Date: 20060119
Docket: T-903-04
Citation: 2006 FC 50
Ottawa, Ontario, January 19, 2006
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON
BETWEEN:
SKANDER TOURKI
Plaintiff
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Skander Tourki boarded the Air Canada flight bound from Montreal to Paris with several bundles of cash in his briefcase. He had $56,200 in U.S. currency, 10,015 Euros, 80 Moroccan Dirhams, 10 Deutsche Marks and $11,830 in Canadian currency. At exchange rates current at the time, 5 July 2003, it added up to CAN$102,642.33. Canada Customs had received a tip from the private company which operates the security check point that Mr. Tourki said he had $25,000 cash in his briefcase, being the proceeds of the sale of an automobile. Customs had him removed from the plane by the Montreal Police. His checked-in luggage was also removed. He was searched and the full amount of money in his briefcase was totted up. No other money was found. The Customs officer in charge decided that Mr. Tourki had violated the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and confiscated the entire amount as forfeit, being suspicious that it was derived from the proceeds of crime. Both the decision that he had failed to declare as required by law, and the decision to forfeit the money were confirmed on behalf of the defendant Minister.
[2] Mr. Tourki seeks the return of that money. The Minister takes the point that all the Court can do in this action is determine whether or not he had failed to make the required declaration. If the Court finds he made the declaration, the money will be returned. However, if the Court finds that he failed to declare, the Court cannot, at this time, in this action, deal with the Minister's decision to confirm the forfeiture of the money. The Minister does not say that her decision to forfeit is beyond judicial scrutiny. She submits that her decision may subsequently be the subject of a judicial review, a process which is quite different from a trial.
[3] For his part, Mr. Tourki disputes that interpretation of the Act. Both decisions of the Minister should be dealt within this action. To the extent there is case law to the contrary, and there is one, that case is wrongly decided and not binding. Furthermore, the relevant provisions of the Act are unconstitutional in that they are contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[4] Consequently, and in order to better appreciate the scope and nature of this action, consideration must be given to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
MONEY LAUNDERING ACT
[5] An Act to facilitate combating the laundering of proceeds of crime and combating the financing of terrorist activities, to establish the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence, was assented to 29th, June, 2000. Its short title is the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. I shall call it the Money Laundering Act for brevity, and also because the money was forfeited as being suspected proceeds of crime. The Minister acknowledges that this case has nothing to with the financing of terrorists.
[6] The Act includes six parts:
1. Record Keeping and Reporting of Suspicious Transactions
2. Reporting of Currency and Monetary Instruments
3. Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (Fintrac)
4. Regulations
5. Offences and Punishments
6. Transitional Provisions
[7] Fintrac has been established in an effort to minimize gaps in the paper trail of suspicious transactions by requiring banks and other entities to report. Although Part V sets out circumstances in which a person or entity could be guilty of an offence on indictment, or on summary conviction, no charge has been laid against Mr. Tourki.
[8] He has run afoul of Sections 12 through 30 of Part II. "Reporting of Currency and Monetary Instruments", appended hereto.
[9] Mr. Tourki was free to export or import cash in unlimited amounts. However, Section 12(1), and Regulations thereunder, required him to report to Customs in writing if he was importing or exporting cash or certain financial instruments of a value of $10,000 or more. These reports are sent to Fintrac for recording and record keeping purposes.
[10] Section 15 allows an officer to search any person who is about to leave Canada if he or she "suspects on reasonable grounds" that the person has secreted on or about his person currency in excess of $10,000 that has not been reported. In Mr. Tourki's case, the officers' suspicions were not only reasonable, but also well-founded.
[11] Section 18(1) allows the officer, if she believes Section 12(1) has been contravened, to seize as forfeit the currency. That was done in this case. Then, Section 18(2) goes on to provide that the money shall be returned on payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount, which penalty, depending on the circumstances set out in the Regulations, ranges from $250,00 to $5,000, irrespective of the amount not declared.
[12] However, the officer is not to return the money if she "has reasonable grounds to suspect that [it is] proceeds of crime within the meaning of subsection 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code..." Subsection 462.3(1) is found in Part XII.2 of the Code entitled Proceeds of Crime. In essence, the "Proceeds of Crime" means any property, benefit or advantage, within or without Canada derived directly or indirectly, as a result of the commission in Canada of an indictable offence, or an act or omission elsewhere that would have constituted an indictable offence if it had occurred in Canada.
[13] The decisions of the Customs officer that Mr. Tourki had failed to declare, and to forfeit the money are not directly reviewable by this Court on judicial review, as Section 24 of the Act provides for another recourse. Under Section 25, Mr. Tourki was entitled, and did request the Minister to decide whether Section 12(1) was contravened.
[14] The Minister makes that decision pursuant to Section 27. If she decides that Section 12(1) was not contravened, the money is returned pursuant to Section 28. However, if, as in this case, she decides that the section 12(1) was contravened, she may, pursuant to Section 29, return the money, with or without penalty, return any penalty in whole or in part, or confirm that the currency is forfeited to Her Majesty. She did the latter.
[15] Now we come to the crux of the debate as to the scope of this action. Section 30 provides that "a person who requests a decision of the Minister under Section 25 may ... appeal the decision by way of an (ordinary) action in the Federal Court..." However, Section 25 read with Sections 12(1) and 27 is limited to the decision as to whether or not Mr. Tourki failed to declare the currency. The consequences of a contravention appear to be subject to a completely separate decision under Section 29.
