NDP bill to crack down on proceeds of crime

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/04/2024 (550 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A bill proposed by the Manitoba NDP seeks to make it easier to seize proceeds of crime — despite cutting the budget of the justice department unit that handles such investigations.

The Unexplained Wealth Act, introduced Friday, would compel suspected criminals to show how they acquired multimillion-dollar homes and luxury vehicles.

“We want to show Manitobans that we’re tough on crime and that we’re making concrete steps to go after criminal enterprises,” Justice Minister Matt Wiebe said Friday after question period.

Bill 30 would establish unexplained wealth orders in Manitoba so suspected drug traffickers and those involved in organized crime could be compelled to disclose documents and explain their sources of wealth or risk civil forfeiture proceedings. It would also require Manitoba companies to disclose their beneficial owner — a person who enjoys the benefits of ownership, even if the property’s title is in another name. The bill includes cryptocurrency in its definition of property, and increases the maximum value of property that can be forfeited from $75,000 to $125,000.

“It’s an opportunity for law enforcement to partner with officials in justice to start proceedings earlier in the process to go after those individuals and organizations that have unexplained wealth that need to answer for it. And, if they can’t answer for it, to be able to give law enforcement the ability to seize that property and begin civil forfeiture procedures,” Wiebe said outside the chamber.

Since 2011-12, Manitoba’s criminal property forfeiture unit has raked in more than $16 million, with nearly $5 million distributed to victims and $11.5 million allocated to law enforcement agencies.

In Tuesday’s provincial budget, the nine-member unit’s funding was cut to roughly $1.29 million from approximately $1.43 million.

When asked about cutting its funding while expanding its scope, Wiebe said “the budget is appropriate to be able to do this work.

“Any adjustments in the department really won’t impact any services — especially not when it comes to expanding these powers. This is going to give the department better tools, more streamlined tools, that have been asked for by law enforcement.”

Despite the unit having its budget cut, a government spokesman said Friday afternoon in an email that “work to add further staffing resources is currently underway.” There was no response when asked how the unit would add staff with a smaller budget.

Former Brandon police chief and Progressive Conservative justice critic Wayne Balcaen asked if cutting the criminal property forfeiture unit’s budget means cutting its staff and making it less effective.

“This is one of the few departments that brings a constant revenue to the province,” he told reporters. “That revenue is shared with Victim Services, policing services and law enforcement.”

The Brandon West MLA said the unit is staffed with dedicated experts “who know these laws inside and out.”

“The more people that we have working in this sort of department, the better results we’re going to see, with more efforts, more seizures, more money. Maybe that can then add to Victim Services and people can be cared for.”

A legal expert who studies criminal property forfeiture laws and unexplained wealth orders said the NDP bill may “expand the net” for scooping up criminal proceeds but sophisticated criminals will always find ways to hang on to their wealth.

“The ambition might be to control profitable crime, I get that, but I don’t think there’s much evidence they actually do that,” said University of Manitoba law Prof. Michelle Gallant. She called the criminal property forfeiture unit’s $137,000 budget cut “extraordinary,” and the work its investigators and analysts do key. “What’s the point of having any kind of matrix to catch (the proceeds of crime) if you’re not going to enforce anything?”

Manitoba’s Criminal Property Forfeiture Act took effect in 2004. Since 2009, the director of the criminal property forfeiture unit could start civil forfeiture proceedings against property believed to be the proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity by order of a Court of King’s Bench justice.

In 2012, the act was amended to allow a simpler process known as administrative forfeiture through which personal property valued at $75,000 or less may be confiscated without court involvement.

In 2021, legislative changes were made allow the criminal property forfeiture unit to seize money it believes is part of illegal operations before it can become untraceable and disappears.

The “bedrock” of unexplained wealth orders shifts the burden of proof from the state to the person in question, said Gallant.

“The state can take your stuff without ever having to prove on a balance of probability its case. That’s exactly what these laws do.

“At least in civil forfeiture, you have to prove it’s proceeds of crime — the burden’s on the state to prove it.”

caol.sanders@freepress.mb.ca