Date: 20091130
Docket: T-232-08
Citation: 2009 FC 1222
BETWEEN:
GABRIEL AZOUZ
Plaintiff
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE MERITS
AND ORDER AS TO
COSTS
LEMIEUX J.
Introduction and facts
[1]
In
Montréal, on October 26, 2009, after having heard the parties, I dismissed
Mr. Azouz’s appeal, filed under section 30 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money
Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, 2000, c. 17 (the
Act). The following reasons are in support of my decision. The only issue
before the Court was whether Mr. Azouz had contravened subsection 12(1) of the
Act.
[2]
I
set out in the annex to these reasons the relevant provisions of the Act and of
the associated Regulations—the Cross-border Currency and Monetary
Instruments Reporting Regulations, SOR/2002-412 (the Regulations).
[3]
Mr. Azouz’s
appeal, by way of an action, concerned the decision of the Minister’s delegate,
rendered under section 27 of the Act on November 14, 2007, in which she
found that the plaintiff had contravened subsection 12(1) of the Act with
respect to the currency in his possession seized on June 6, 2007,
at the Trudeau
International Airport.
[4]
The circumstances
surrounding this seizure of the currency and its return were established in a
statement of agreed facts and admissions filed further to Prothonotary Morneau’s
order of April 1, 2009. This statement read as follows:
[TRANSLATION]
1.
On June 6,
2007, the plaintiff and his spouse were about to leave the country and go to
Paris from the Montréal-Trudeau International Airport.
2.
Once the plaintiff
and his spouse had passed the pre-boarding checkpoint, they were approached by
a senior customs officer.
3.
The senior
customs officer first asked the plaintiff and his spouse the following question:
Do you have any currency or monetary
instruments in your possession with a value equal to or greater than 10,000.00 Canadian
dollars?
4.
The plaintiff
and his spouse replied NO.
5.
The senior
customs officer asked them how much currency or monetary instruments they had
in their possession.
6.
The plaintiff’s
spouse told the officer that she had nothing in her possession.
7.
The plaintiff
answered that he had only a few thousand.
8.
At the
request of the senior customs officer, the plaintiff specified that he had 7,000
(seven thousand), then specified that he had in his possession 4,000 euros and 2,000
Canadian dollars.
9.
The senior
customs officer asked the plaintiff and his spouse to follow him so that he could
verify their statements, and he led them towards an interview room. Another
customs officer who was assisting him followed them at a distance of about 8
feet.
10. During the walk between the
pre-boarding checkpoint and the interview room, the plaintiff gave his spouse 700
euros.
11. The senior customs officer
asked the plaintiff’s spouse to give him the amount her spouse had just given
her, which she did.
12. The plaintiff and his spouse
then entered the interview room.
13. An examination of the plaintiff’s
monetary instruments revealed that the plaintiff had in his possession various
currencies with a value of $11,097.78 Canadian distributed as follows:
·
5,000
euros;
·
3,041 US dollars;
and
·
700 Canadian
dollars.
14. No money was found in the
possession of the plaintiff’s spouse, Peggy Azouz.
15.
The senior
customs officer then seized as forfeit this sum of $11,097.78 under subsection
18(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing
Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17 (hereafter the Act).
16. The customs officer returned
the seized currency to the plaintiff ($11,097.78) upon payment by the plaintiff
of a penalty of $2,500 set out in paragraph 18(b) of the Cross‑border
Currency and Monetary Instruments Reporting Regulations,
SOR/2002-412.
17. In this regard, the customs officer
issued a written notice of the seizure in the name of the plaintiff and his
spouse, Peggy Azouz. This notice indicated, in particular, the amount of
currency seized, the amount of the imposed penalty as well as the plaintiff’s
right to appeal.
18. On June 6, 2007, the senior customs officer
wrote the narrative report set out in section 20 of the Act. The assisting
customs officer also wrote a narrative report on this date. These narrative
reports were first disclosed to the plaintiff’s counsel, Sami Iskandar, on or
before July 3, 2007.
[5]
Following
these events, in accordance with sections 25 and 27 of the Act, Mr. Azouz requested
a decision of the Minister as to whether subsection 12(1) of the Act had been
contravened. The plaintiff’s counsel presented his evidence against the seizure.
A report written by an officer with the Canada Border Services Agency (the
Agency) described the facts and circumstances of the seizure based on the two
narrative statements of the senior customs officer and his assistant. The
Minister’s delegate rendered her decision, according to section 27 of the
Act, on November 14, 2007.
[6]
The
Minister’s delegate found the following:
1. There was a contravention of
subsection 12(1) of the Act: “as the currency in your possession was of a value
greater than $10 000.00 CAD and you failed to declare it to Canada Border
Services Agency, a contravention of subsection 12(1) of the Act did occur. The
currency was lawfully subject to seizure under subsection 18(1) of this Act.”