[16] Thus, the Minister submits that her decision to confirm the forfeiture of the money is beyond the scope of the present action. She acknowledges that Section 24 does not oust the superintending power of this Court and that a decision under Section 29 may be subject to judicial review in accordance with Sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. There are some important distinctions between an action, and a judicial review by way of application. An action such as contemplated by Section 30 of the Act is a trial de novo. The Court owes no deference to the Customs Officer's suspicions or to the decision or decisions of the Minister. The Court's decision is based upon the evidence produced at trial. That evidence may not correspond with the evidence before the Minister. There may be new evidence, and some of the material before the Minister may not necessarily be before the Court.
[17] On the other hand, a judicial review is normally based on the material that was before the person whose decision is under review, and some deference is owed to that person in accordance with the functional and pragmatic approach to judicial review as summarized in such cases as Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226 and Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247.
[18] In accordance with the respective contentions of the parties, Mr. Tourki intended to lead evidence not only as to the circumstances which would allow the Court to decide whether he had actually failed to declare, but also as to the provenance and intended end-use of the cash. The Minister objected taking the point that the evidence should simply be limited to whether or not he had failed to declare. As there is only one recent case on point and no actual trial under the sections of the Act relevant to this case, I allowed all of Mr. Tourki's evidence, under reserve of the Minister's general objection. Consequently, the Minister, subject to that objection also led evidence to cast suspicion as to the provenance of the money to justify her position that it was the proceeds of crime.
ISSUES
[19] There are four issues to address:
A. Did Mr. Tourki fail to report to Customs that he was exporting more than $10,000?
B. Is it open for the Court in this action to make a ruling on the Minister's decision to keep the money as "forfeit"?
C. Are the provisions of the Act relevant to this action ultra vires as violating the Charter?
D. If the decision to confirm forfeiture is beyond the scope of this action, should the Court nevertheless opine whether the evidence gave rise to reasonable grounds to suspect the money was the proceeds of crime?
A. Did Mr. Tourki fail to report to Customs that he was exporting more than $10,000?
[20] There is no doubt that Mr. Tourki knew he was carrying more than $10,000 cash. He readily made that admission to the two Customs Officers who interviewed him, Marie-Josée Simard, who was assisted by J. C. Premont. Mr. Premont testified that before Mr. Tourki left the airport in the early hours of 6 July 2003, he filled in the required form and had Mr. Tourki sign it. He gave no explanation as to why it was signed, other than to say that the completed form, together with the seizure receipt documents, were sent to Ottawa.
[21] Mr. Tourki submits that if the law is as harsh as the defendant makes it out to be, then it must be scrupulously followed to the letter. Since he filled out a form and gave it to a Customs officer before he left Canada he abided by the requirements of Section 12.
[22] Whatever Mr. Premont had in mind by having Mr. Tourki sign a declaration form (perhaps he thought it was an admission that the currency count set out in the receipt was correct), it does not and cannot serve as the declaration contemplated by Section 12 of the Act. Mr. Tourki had certainly gone beyond the point where he could have made a declaration as he was sitting on a plane on the tarmac. Section 15 provides that an officer may search persons who are about to leave Canada "at any time before their departure". This is a clear indication that the point of declaration and the point of departure are different. I have no hesitation in holding that the form signed by Mr. Tourki did not constitute a report in satisfaction of the obligation imposed upon him by Section 12.
[23] Mr. Tourki has another argument, a multi-faceted application of the principle of estoppel. Mr. Tourki claims he was not aware that the law required him to declare. Although he properly admits that ignorance of the law is no excuse, he asserts that that ignorance should be considered together with the Minister's failure to adequately publicise the law and to make Customs officers readily available, as well as the failure of the security guards to alert him to his obligation, while at the same time informing Customs that he was carrying a large amount of cash. In answer to the hypothetical question, he naturally said he would have declared had he been aware of his duty.
[24] I do not accept this latter point. During his interview with officers Simard and Premont, and at trial, he admitted that when he returned to Canada from a previous trip earlier in 2003 he had upon his person more than $10,000, and did not make a declaration. He even produced one of the forms that are given to incoming passengers to fill in before presenting to Canada Customs. It clearly states the obligation to report excessive currency.
[25] Part II of the Act had been proclaimed in force by publication in the Canada Gazette in January 2003. That is the only publicity required by law. The Customs officers also testified that there was a media publicity campaign and brochures were available at the airport. More particularly, there was a large sign at the entrance to the security area. Mr Tourki says he did not see that sign. Based on the evidence of officers Simard and Premont, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the sign was there 5 July 2003, even though they only saw it before and after. In any event, there was no legal obligation that the sign be there.
[26] As to the role of the private security company, it had obligations under the Aeronautics Act to search for articles prohibited from being carried onboard a plane. It owed no duty to Canada Customs and no duty to Mr. Tourki. Even if Mr. Tourki has cause to complain that it should not have informed Customs without simultaneously informing him of his duty, which I find too far fetched, that issue is not before the Court. That tip certainly gave the Customs officers reason to suspect that he was about to leave the country without making the required declaration.
[27] It is incumbent upon the traveller to report. The law imposes a self-reporting system. The traveller must search and find the Customs office. Mr. Tourki says that there was no Customs office at the airport after he went through security. That is only partially true. He could have left the security area on the departure level and gone down to the Customs office on the arrival level and then gone through security again. While a Customs kiosk in the departure area would be more user friendly, there was no legal requirement that such a kiosk be there.
