Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Inform

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available. Contenu archivé L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request. Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. Civil Forfeiture Regimes in Canada and Internationally Literature Review By Elaine Koren RDIMS # 745292 CIVIL FORFEITURE REGIMES IN CANADA AND INTERNATIONALLY: LITERATURE REVIEW PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA 1 The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Public Safety Canada. Report No. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2013 Cat. No.: XXX ISBN No.: XXX CIVIL FORFEITURE REGIMES IN CANADA AND INTERNATIONALLY: LITERATURE REVIEW PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 3 Key Findings …………………………………………………………………………………4 Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7 2.0 Methodology ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Research Questions....................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Data Collection and Defining Terms ............................................................................ 8 3.0 Civil Forfeiture Regimes ................................................................................... 9 3.1 International Governmental Organizations .................................................................. 9 3.2 Civil Forfeiture Regimes in Australia ........................................................................ 10 3.3 Civil Forfeiture Regimes in the United Kingdom ...................................................... 12 3.4 Civil Forfeiture Regimes in the United States ............................................................ 15 3.5 Civil Forfeiture Regimes in Canada ........................................................................... 19 4.0 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 23 5.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 27 6.0 Acronyms......................................................................................................... 30 7.0 Glossary and Explanatory Terms .................................................................... 32 8.0 Bibliography .................................................................................................... 36 9.0 Appendices ....................................................................................................... 51 Appendix 1: Proposed Databases and Keywords for Literature Review ............................. 51 Appendix 2: Treaties and Agreements re: Organized Crime and Money Laundering ......... 53 Appendix 3: Australian Forfeiture Legislation ..................................................................... 56 Appendix 4: British Legislation relating to Criminal and Civil Forfeiture .......................... 57 Appendix 5: American Legislation relating to Asset Forfeiture (including both Criminal and Civil Forfeiture) ............................................................................................... 58 Appendix 6: Standard of Proof Required for State Civil Forfeiture Laws........................... 64 Appendix 7: Canadian Criminal Asset Forfeiture…...……………………………………..65 Appendix 8: Canadian Legislation relating to Criminal and Civil Forfeiture ...................... 67 Appendix 9: Effectiveness of Canadian Civil Forfeiture ..................................................... 68 Appendix 10: Comparison of the Federal and Provincial Forfeiture Rules (Ontario) ........... 71 Appendix 11: Comparative Evaluation of Civil Forfeiture, ................................................... 72 10.0 Endnotes .......................................................................................................... 79 CIVIL FORFEITURE REGIMES IN CANADA AND INTERNATIONALLY: LITERATURE REVIEW PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA 3 Executive Summary Civil forfeiture is designed to recover the proceeds of crime or unlawful activity, as well as any property used to facilitate that activity (Simser 2009, 13). Supporters of civil forfeiture argue that it is an essential tool for fighting crime by removing the assets gained from crime. It also removes assets that facilitated the unlawful activity, reducing the profitability of crime. “Forfeiture is important, proponents claim, for reducing the rewards of financially motivated crimes such as drug trafficking and sales, gambling and vice, and organized crime.”1 Supporters also assert that forfeiture protects the public’s interests and can promote the social good by funding victim compensation funds.2 A common criticism of civil forfeiture is that it is really ‘criminal forfeiture dressed up in sheep’s clothing.’ This underscores the fact that “civil forfeiture achieves the same objectives as criminal forfeiture but without the procedural safeguards and human rights protections that apply to criminal proceedings.”3 Critics cite excessive use of civil, in lieu of criminal, forfeiture due to the lower evidentiary standard of proof for civil forfeiture.4 Critics also oppose the practice in the UK, as well as in the US federal and state governments, of sharing civil forfeiture net proceeds among law enforcement agencies that have a role in the seizure of the property.5 This paper describes the civil forfeiture regimes in Australia, Canada, the UK and the US. They are all common law countries having well-established democracies and an effective and impartial law enforcement and judiciary. The paper explored the role of constitutionally-entrenched property rights in the development of civil forfeiture regimes in these four countries. While the civil forfeiture regimes of Australia, Canada, the UK and the US vary in their application and detail, they all share the in rem feature at all stages of the process from implementation to enforcement. The most significant difference is that Canada’s constitutional division of powers does not permit the Canadian federal government to undertake civil forfeiture proceedings, which is not the case in Australia, the UK or the US. Australia and five of its six states, as well as both territories, have established civil forfeiture regimes. There is no single Australian civil forfeiture model. To improve the effectiveness of the civil forfeiture regime, the Commonwealth and select sub-national governments (Northern Territory, New South Wales and Western Australia) of Australia adopted legislation allowing for unexplained wealth orders (UWOs). The main features of the UWO provisions of the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002 are the reversal of the burden of proof to the respondent to justify that the wealth was acquired by lawful means, and the lack of a requirement for the state to show a linkage between the offence and the property. The reverse onus provisions in forfeiture statutes have been challenged but upheld in Australian courts as being necessary. Like Australia, the UK has a comprehensive confiscation and civil forfeiture regime established in its Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002. The Act created three mechanisms of civil recovery orders, forfeiture, and the taxation of unlawful earnings. Initially, the UK civil forfeiture regime provided fewer results than anticipated. In part, this was due to legal challenges that led to delays in civil recovery cases in the High Court. The UK High Court held that civil recovery was not a criminal, but a civil, proceeding intended to recover property obtained by unlawful CIVIL FORFEITURE REGIMES IN CANADA AND INTERNATIONALLY: LITERATURE REVIEW PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA 4 conduct. In a change in tactics, the UK placed its emphasis on civil recovery orders and improved its effectiveness. Unlike Australia and the UK, the US does not have a comprehensive forfeiture statute providing for all types of offences. There are three procedural options under US federal law administrative forfeiture, civil forfeiture and criminal forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding, where the property is the defendant in the case. An owner’s innocence is irrelevant since the property was involved in an unlawful activity to which forfeiture attaches. To improve effectiveness, the US Congress often allows administrative forfeiture in uncontested civil confiscation cases. Criminal forfeiture is an in personam proceeding, and seizure is only possible upon conviction of the property’s owner. As seen in the other jurisdictions, US case law has defined the parameters for civil forfeiture. The US Supreme Court held that “authorities may seize moveable property without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing.”6 In certain cases, civil forfeiture may be considered punitive for purposes of the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, and civil forfeitures do not implicate the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause unless they are so punitive as to preclude any chance of remedial action. US statutes also authorize intergovernmental transfers of sale proceeds to other US law enforcement agencies. In Canada, pursuing criminal assets using civil proceedings favours the civil model of crime control in provincial jurisdictions in which there are eight provincial civil forfeiture models. The Canadian federal jurisdiction usually undertakes criminal forfeiture subject to the higher evidentiary standard of proof ‘beyond all reasonable doubt.’ Although “there has been little by way of academic commentary on civil asset forfeiture in Canada,”7 and limited published case law, a number of principles have emerged from case law echoing that seen in international jurisdictions. The courts have intervened in Canadian civil forfeiture case law to use their authority to refuse the order of forfeiture if it was not in the ‘interests of justice.’8 The courts have also had to provide guidance to ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and common law principles are being followed. Key Findings  With governments facing budgetary restraint globally, civil forfeiture has become a growth industry. Canada is no exception. Influenced by the US, the UK and Australian experiences, eight provinces, led by uploads/s1/civil-foreitfure.pdf