espèces et d’effets,
(iii) constituer un organisme
chargé de l’examen de renseignements, notamment ceux portés à son attention
en application du sous-alinéa (ii);
b) de combattre le crime
organisé en fournissant aux responsables de l’application de la loi les
renseignements leur permettant de priver les criminels du produit de leurs
activités illicites, tout en assurant la mise en place des garanties nécessaires
à la protection de la vie privée des personnes à l’égard des renseignements
personnels les concernant;
c) d’aider le Canada à remplir
ses engagements internationaux dans la lutte contre le crime transnational,
particulièrement le recyclage des produits de la criminalité, et la lutte
contre les activités terroristes.
12. (1) Les personnes ou
entités visées au paragraphe (3) sont tenues de déclarer à l'agent,
conformément aux règlements, l'importation ou l'exportation des espèces ou
effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire.
(…)
(3) Le déclarant est, selon le
cas :
a) la personne ayant en sa
possession effective ou parmi ses bagages les espèces ou effets se trouvant à
bord du moyen de transport par lequel elle arrive au Canada ou quitte le pays
ou la personne qui, dans les circonstances réglementaires, est responsable du
moyen de transport;
b) s’agissant d’espèces ou
d’effets importés par messager ou par courrier, l’exportateur étranger ou,
sur notification aux termes du paragraphe 14(2), l’importateur;
c) l’exportateur des espèces ou
effets exportés par messager ou par courrier;
d) le responsable du moyen de
transport arrivé au Canada ou qui a quitté le pays et à bord duquel se
trouvent des espèces ou effets autres que ceux visés à l’alinéa a) ou
importés ou exportés par courrier;
e)
dans les autres cas, la personne pour le compte de laquelle les espèces ou
effets sont importés ou exportés.
13. La
personne ou l’entité qui a l’obligation de déclarer les effets ou espèces
peut, en tout temps avant leur rétention en application du paragraphe 14(1)
ou leur confiscation résultant d’une contravention au paragraphe 12(1),
renoncer à poursuivre leur importation ou exportation.
14. (1) Sous réserve des
paragraphes (2) à (5), si la personne ou l’entité indique à l’agent qu’elle a
des espèces ou effets à déclarer en application du paragraphe 12(1) mais que
la déclaration n’a pas encore été complétée, l’agent peut, moyennant avis à
la personne ou l’entité selon les modalités réglementaires, retenir les
espèces ou effets pour la période réglementaire.
(2) Dans le cas où les espèces
ou effets sont importés ou exportés par messager ou par courrier, l’avis est
donné, dans le délai réglementaire, à l’exportateur si son adresse est connue
ou, dans le cas contraire, à l’importateur.
(3) Les espèces ou effets ne
peuvent plus être retenus en application du paragraphe (1) si, durant la
période visée à ce paragraphe, l’un des événements suivants se produit :
a) l’agent constate qu’ils ont
été déclarés en conformité avec le paragraphe 12(1);
b) l’importateur ou
l’exportateur informe l’agent qu’il a renoncé à poursuivre leur importation
ou exportation.
(4) L’avis doit contenir les
éléments suivants :
a) la période de rétention;
b) la mention qu’il est mis fin
à la rétention des espèces ou effets si, pendant cette période, ils sont
déclarés conformément au paragraphe 12(1) ou l’importateur ou l’exportateur renonce
à poursuivre leur importation ou exportation;
c) la mention qu’à la fin de
cette période, les espèces ou effets retenus seront confisqués au profit de
Sa Majesté du chef du Canada.
(5) Les espèces ou effets
retenus en vertu du paragraphe (1) sont confisqués au profit de Sa Majesté du
chef du Canada à l’expiration de la période visée à ce paragraphe et l’agent
transmet au Centre toute déclaration incomplète entreprise dans le cadre du
paragraphe 12(1) à l’égard de ces espèces ou effets.
18. (1) S’il a des motifs
raisonnables de croire qu’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1),
l’agent peut saisir à titre de confiscation les espèces ou effets.
(2) Sur réception du paiement
de la pénalité réglementaire, l'agent restitue au saisi ou au propriétaire
légitime les espèces ou effets saisis sauf s'il soupçonne, pour des motifs
raisonnables, qu'il s'agit de produits de la criminalité au sens du
paragraphe 462.3(1) du Code criminel ou de fonds destinés au financement des
activités terroristes.