[28] Nor can Mr. Tourki take any comfort in the fact that incoming passengers by plane are given landing cards which alert them to the obligation to report excessive currency, while outgoing airplane passengers are not. He presented no evidence that the same holds true for passengers leaving Canada for or returning from the United States by automobile.
[29] I hold that Mr. Tourki failed to report that he was exporting $10,000 or more, in currency, as required by Section 12(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.
B. Is it open for the Court in this action to make a ruling on the Minister's decision to keep the money as "forfeit"?
[30] As mentioned earlier in these reasons, the Minister takes the position that this Court's jurisdiction under Subsection 30(1) of the Money Laundering Act is simply to determine whether or not Mr. Tourki failed to make the required declaration. Having so found, her decision to confirm the forfeiture may be subject to a judicial review, but is beyond the purview of this action. She took that point in her statement of defence, which since then has been bolstered by the decision of Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson in Dokaj v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue-MNR) 2005 FC 1437, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1783 (QL).
[31] For his part, Maître Choquette on behalf of Mr. Tourki, submits that it is so illogical to separate the contravention from the consequences that Parliament could not possibly have had that intention. It follows, according to him, that Dokaj, supra, is wrongly decided and not being a decision of a higher Court is not binding upon me. Once the Minister declares that Section 12(1) was contravened, she must decide what to do, i.e. keep or return the money or the penalty, in whole or in part. Section 30 gives Mr. Tourki 90 days to appeal her decision by way of an action, while Section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act requires an application for judicial review to be taken within 30 days of the decision. What is the point of seeking judicial review of a decision on sanctions, while in due course the very basis of that sanction, i.e. contravention of Section 12 of the Act, may be set aside?
[32] There is much to be said for this position. For instance, Mr. Justice Gonthier speaking for the Supreme Court in Nova Scotia(Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin[2003] 2 S.C.R. 504 said at paragraph 29: "...Canadians should be entitled to assert the rights and freedoms that the Constitution guarantees them in the most accessible forum available, without the need for parallel proceedings before the courts." More recently in Vaughan v. Canada [2005] 1 S.C.R. 146, the Supreme Court, in dealing with the Public Service Staff Relations Act, concluded that the language of that Act, and the context of the dispute did not amount to an explicit ouster of Federal Court jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it held that the Court should not, as a matter of judicial discretion, get involved.
[33] No matter how logical and preferable it would be that all legal consequences arising out of the same incident be determined in the same place and at the same time, Parliament within its fields of legislative competence, subject to the Charter, can do whatever it likes.
[34] The Act contemplates various judicial proceedings, some in the Federal Court at large, some before its Chief Justice or judges specially designated by him, some before the Federal Court of Appeal, and some before courts administered by the provinces. There has been no effort to limit proceedings to a specific forum. I must conclude that Section 30 means exactly what it says. The result is that this action is limited to a determination as to whether Mr. Tourki failed to report to Customs as required by Section 12.
[35] It is not necessary for me to consider the circumstances in which a judge need not follow a decision of another judge of the same Court. Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson made a thorough analysis of the Act, considered its purpose, considered the principles of statutory interpretation and drew appropriate parallels from the source and inspiration of the forfeiture provisions of the Act, which are to be found in the Customs Act. She drew on a long line of authority including the decision of Mr. Justice MacKay in ACL Canada Inc. v. Canada (1993) 68 F.T.R. 180, (1993) 107 D.L.R. (4th) 736, [1993] F.C.J. No. 1048 (QL). See paragraphs 42 and 43 of her reasons.
[36] There is nothing for me to add, except to say that I wholeheartedly agree with her analysis.
C. Are the provisions of the Act relevant to this action ultra vires as violating the Charter?
[37] The opening premise is that Parliament is supreme. As stated in the tenth edition of Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, at pages 39 and 40 "the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English Constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the Law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament".
[38] There are two fundamental limitations on that premise in Canada. The first is that Canada is a federal state with jurisdiction to legislate divided between the Federal Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures. The second is that an Act passed by the appropriate legislative body may not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It falls upon the Courts to decide if an act is ultra vires in either of these two senses.
[39] Although Mr. Tourki does not claim that the Act is unconstitutional because it was enacted by Parliament, rather than by a provincial legislature, it is nevertheless helpful to constitutionally situate the forfeiture provisions of the Money Laundering Act, which he disputes.
[40] It should be noted that Parliament in enacting the Act was far more lenient than past Parliaments or the Imperial Parliament of yesteryear. In the past, if a Customs Act or an Excise Act was violated, there was forfeiture, plain and simple. The forfeiture, like the arrest of maritime property in an admiralty action, and the determination of a person's status, is a proceeding in rem. Fault, complicity or mens rea on the part of the owner of the property forfeited is not a necessary component. Forfeiture as a deterrent to the importation of prohibited goods, or goods on which duty has not been paid, goes back centuries. For instance, the Customs Act which was before the Court in Croft v. Dunphy, [1933] A.C. 156 (JCPC), [1933] 1 D.L.R. 225, provided that if dutiable or prohibited goods were found on a vessel "hovering in territorial waters of Canada... such vessel with her apparel, rigging, tackle, furniture, store, and cargo shall be seized and forfeited."