2. The plaintiff’s spouse, Peggy
Azouz, did not contravene subsection 12(1) of the Act and her name was
withdrawn from the Canada Border Services Agency records.
3. The penalty upon the return of
the seized currencies should have been $250 rather than $2,500: “because,
although the currency was not reported, it was not concealed, a full disclosure
of the facts was made upon discovery and you were not subject to a previous
seizure under this Act. The prescribed penalty for a Level 1 infraction is
$250.”
[7]
By means
of a letter dated November 28, 2007, Mr. Azouz asked the Minister’s delegate if
it was possible to withdraw his name from the customs databank so that he would
not experience any inconvenience going through customs as a result of the
seizure of June 6, 2007.
[8]
On
December 24, 2007,
an Agency adjudicator replied to the plaintiff’s counsel that the plaintiff’s
name would stay in the Agency’s system for a period of 6 years from the time of
the contravention, and that consequently the plaintiff could be the subject of enhanced
checks when going through customs in the future.
[9]
In the
meantime, on or around November 28, 2007, the plaintiff received a letter from
the Agency telling him that his request to participate in the NEXUS system had
been refused because of a previous contravention of the customs legislation. This
NEXUS program is for Canadian and American business people who travel
frequently and aims to facilitate customs procedures during departures and
arrivals at the common borders of the two (2) countries.
[10]
On
February 12, 2008, the plaintiff filed an action in this case under section 30 of
the Act.
Preliminary comments
[11]
As
mentioned in his order dated April 1, 2009, regarding the pre-trial conference
and the conduct of the action, Prothonotary Morneau ordered that the only issue
for determination was whether the plaintiff had contravened subsection 12(1) of
the Act. He also ordered that there would be no expert witness produced
by the parties at trial and, as mentioned, ordered the filing of a statement of
agreed facts and admissions, which was to be as complete as possible.
[12]
At the
beginning of the hearing on October 26, 2009, Mr. Azouz’s counsel informed the
Court that Mr. and Mrs. Azouz wanted to testify, which took the Court a bit by
surprise considering the extent of the facts and admissions in the statement as
well as the acknowledged principle that their testimony could not contradict
what had been admitted in the statement or argued in the report sought before
the Court under section 30 of the Act.
[13]
The Court
asked that this situation be clarified and after obtaining two admissions from
the Minister, Mr. Azouz’s counsel acknowledged that there was no point, and the
Court found that it was irrelevant to make his clients testify. The admissions
were the following:
1. The Minister admitted for the
purposes of this case that 700 of the 5,000 euros Mr. Azouz had in his
possession at the time of the seizure was the property of Mrs. Azouz, but it
was not admitted that the 700 Canadian dollars in Mr. Azouz’s possession was his
spouse’s property.
2. The Minister also admitted
that Mr. Azouz subjectively did not believe that he was in possession of more
than 10,000 Canadian dollars in euros, American dollars and Canadian dollars.
[14]
I did not
allow Mrs. Azouz to testify that the 700 Canadian dollars was her property. I
was of the opinion that testimony in this regard would contradict either the
statement or the report filed before this Court when there was never a question
that the Canadian dollars belonged to her. In fact, one of the paragraphs of the
report sought by Mr. Azouz indicated that the seven hundred Canadian dollars was
his property.
[15]
Finally, at
the end of the argument, Mr. Azouz asked me if he could address the Court. I
upheld the Minister’s objection on this point on the ground that counsel
representing him was in reply.
[16]
The
parties recognized that the appeal procedure before me was not a judicial
review but rather a trial de novo in which the parties could testify and
plead facts not before the Minister.
Analysis
(1) The Act and the associated Regulations
[17]
Everything
concerning the duty to report the importation or exportation of currency is
clear and unambiguous in the Act and the Regulations. They state to whom, by
whom, when, how, why and in what circumstances a report must be made and the
consequences of a contravention. These elements are set out in sections 12 and 18
of the Act and in sections 2, 3 and 11 of the Regulations.
[18]
A person
who leaves the country with, in his or her actual possession or as part
of his or her baggage, currency with a value equal to or greater than $10,000 has
a duty to disclose this amount by means of a written report submitted, without
delay, to an officer at the customs office located at the place of exportation
or, if the office is closed, at the time of exportation, at the nearest customs
office that is open.
[19]
Enforcement
of the Act is set out in section 18, which provides that if the officer believes
on reasonable grounds that subsection 12(1) has been contravened, “the officer may
seize as forfeit the currency” but must return the seized currency on
payment of a penalty in the prescribed amount to the individual from whom it
was seized or to the lawful owner unless the officer has reasonable grounds
to suspect that the money is 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. The penalties are set out in section 18 of the
Regulations. The amount: (1) of $250 is prescribed for a person who has not
concealed the currency; (2) of $2,500 is prescribed for a person who has
concealed the currency; and (3) of $5,000 is the maximum amount for a person
who has concealed the currency by using a false compartment. I note, once again,
that the minimum penalty was imposed on the plaintiff following his appeal to
the Minister under section 27 of the Act.