(…)
23. Sous réserve du
paragraphe 18(2) et des articles 25 à 31, les espèces ou effets saisis en
application du paragraphe 18(1) sont confisqués au profit de Sa Majesté du
chef du Canada à compter de la contravention au paragraphe 12(1) qui a motivé
la saisie. La confiscation produit dès lors son plein effet et n’est assujettie
à aucune autre formalité.
24. La saisie-confiscation
d’espèces ou d’effets effectuée en vertu de la présente partie est définitive
et n’est susceptible de révision, de rejet ou de toute autre forme
d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues aux articles
24.1 et 25.
24.1 (1) Le ministre ou l’agent
que le président délègue pour l’application du présent article peut, dans les
trente jours suivant la saisie effectuée en vertu du paragraphe 18(1) ou
l’établissement de la pénalité réglementaire visée au paragraphe 18(2) :
a) si le ministre est convaincu
qu’aucune infraction n’a été commise, annuler la saisie, ou annuler ou
rembourser la pénalité;
b) s’il y a eu infraction mais
que le ministre est d’avis qu’une erreur a été commise concernant la somme
établie ou versée et que celle-ci doit être réduite, réduire la pénalité ou
rembourser le trop-perçu.
(2) La somme qui est remboursée
à une personne ou entité en vertu de l’alinéa (1)a) est majorée des intérêts
au taux réglementaire, calculés à compter du lendemain du jour du paiement de
la somme par celle-ci jusqu’à celui de son remboursement.
25. La personne entre les mains
de qui ont été saisis des espèces ou effets en vertu de l'article 18 ou leur
propriétaire légitime peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la
saisie, demander au ministre de décider s'il y a eu contravention au
paragraphe 12(1) en donnant un avis écrit à l'agent qui les a saisis ou à un
agent du bureau de douane le plus proche du lieu de la saisie.
26. (1) Le président signifie
sans délai par écrit à la personne qui a présenté la demande visée à
l’article 25 un avis exposant les circonstances de la saisie à l’origine de
la demande.
Moyens de preuve
(2) Le
demandeur dispose de trente jours à compter de la signification de l’avis
pour produire tous moyens de preuve à l’appui de ses prétentions.
27. (1) Dans les
quatre-vingt-dix jours qui suivent l’expiration du délai mentionné au
paragraphe 26(2), le ministre décide s’il y a eu contravention au paragraphe
12(1).
(2) Dans le cas où des
poursuites pour infraction de recyclage des produits de la criminalité ou
pour infraction de financement des activités terroristes ont été intentées
relativement aux espèces ou effets saisis, le ministre peut reporter la décision,
mais celle-ci doit être prise dans les trente jours suivant l'issue des
poursuites.
(3) Le ministre signifie sans
délai par écrit à la personne qui a fait la demande un avis de la décision,
motifs à l’appui.
29. (1) S’il décide qu’il y a
eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1), le ministre peut, aux conditions qu’il
fixe :
a) soit restituer les espèces
ou effets ou, sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la valeur de ceux-ci à la date
où le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux est informé
de la décision, sur réception de la pénalité réglementaire ou sans pénalité;
b) soit restituer tout ou
partie de la pénalité versée en application du paragraphe 18(2);
c) soit confirmer la
confiscation des espèces ou effets au profit de Sa Majesté du chef du Canada,
sous réserve de toute ordonnance rendue en application des articles 33 ou 34.
Le ministre des Travaux publics
et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu’il en est informé, prend les mesures
nécessaires à l’application des alinéas a) ou b).
(2) En cas de vente ou autre
forme d’aliénation des espèces ou effets en vertu de la Loi sur
l’administration des biens saisis, le montant de la somme versée en vertu de
l’alinéa (1)a) ne peut être supérieur au produit éventuel de la vente ou de
l’aliénation, duquel sont soustraits les frais afférents exposés par Sa
Majesté; à défaut de produit de l’aliénation, aucun paiement n’est effectué.
30. (1) La personne qui a
demandé que soit rendue une décision en vertu de l’article 27 peut, dans les
quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la communication de cette décision, en appeler
par voie d’action à la Cour fédérale à titre de demandeur, le ministre étant
le défendeur.
(2) La Loi sur les Cours
fédérales et les règles prises aux termes de cette loi applicables aux
actions ordinaires s'appliquent aux actions intentées en vertu du paragraphe
(1), avec les adaptations nécessaires occasionnées par les règles propres à
ces actions.
(3) Le ministre des Travaux
publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu’il en a été informé, prend
les mesures nécessaires pour donner effet à la décision de la Cour.