[41] A prime feature of in rem proceedings is that there need not be any personal blameworthiness or breach of a legal obligation on the part of the owner of the property. The original action in rem against a ship gave effect to a maritime lien, a lien which may have arisen without fault on the part of the shipowner. A ship may be liable for a collision, even though her owner is not. At the time she may have been chartered by a demise, her possession being in the hands of a third party. This type of ancient maritime lien is still found today in Sections 22 and 43 of the Federal Courts Act.
[42] As stated by Lord Watson in the Henrich Björn (1886) 11 App. Cas. 270 at pages 276-277:
"The action is in rem, that being, as I understand the term, a proceeding directed against a ship or other chattel in which the plaintiff seeks either to have the res adjudged to him in property or possession, or to have it sold, under the authority of the Court, and the proceeds, or part thereof, adjudged to him in satisfaction of his pecuniary claims."
[43] Forfeiture, like the action in rem, is a proceeding by which a thing relating to the commission of an offence, such as goods not declared, or the carrying vehicle, becomes vested in Her Majesty by operation of law, without the necessity of a judgment. Section 23 of the Money Laundering Act provides that the currency or monetary instruments seized as forfeit are forfeited from the time they were seized, and no other act or proceeding after the forfeiture is necessary to give effect thereto.
[44] Whether the Money Laundering Act be characterized as relating to criminal law, trade and commerce, customs or currency, all federal legislative classes of subject under Section 91 of the Constitution, the Act falls within the general rubric of Section 91 "peace, order and good government".
[45] As stated by Newcombe J. in Dunphy v. Croft, [1931] S.C.R. 31 at page 540:
"When, therefore, a British subject and resident and being in Canada sets himself up to defeat the Customs Laws by contriving to evade them, to defraud the revenue and illegally to introduce into the country a prohibited commodity which has been found a menace to the national life, threatening disaster; and when the Parliament of Canada, having the powers to which I have alluded, finds a remedy in the enactments which the appellant complains, is that not legislation... for the peace, order and good government of Canada?"
[46] Newcombe J. was speaking in dissent in that case which was limited to determining the extraterritorial effect of Canada's Customs Act. He was upheld by the Privy Council (Croft v. Dunphy, supra). Lord MacMillan went through the history of the Hovering Acts and stated "the measures against "hovering" were no doubt enacted by the Imperial Parliament because they were deemed necessary to render anti-smuggling legislation effective."
[47] Drug smuggling and terrorist activities are a scourge of national and international life. The reasons for forfeiture are just as valid now as they were then.
[48] Turning now to the Charter, Mr. Tourki argues that Section 12 of the Money Laundering Act which obliged him to report, and the enforcement provisions of Part II of the Act, Sections 15, 16, 18, 19 and 22 through 29 are unconstitutional in that they violate Sections 7, 8 and Subsection 11 d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that Section 1 is not applicable because no limits upon those rights can be reasonably justified.
[49] The relevant Sections of the Charter provide:
| 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
(...)
|
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés garantit les droits et libertés qui y sont énoncés. Ils ne peuvent être restreints que par une règle de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d'une société libre et démocratique.
...
|
| 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
(...)
|
7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu'en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
...
|
| 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
(...)
|
8. Chacun a droit à la protection contre les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies abusives.
...
|
| 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (...)
d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
|
11. Tout inculpé a le droit :
d) d'être présumé innocent tant qu'il n'est pas déclaré coupable, conformément à la loi, par un tribunal indépendant et impartial à l'issue d'un procès public et équitable;
|
[50] The cases upon which Mr. Tourki relies are R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 and R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 606. Oakes struck down a portion of the Narcotic Control Act which raised a presumption that possession of a drug was for the purposes of trafficking. The Court held that the scourge of trafficking did not justify a limitation upon Mr. Oakes' rights in accordance with Section 1. The offending provisions were more than a "minimum impairment" upon his liberty.
[51] The Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical, supra, case held that vagueness can be raised under Section 7 of the Charter. It is a principle of fundamental justice that laws must not be too vague. A law will be found unconstitutional if it so lacks in precision as not to give sufficient guidance for legal debate.
[52] Mr. Tourki has compressed the reporting obligation and enforcement procedures together so as to argue that the law presumes him guilty of an offense, a law which is too vague because enforcement is based upon mere suspicion. I cannot agree.
[53] The presumption of innocence, which existed long before the Charter, is only available to persons charged with an offence. Section 11 has no application because Mr. Tourki has not been charged with an offence. Although Part V of the Act is entitled "Offences and Punishment", the forfeiture proceedings presently before the Court are limited to Part II.
[54] As aforesaid, forfeiture proceedings are directed against a thing, not proceedings against a person. The application of the Charter to in rem proceedings was considered by the Supreme Court in Martineau v. Canada(Minister of National Revenue-MNR) [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737. That case dealt an "ascertained" forfeiture, a proceeding directed against a substituted res. The Court held that the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, very similar to the Act in issue, are not penal in nature. That Act like this Act, has a self-reporting system with both civil and penal enforcement mechanisms.
[55] The search and seizure provisions of the Act are not unreasonable. Not only have they been around for centuries, as per Croft v. Dunphy, supra, they are part of our border control and necessary to protect Canada's sovereignty. As noted by Professor Hogg in Constitutional Law of Canada, 4th edition, at section 45.4, the concept of unreasonable search or seizure has gone from protection of property to protection of privacy. In R. v. Simmons [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495, the appellant was obliged to undergo a strip search at Customs. The Supreme Court held that the degree of personal privacy reasonably expected at Customs is lower than in most other situations. Sovereign states have the right to control both who and what enters their boundaries. Travelers seeking to cross national boundaries fully expect to be subject to a screening process. Physical searches of luggage and of the person are accepted aspects of that process where they are grounds for suspecting that a person has made a false declaration or is transporting prohibited goods.