[20]
One of the
purposes of the Act stated at subparagraph 3(a)(ii) is “requiring the
reporting of suspicious financial transactions and of cross-border
movements of currency and monetary instruments”.
(2) Mr. Azouz’s argument
[21]
During his
argument, Mr. Azouz’s counsel admitted that before taking his flight to Paris
the evening of June 6, 2007, he (1) had in his possession the equivalent of more
than 10,000 Canadian dollars (transcript, page 55), and (2) had not submitted
the required written report (transcript, page 148, line 22). He reported it verbally
only after going through security and when confronted by an officer.
[22]
In his
defence, he argued the following:
(1) Under the circumstances, Mr.
Azouz was not required to submit a report to the customs office in accordance
with section 11 of the Regulations because he did not believe that he had more
than $10,000 on him because a large amount belonged to his spouse; he was convinced
that he would have had less than $10,000 in his pockets before boarding the
plane as he intended to buy duty-free presents and have a meal in the airport
with Mrs. Azouz.
(2) The seizure under section 18 was
illegal because, on the one hand, the officer did not believe on reasonable
grounds that section 12 of the Act had been contravened and, on the other hand,
the officer improperly exercised his discretion under the circumstances given
that the purpose of the Act is to target money laundering or the financing of terrorist
activities but not [translation] “to nail someone with a few extra dollars”
(transcript, page 60, line 14). According to counsel, the officer, by making
the seizure, did not recognize that his discretion was to promote these
purposes of the Act.
(3) The Minister had to
demonstrate that he had in his possession more than $20,000 because his spouse
was involved in the proceedings as a “co-offender”; she was included in the
seizure.
(4) The officer was verbally
violent toward Mr. and Mrs. Azouz, which resulted in the charge against Mr. and
Mrs. Azouz and then the seizure. He claimed that the Act is penal legislation and
that the officer acted in bad faith.
Conclusions
[23]
I am
unable to agree with any of the submissions of Mr. Azouz’s counsel. These
submissions, on the one hand, go against the scheme of the Act, the case law that
has interpreted it and Parliament’s related statutes and, on the other hand, are
elements cited for the first time in an appeal before this Court. The following
judgments are relevant to the interpretation of the Act and associated Regulations:
(1)
Tourki
v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2006 FC 50 (F.C.),
upheld in appeal 2007 FCA 186 (Tourki);
(2)
Zeid v.
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2008 FC 539 (Zeid);
and
(3)
Hoang v.
The Minister of National Revenue et al, 2006 FC 182 (Hoang).
[24]
I also
cite the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Martineau v. The Minister of National
Revenue, 2004 SCC 81 and the decision by this Court in Sarji v. Canada (The Minister of National Revenue (Customs
and Excise – M.N.R.)),
[1999] F.C.J. No. 1401 rendered under the Customs Act.
[25]
The
following principles emerge from this case law:
(1)
The
seizure and forfeiture process in the Act is a civil collection
mechanism that is not intended to punish the individual; the individual is not an
accused; the person is not charged with any criminal, quasi-criminal or
regulatory offence (see: Tourki, 2007 FCA 186, at paragraphs 42 to 46). I add that section 73.11 of the Act
requires, under the conditions applicable to the case, that the amount of the
required penalties takes into account that the purpose of the penalties is not
to punish but to encourage compliance with this Act and the associated Regulations.
(2) “If you do not declare, the
Customs officer is entitled to forfeit that which should have been declared. It
is as simple as that.” (See the decision by my colleague, Justice Harrington, in
Tourki, 2006 FC 50, at paragraph 56.)
(3) The objectives of the Customs
Act (CA) are to regulate, oversee and control cross‑border movements
of people and goods. The attainment of these objectives depends on the
effectiveness of the voluntary or self-reporting system. To enforce the CA,
Parliament has implemented civil and penal mechanisms (see Martineau, above,
at paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 and see also Tourki, decision rendered
by Justice Harrington, 2006 FC 50, at
paragraph 54).
(4) The purpose of the Act is more
than combatting international money laundering. The Act requires the reporting of
the importation of currency and monetary instruments. To achieve this purpose,
a tracking system is obligatory (see Hoang, above, at paragraph 29).
(5) A traveller’s subjective
intention when failing to report is irrelevant; strict liability attaches to
those who fail to report (see Zeid, above, at paragraph 53).
