Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Not unless it was actually purchased with funds that were generated by the commission of a crime. If I buy a house today with the money I made from my job, and decide to use it to start my criminal empire tomorrow, it is not the "proceeds" of a crime. It's the proceeds of my current job.
Any law that permits its seizure is effectively saying, "we think this guy is a really bad guy, so it's okay if we take his stuff without any oversight whatsoever without even proving he's a bad guy". That is just taking a giant crap on the rule of law.
|
Yeah that's exactly what the BC courts have just ruled on. It should go without saying that the seized asset exists because of criminal proceeds. It's amazing that isn't the case.