[56] Finally, as to "vagueness" the law is crystal clear. If you do not declare, the Customs officer is entitled to forfeit that which should have been declared. It is as simple as that.
[57] To conclude on this point, the Act is constitutional, and does not violate the Charter.
D. If the decision to confirm forfeiture is beyond the scope of this action, should the Court nevertheless opine whether the evidence gave rise to reasonable grounds to suspect the money was the proceeds of crime?
[58] As I have held that the decision of the Minister to confirm the forfeiture is beyond the scope of this action, it follows that I must uphold the Minister's objection to a great deal of the evidence led on behalf of Mr. Tourki, on the grounds of relevancy. None of the evidence of Abdel Kader Hassouna and Cherikan Tourki, the plaintiff's brothers, is relevant as it deals with the provenance of the money and its intended end-use. Likewise, the exhibits relating to a family estate in Tunisia are not relevant either.
[59] That being said, in the event that I am wrong and the Minister's decision to confirm the forfeiture is also the subject of this appeal, I am of the opinion, based on the evidence at trial, that there are no reasonable grounds to suspect that the $102,642.33 or any part thereof are the proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 462.3(1) of the Criminal Code. In reaching that opinion, it was not necessary to consider the burden of proof and the threshold which must be reached before it can be said that suspicions are supported by reasonable grounds.
[60] The money came from four sources. Abdel Kader Hassouna provided some US$52,000 and Cherikan Tourki CAN$12,000. The balance came from the plaintiff, and his mother who lives in Tunisia. Those four, together with other relatives, hold a property in Tunisia in undivided ownership. The intention was to buy out some of the other relatives. The transcript of land registry indicates that some steps had already been taken before July 2003 to reduce the number of owners.
[61] Abdel Kader Hassouna operates a garage in Montreal, largely on a cash basis. Many of his customers, particularly Haitian taxi drivers, often deal in U.S. cash. The $52,000 in U.S. currency represents savings during a three year period. It is no crime to deal in US cash. The defendant did not even suggest that the money was undeclared for income tax purposes.
[62] Cherikan Tourki operates a bar. The $12,000 in Canadian currency represented his savings. In 1999 he pleaded guilty, against a fine, to possession and trafficking of drugs. He claims he only pleaded guilty because the drugs were found in his establishment. He is not particularly truthful as he lied in one, if not both, of the affidavits filed as court exhibits. Nevertheless, there were no grounds whatsoever put before the Court to support the proposition that the $12,000 in Canadian currency represented proceeds of crime.
[63] Skander Tourki, like his two brothers, is a Canadian citizen. He immigrated here in 1982. He is not an ideal citizen. He has worked little, and is a welfare fraud. He is also a braggart, and somewhat economical with the truth. He takes welfare cheques, while pretending to be a rich man. However, it is not his character which is on trial, it is the money in his possession which is on trial.
[64] Some of his money came from an unofficial currency exchange business he operated with his mother. The way it worked was this. A number of Tunisian students, of wealthy parents, are studying in Montreal .Tunisian currency restrictions are such that their parents cannot transfer them enough money to accommodate the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. If a student needed, say $10,000, his parents would pay Mr. Tourki's mother the local equivalent of $10,500. Mr. Tourki would then give the student $9,500 in Canadian currency, or sometimes in part by buying clothing on his credit cards.
[65] Mr. Tourki spoke of a profit of some 10% to 15%. However, no evidence was led as to whether this was on the official rate, or on the black market rate. While one may have reasonable grounds to suspect certain facts, one cannot have reasonable grounds to suspect the state of the law. The definition of a crime is a matter of law. The Supreme Court recently dealt with "reasonable grounds to believe" that a Crime against humanity had been committed. See Mugesera v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 SCC 40">2005 SCC 40, [2005] S.C.J. No. 39 (QL), particularly at paragraphs 114-117. Based on the evidence before me, it is not necessary to compare "reasonable grounds to believe" with "reasonable grounds to suspect". In either case "reasonable grounds" requires some sort of an objective basis.
[66] The Court heard three witnesses as to the events of 5 July 2003, Skander Tourki and Customs officers Simard and Premont. To the extent there is discrepancy, the Court prefers the evidence of officers Simard and Premont, who also prepared contemporaneous reports, which were filed. In addition, the notes of an interview Mr. Tourki had with other Customs officers a few days later were filed by consent, as was his entire examination for discovery. Although the details vary somewhat, this may well be accounted for by the fact that there were different interlocutors asking different questions at different times. Mr. Tourki's essential story as to the provenance of the money, and its intended end-use was reasonably consistent.
[67] Cash, particularly US cash, was preferable in Tunisia. The exchange rate was better, and Mr. Tourki was candid enough to say that he hoped to make a few thousand extra dollars on the black market. He testified that although there were severe restrictions on the amount of cash that can be brought in and out of Tunisia, he personally had no difficulty. Perhaps he was too delicate to explain exactly why he had no problem getting the cash by Customs officers there. However, Tunisia's fiscal laws are none of our concern.
[68] Customs officers Simard and Premont testified that Mr. Tourki changed his story at the outset as to exactly how much money he had. However, it was conceded that concealment was minimum. The Regulations only call for a fine of $5,000 if one is hiding the cash in a false bottom of a trunk!