[26]
Furthermore,
in my opinion, for the following reasons there is no merit to the argument
raised by the defendant’s counsel on the legality of the seizure on the ground that
it was a search or a seizure without reasonable grounds or, in any event, that
the officer improperly exercised his discretion.
[27]
This issue
was not relevant in the context of an appeal under section 30 of the Act of the
decision of the Minister’s delegate under section 27 of the Act. It was not
raised as an issue before Prothonotary Morneau and, on the merits, the officer
had reasonable grounds to seize given the responses given by the plaintiff and
his spouse. In my opinion, his discretion to seize was completely consistent
with the purposes of the Act and was exercised in accordance with the Act and the
associated Regulations.
[28]
According
to the evidence, it is obvious that one of the principal reasons stated by
Mr. Azouz for appealing to this Court was not that a $250 penalty was
imposed on him, but that his name was kept on a verification list for the
future and because, subjectively, he did not think that he had contravened the
Act. With respect to the first reason, it is not relevant in an appeal under
section 30 of the Act; if he felt aggrieved on this point, other remedies were
available to him; on the second point, his subjective belief, which was not
called into question, has no relevance under the Act and the Regulations.
[29]
At the end
of the argument, the Minister’s counsel informed me that the Minister had made
the plaintiff an offer to settle—his abandonment without costs. If the Minister
had had the provisions of sections 420 and 421 of the Federal Court Rules in
mind, I do not believe that the requirement for a compromise in the Minister’s
offer would have been met (see Canadian Olympic Association v. Olymel,
Société en commandite, 195 F.T.R. 216). I therefore think that the Minister
is not entitled to double costs, but being the successful party, is entitled to
ordinary costs. I therefore order that Mr. Azouz pay the Minister’s costs according
to the scale of costs in the tariff of the rules, that is, at level 3.
“François Lemieux”
________________________________
Judge
Ottawa,
Ontario
November
30, 2009
Certified
true translation
Susan
Deichert, Reviser
ANNEX A
1. The Act
Section 12 of the Act requires that the
exportation of currency be reported to the officer:
|
Currency
and monetary instruments
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.
Limitation
(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.
Who
must report
(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.
Duty
to answer and comply with the request of an officer
(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.
Sending
reports to Centre
(5)
Officers shall send the reports they receive under subsection (1) to the
Centre.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
Déclaration
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.
Exception
(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.
Déclarant
(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.
Obligation du déclarant
(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.
Transmission au Centre
(5) L’agent fait parvenir au Centre les
déclarations recueillies en application du paragraphe (1).
[Je
souligne.]
|
A request for a review and a decision of the
Minister are provided for in sections 25 and 27:
|
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.
.
. .
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.
Deferral
of decision
(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.
Notice
of decision
(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.
[Emphasis
mine.]
|
|
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.
…
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).
Report
de la décision
(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.
Avis
de la décision
(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.
[Je
souligne.]
|
Section 30 of the Act allows a person who requests
a decision under section 27 to appeal the decision by way of an action in the
Federal Court in which the person is the plaintiff:
|
Appeal
to Federal Court
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.
Ordinary
action
(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.
Delivery
after final order
(3)
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services shall give effect to the
decision of the Court on being informed of it.
Limit
on amount paid
(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.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
Cour fédérale
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.
Action ordinaire
(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.
Restitution au requérant
(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.
Limitation du montant versé
(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.
[Je
souligne.]
|
2. Regulations
Sections 2 and 3 of
the Regulations establish, for the purposes of subsection 12(1) of the Act, the
value of currency to report as well as the manner of this reporting:
|
REPORTING OF IMPORTATIONS AND
EXPORTATIONS
Minimum
Value of Currency or Monetary Instruments
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.
General Manner of Reporting
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.
[Emphasis
mine.]
|
|
DÉCLARATION
DES IMPORTATIONS ET EXPORTATIONS
Valeur minimale des espèces ou effets
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.
Forme de la déclaration
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.
[Je souligne.]
|
Section 11 of the
Regulations prescribes where a report with respect to currency must be
submitted and by whom. Section 15 establishes one exception for exported or
imported currency:
|
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.
. . .
EXCEPTION APPLICABLE TO THE BANK OF CANADA
15. A person or entity is not required
to make a report under subsection 12(1) of the Act with respect to stocks,
bonds and debentures imported into Canada by courier or as mail if the
importer is a financial entity or a securities dealer as defined in
subsection 1(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist
Financing Regulations or a transfer agent.
[Emphasis mine.]
|
|
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.
…
EXCEPTION RELATIVE À LA BANQUE DU
CANADA
15. Les espèces qui sont importées ou
exportées par la Banque du Canada ou en son nom en vue de la distribution, du
traitement ou de la mise à l'essai de billets de banque destinés à circuler
au Canada n'ont pas à être déclarées en application du paragraphe 12(1) de la
Loi.
[Je souligne.]
|
Email this Content