(4) En
cas de vente ou autre forme d’aliénation des espèces ou effets en vertu de la
Loi sur l’administration des biens saisis, le montant de la somme qui peut
être versée en vertu du paragraphe (3) ne peut être supérieur au produit
éventuel de la vente ou de l’aliénation, duquel sont soustraits les frais
afférents exposés par Sa Majesté; à défaut de produit de l’aliénation, aucun
paiement n’est effectué.
|
Cross-border Currency and Monetary
Instruments Reporting Regulations
(SOR/2002-412)
Règlement sur la déclaration des mouvements transfrontaliers
d’espèces et d’effets
(C.P.
2002-1945)
Relevant
Provisions
|
2. (1) For the purposes of
reporting the importation or exportation of currency or monetary instruments
of a certain value under subsection 12(1) of the Act, the prescribed amount
is $10,000.
(2) The prescribed amount is
in Canadian dollars or its equivalent in a foreign currency, based on
(a) the official conversion
rate of the Bank of Canada as published in the Bank of Canada's Daily
Memorandum of Exchange Rates that is in effect at the time of importation or
exportation; or
(b) if no official
conversion rate is set out in that publication for that currency, the conversion
rate that the person or entity would use for that currency in the normal course of business at the time
of the importation or exportation.
3. Subject to subsections 4(3) and (3.1) and section 8, a
report with respect to the importation or exportation of currency or monetary
instruments shall
(a) be made in
writing;
(b) contain the
information referred to
(i) in Schedule 1,
in the case of a report made by the person described in paragraph 12(3)(a) of
the Act, if that person is not transporting on behalf of an entity or other
person,
(ii) in Schedule 2,
in the case of a report made by the person described in paragraph 12(3)(a) of
the Act, if that person is transporting on behalf of an entity or other
person,
(iii) in Schedule 2,
in the case of a report made by the person or entity described in paragraph
12(3)(b), (c) or (e) of the Act, and
(iv) in Schedule 3,
in the case of a report made by the person described in paragraph 12(3)(d) of
the Act;
(c) contain a
declaration that the statements made in the report are true, accurate and
complete; and
(d) be signed and
dated by the person or entity described in paragraph 12(3)(a), (b), (c), (d)
or (e) of the Act, as applicable.
11. A report with respect to currency or monetary
instruments transported by a person departing from Canada shall be submitted
without delay by the person at the customs office located at the place of
exportation or, if it is not open for business at the time of exportation, at
the nearest customs office that is open for business at that time.
|
2. (1) Pour l'application du
paragraphe 12(1) de la Loi, les espèces ou effets dont l'importation ou
l'exportation doit être déclarée doivent avoir une valeur égale ou
supérieure à 10 000 $.
(2) La valeur de 10 000 $ est
exprimée en dollars canadiens ou en son équivalent en devises selon :
a) le taux de conversion
officiel de la Banque du Canada publié dans son Bulletin quotidien des taux
de change en vigueur à la date de l'importation ou de l'exportation;
b)
dans le cas où la devise ne figure pas dans ce bulletin, le taux de
conversion que le déclarant utiliserait dans le cours normal de ses activités
à cette date.
3. Sous réserve des paragraphes
4(3) et (3.1) et de l'article 8, la déclaration de l'importation ou de
l'exportation
d'espèces ou d'effets doit :
a) être faite par écrit;
b) comporter les renseignements
prévus à :
(i) à l'annexe 1, dans le cas
d'une déclaration faite par la personne visée à l'alinéa 12(3)a) de la Loi,
si elle transporte les espèces ou les effets pour son propre compte,
(ii) à l'annexe 2, dans le cas
d'une déclaration faite par la personne visée à l'alinéa 12(3)a) de la Loi,
si elle transporte les espèces ou les effets pour le compte d'une entité ou
d'une autre personne,
(iii) à l'annexe 2, dans le cas
d'une déclaration faite par la personne ou l'entité visée aux alinéas
12(3)b), c) ou e) de la Loi,
(iv) à l'annexe 3, dans le cas
d'une déclaration faite par la personne visée à l'alinéa 12(3)d) de la Loi;
c) porter une mention selon
laquelle les renseignements fournis sont véridiques, exacts et complets;
d) être signée et datée par la
personne ou l'entité visée aux alinéas 12(3)a), b), c), d) ou e) de la Loi,
selon le cas.
11. La
déclaration relative à des espèces ou effets transportés par une personne
quittant le Canada doit être présentée sans délai par cette personne au
bureau de douane situé au lieu de l'exportation ou, si ce bureau est fermé au
moment de l'exportation, au bureau de douane le plus proche qui est ouvert.
|
Email this Content