[69] He appeared nervous. I imagine most people hauled off a plane would be nervous. He must have been wondering how on earth he was going to explain this to his big brother whose US$52,000 was seized.
[70] Customs officer Simard was of the view that the money represented the proceeds of crime because she thought it was illegal for an individual to lend money at interest. She was wrong in law. Customs officers have been given no special training by the RCMP in what to look for in deciding whether or not there are reasonable grounds to suspect.
[71] It has been suggested that the money forfeited is the proceeds of crime because Mr. Tourki was receiving a payment of interest at a criminal rate, being a rate in excess of 60% per annum, the whole contrary to Section 347 of the Criminal Code. The basis of loan sharking is that there be an actual loan, which is broadly defined as being credit advanced. Interest within the meaning of the Section includes all charges and expenses including fees and commissions. However, no analysis whatsoever was presented to the Court, such as evidence from a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries calculating the effective annual rate of interest, as provided for in Section 347(4). No reasonable grounds whatever have been advanced to suggest that some of the money represented the proceeds of loan sharking.
[72] The Minister called Richard Reynolds from the RCMP as an expert in money laundering and terrorist financing. However, his testimony was not aimed at the $102,642.33 in this case. Rather, he was called on the Charter issue. Had I found that the act prima facie violated Sections 7, 8 or 11, it would have been necessary to consider whether the act was nevertheless a reasonable limit prescribed by law as justified in a free and democratic society. Since I found that Sections 7, 8 and 11 were not violated, it was not necessary to consider Section 1.
CONCLUSION AND COSTS
[73] This action is limited by the language of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to an appeal by way of a trial de novo of the Minister's decision that the plaintiff had violated Section 12(1) of that Act. I find that the plaintiff, Skander Tourki, had failed to report to Customs that he was exporting currency of a value of at least $10,000, contrary to the requirements of Section 12(1) of the Act, and the Regulations thereunder.
[74] The provisions of the Act covered by the notice of a constitutional question are within the legislative power of Parliament and do not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[75] The Minister shall have her costs.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT HEREBY ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that: the action is dismissed with costs.
"Sean Harrington"
| APPENDIX
|
ANNEXE
|
PROCEEDS OF CRIME (MONEY LAUNDERING) AND TERRORIST FINANCING ACT
2000, c. 17
|
RECYCLAGE DES PRODUITS DE LA CRIMINALITÉ ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ACTIVITÉS TERRORISTES,
LOI SUR LE
2000, ch. 17
|
| PART 2
REPORTING OF CURRENCY
AND MONETARY INSTRUMENTS
|
PARTIE 2
DÉCLARATION DES
ESPÈCES ET EFFETS
|
| 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.
(2) A person or entity is not required to make a report under subsection (1) in respect of an activity if the prescribed conditions are met in respect of the person, entity or activity, and if the person or entity satisfies an officer that those conditions have been met.
(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.
(4) If a report is made in respect of currency or monetary instruments, the person arriving in or departing from Canada with the currency or monetary instruments shall
(a) answer truthfully any questions that the officer asks with respect to the information required to be contained in the report; and
(b) on request of an officer, present the currency or monetary instruments that they are carrying or transporting, unload any conveyance or part of a conveyance or baggage and open or unpack any package or container that the officer wishes to examine.
(5) Officers shall send the reports they receive under subsection (1) to the Centre.
|
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.
(2) Une personne ou une entité n'est pas tenue de faire une déclaration en vertu du paragraphe (1) à l'égard d'une importation ou d'une exportation si les conditions réglementaires sont réunies à l'égard de la personne, de l'entité, de l'importation ou de l'exportation et si la personne ou l'entité convainc un agent de ce fait.
(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 est arrivée au Canada ou a quitté 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.
(4) Une fois la déclaration faite, la personne qui entre au Canada ou quitte le pays avec les espèces ou effets doit :
a) répondre véridiquement aux questions que lui pose l'agent à l'égard des renseignements à déclarer en application du paragraphe (1);
b) à la demande de l'agent, lui présenter les espèces ou effets qu'elle transporte, décharger les moyens de transport et en ouvrir les parties et ouvrir ou défaire les colis et autres contenants que l'agent veut examiner.
(5) L'agent fait parvenir au Centre les déclarations recueillies en application du paragraphe (1).
|
| 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.
|
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) 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.
|
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.
|
| 15. (1) An officer may search
(a) any person who has arrived in Canada, within a reasonable time after their arrival in Canada,
(b) any person who is about to leave Canada, at any time before their departure, or
(c) any person who has had access to an area designated for use by persons about to leave Canada and who leaves the area but does not leave Canada, within a reasonable time after they leave the area,
if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the person has secreted on or about their person currency or monetary instruments that are of a value equal to or greater than the amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1) and that have not been reported in accordance with that subsection.
(2) An officer who is about to search a person under this section shall, on the person's request, without delay take the person before the senior officer at the place where the search is to take place.
(3) A senior officer before whom a person is taken under subsection (2) shall, if the senior officer believes there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion under subsection (1), discharge the person or, if the senior officer believes otherwise, direct that the person be searched.
(4) No person shall be searched under this section by a person who is not of the same sex, and if there is no officer of the same sex at the place where the search is to take place, an officer may authorize any suitable person of the same sex to perform the search.
|
15. (1) S'il la soupçonne, pour des motifs raisonnables, de dissimuler sur elle ou près d'elle des espèces ou des effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire prévu pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1) et qui n'ont pas été déclarés en conformité avec ce paragraphe, l'agent peut fouiller :
a) toute personne entrée au Canada, dans un délai justifiable suivant son arrivée;
b) toute personne sur le point de sortir du Canada, à tout moment avant son départ;
c) toute personne qui a eu accès à une zone réservée aux personnes sur le point de sortir du Canada et qui quitte cette zone sans sortir du Canada, dans un délai justifiable après son Aépart de cette zone.
(2) Sur demande de la personne qu'il entend fouiller en vertu du présent article, l'agent la conduit devant l'agent principal du lieu de la fouille.
(3) L'agent principal, selon qu'il estime qu'il y a ou non des motifs raisonnables pour procéder à la fouille, fait fouiller ou relâcher la personne conduite devant lui en application du paragraphe (2).
(4) L'agent ne peut fouiller une personne de sexe opposé. Faute de collègue du même sexe que celle-ci sur le lieu de la fouille, il peut autoriser toute personne de ce sexe présentant les qualités voulues à y procéder.
|
| 16. (1) If an officer suspects on reasonable grounds that there are, on or about a conveyance, currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1) and that have not been reported in accordance with that subsection, the officer may stop, board and search the conveyance, examine anything in or on it and open or cause to be opened any package or container in or on it and direct that the conveyance be moved to a customs office or other suitable place for the search, examination or opening.
(2) If an officer suspects on reasonable grounds that there are, in baggage, currency or monetary instruments that are of a value equal to or greater than the amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1) and that have not been reported in accordance with that subsection, the officer may search the baggage, examine anything in it and open or cause to be opened any package or container in it and direct that the baggage be moved to a customs office or other suitable place for the search, examination or opening.
|
16. (1) S'il soupçonne, pour des motifs raisonnables, que des espèces ou des effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire prévu pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1) se trouvent à bord d'un moyen de transport et n'ont pas été déclarés conformément à ce paragraphe, l'agent peut immobiliser le moyen de transport, monter à son bord et le fouiller, examiner toute chose qui s'y trouve et en ouvrir ou faire ouvrir tous colis ou contenants, et faire conduire le moyen de transport à un bureau de douane ou à tout autre lieu indiqué pour ces opérations.
(2) S'il soupçonne, pour des motifs raisonnables, que des espèces ou des effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire prévu pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1) se trouvent parmi des bagages et n'ont pas été déclarés conformément à ce paragraphe, l'agent peut fouiller les bagages, examiner toute chose qui s'y trouve et en ouvrir ou faire ouvrir tous colis ou contenants, et faire conduire les bagages à un bureau de douane ou à tout autre lieu indiqué pour ces opérations.
2000, ch. 17, art. 16; 2001, ch. 41, art. 56.
|
| 17. (1) An officer may examine any mail that is being imported or exported and open or cause to be opened any such mail that the officer suspects on reasonable grounds contains currency or monetary instruments of a value equal to or greater than the amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1).
(2) An officer may not open or cause to be opened any mail that weighs 30 grams or less unless the person to whom it is addressed consents or the person who sent it consents or has completed and attached to the mail a label in accordance with article 116 of the Detailed Regulations of the Universal Postal Convention.
(3) An officer may cause mail that weighs 30 grams or less to be opened in the officer's presence by the person to whom it is addressed, the person who sent it or a person authorized by either of those persons.
|
17. (1) Un agent peut examiner tout envoi destiné à l'importation ou à l'exportation et ouvrir ou faire ouvrir ceux dont il soupçonne, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'ils contiennent des espèces ou effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire prévu pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1).
(2) L'agent ne peut ouvrir ou faire ouvrir un envoi pesant au plus trente grammes que si le destinataire ou l'expéditeur y consent ou que s'il porte, remplie par l'expéditeur, l'étiquette prévue à l'article 116 du Règlement détaillé de la Convention postale universelle.
(3) L'agent peut faire ouvrir en sa présence un envoi pesant au plus trente grammes par le destinataire, l'expéditeur ou la personne autorisée par ce dernier.
|
| 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.
(3) An officer who seizes currency or monetary instruments under subsection (1) shall
(a) if they were not imported or exported as mail, give the person from whom they were seized written notice of the seizure and of the right to review and appeal set out in sections 25 and 30;
(b) if they were imported or exported as mail and the address of the exporter is known, give the exporter written notice of the seizure and of the right to review and appeal set out in sections 25 and 30; and
(c) take the measures that are reasonable in the circumstances to give notice of the seizure to any person whom the officer believes on reasonable grounds is entitled to make an application under section 32 in respect of the currency or monetary instruments.
(4) The service of a notice under paragraph (3)(b) is sufficient if it is sent by registered mail addressed to the exporter.
|
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.
(3) L'agent qui procède à la saisie-confiscation prévue au paragraphe (1) :
a) donne au saisi, dans le cas où les espèces ou effets sont importés ou exportés autrement que par courrier, un avis écrit de la saisie et du droit de révision et d'appel établi aux articles 25 et 30;
b) donne à l'exportateur, dans le cas où les espèces ou effets sont importés ou exportés par courrier et son adresse est connue, un avis écrit de la saisie et du droit de révision et d'appel établi aux articles 25 et 30;
c) prend les mesures convenables, eu égard aux circonstances, pour aviser de la saisie toute personne dont il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle est recevable à présenter, à l'égard des espèces ou effets saisis, la requête visée à l'article 32.
(4) Il suffit, pour que l'avis visé à l'alinéa (3)b) soit considéré comme signifié, qu'il soit envoyé en recommandé à l'exportateur.
|
| 19. An officer may call on other persons to assist the officer in exercising any power of search, seizure or retention that the officer is authorized under this Part to exercise, and any person so called on is authorized to exercise the power.
|
19. L'agent peut requérir main-forte pour se faire assister dans l'exercice des pouvoirs de fouille, de rétention ou de saisie que lui confère la présente partie. Toute personne ainsi requise est autorisée à exercer ces pouvoirs.
|
| 19.1 If an officer decides to exercise powers under subsection 18(1), the officer shall record in writing reasons for the decision.
|
19.1 L'agent qui décide d'exercer les attributions conférées par le paragraphe 18(1) est tenu de consigner par écrit les motifs à l'appui de sa décision.
|
| 20. If the currency or monetary instruments have been seized under section 18, the officer who seized them shall without delay report the circumstances of the seizure to the Commissioner and to the Centre.
|
20. L'agent qui a saisi les espèces ou effets en vertu de l'article 18 fait aussitôt un rapport au commissaire et au Centre sur les circonstances de la saisie.
|
| 21. (1) On request of an officer, any mail that is being sent from a place in Canada to a place in a foreign country and that contains or is suspected to contain currency or monetary instruments that are of a value equal to or greater than the amount prescribed for the purpose of subsection 12(1) shall be submitted by the Canada Post Corporation to an officer.
(2) All mail that is submitted to an officer under this section remains, for the purposes of the Canada Post Corporation Act, in the course of post unless it is retained or seized under this Part.
(3) If mail is retained or seized under this Part, notice of the retention or seizure shall be given in writing to the Canada Post Corporation within 60 days after the retention or seizure unless the mail has, before the expiry of that period, been returned to the Corporation.
(4) An officer shall deal with all mail submitted to the officer under this section in accordance with the laws relating to customs and this Part and, subject to those laws and this Part, shall return it to the Canada Post Corporation.
(5) Any non-mailable matter found by an officer in mail made available to the officer under this section shall be dealt with in accordance with the regulations made under the Canada Post Corporation Act.
|
21. (1) Sur demande d'un agent, les envois destinés à l'exportation sont soumis au contrôle douanier par la Société canadienne des postes s'ils contiennent ou si l'on soupçonne qu'ils contiennent des espèces ou effets d'une valeur égale ou supérieure au montant réglementaire prévu pour l'application du paragraphe 12(1).
(2) Les envois soumis au contrôle douanier prévu par le présent article demeurent, pour l'application de la Loi sur la Société canadienne des postes, en cours de transmission postale, sauf s'ils sont retenus ou saisis en vertu de la présente partie.
(3) En cas de rétention ou de saisie d'envois en vertu de la présente partie, il doit en être donné avis par écrit à la Société canadienne des postes dans les soixante jours, sauf si, avant l'expiration de ce délai, ils ont été retournés à celle-ci.
(4) L'agent applique au contrôle des envois la législation relative aux douanes et la présente partie; sous réserve de cette législation et de la présente partie, il les retourne à la Société canadienne des postes.
(5) Il est disposé conformément aux règlements d'application de la Loi sur la Société canadienne des postes des objets inadmissibles que l'agent trouve dans le courrier soumis à son contrôle.
|
| 22. (1) An officer who retains currency or monetary instruments forfeited under subsection 14(5) shall send the currency or monetary instruments to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
(2) An officer who seizes currency or monetary instruments or is paid a penalty under subsection 18(2) shall send the currency or monetary instruments or the penalty, as the case may be, to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
|
22. (1) En cas de confiscation aux termes du paragraphe 14(5) des espèces ou effets retenus, l'agent les remet au ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux.
(2) En cas de saisie d'espèces ou d'effets ou de paiement d'une pénalité réglementaire aux termes du paragraphe 18(2), l'agent les remet au ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux.
|
| 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.
|
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. 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 25 to 30.
|
24. La confiscation d'espèces ou d'effets saisis 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 25 à 30.
|
| 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.
|
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) If a decision of the Minister is requested under section 25, the Commissioner 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.
|
26. (1) Le commissaire 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.
(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) 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.
|
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.
|
| 28. If the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) was not contravened, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall, on being informed of the Minister's decision, return the penalty that was paid, or the currency or monetary instruments or an amount of money equal to their value at the time of the seizure, as the case may be.
|
28. Si le ministre décide qu'il n'y a pas eu de contravention au paragraphe 12(1), le ministre des Travaux publics et des Services gouvernementaux, dès qu'il est informé de la décision du ministre, restitue la valeur de la pénalité réglementaire, les espèces ou effets ou la valeur de ceux-ci au moment de la saisie, selon le cas.
|
| 29. (1) If the Minister decides that subsection 12(1) was contravened, the Minister shall, 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.
|
29. (1) S'il décide qu'il y a eu contravention au paragraphe 12(1), le ministre, aux conditions qu'il fixe :
a) soit décide de 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 décide de restituer tout ou partie de la pénalité versée en application du paragraphe 18(2);
c) soit confirme 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) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 25 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.
|
30. (1) La personne qui a présenté une demande en vertu de l'article 25 peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la communication de la décision, en appeler par voie d'action devant 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.
|
Email this Content