Court compels former Sikh leader to explain fortune

A Manitoba judge has approved the provincial government’s first application for an unexplained wealth order, which will compel a Sikh religious leader accused of stealing from worshippers to explain where he got his money.

Following a hearing Monday, Court of King’s Bench Justice Sarah Inness ruled in favour of the application, filed in May by the provincial director of criminal property forfeiture under Manitoba’s recently amended civil forfeiture legislation.

“I’m granting the application for the order made by the director,” said Inness. “The director can prepare an order for my signature.”

Inness’s decision sets the stage for the first use of the province’s new power to compel people to account in civil court for money and property that civil forfeiture officials suspect was illegally obtained.

Sukhwinder Singh, who’s in his early 50s, will be ordered to explain under oath how he came to have the roughly $412,000 in cash Winnipeg police seized in September last year from his private quarters at the Gurdwara Kalgidhar Darbar Sikh Temple.

Singh led the King Edward Street temple for 11 years until officials at the religious centre grew suspicious he was stealing donations.

The former head priest was arrested by Winnipeg police in September, after officials at the gurdwara installed a surveillance camera that captured video of him allegedly stealing money from a donation box.

Singh is scheduled to stand trial on criminal charges of theft over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 in February.

Singh will also be made to explain how he came to own a paid-off $332,000 house on Burdick Place in Tyndall Park, despite his salary of $1,000 a month from the gurdwara, which also provided him food and lodging.

His lawyer, Steven Brennan, had filed a motion seeking to stay the province’s application for an order, pending the resolution of another civil proceeding against Singh, which would essentially delay the application. The gurdwara filed a lawsuit against Singh earlier this year, seeking damages.

Brennan, who conceded the province had met the legal test to have its order granted, argued Monday there was no urgent reason to compel Singh to explain the money, prior to the resolution of the gurdwara’s lawsuit.

He argued each of the cases — the unexplained wealth order application, the gurdwara’s lawsuit and criminal charges — all arise from Singh’s alleged theft of the money.

Brennan said there was a potential that forcing Singh to explain the money could prejudice the other court proceedings and lead to an inconsistent outcome between them. He argued the application should be stayed because King’s Bench rules say multiple, similar proceedings should be avoided.

Inness said under the province’s civil forfeiture legislation, information obtained via unexplained wealth orders — such as an admission that money was stolen or otherwise ill-gotten — can only be used by provincial criminal property forfeiture officials. Such information cannot be entered as evidence in criminal court or used in other civil proceedings.

Further, she said, Singh will be compelled to defend himself in court filings in response to the gurdwara’s lawsuit, assuming it goes ahead.

Inness also said concerns about inconsistent outcomes could be addressed by joining the gurdwara’s lawsuit with a lawsuit from the criminal property forfeiture director seeking to retain Singh’s money, if the office decides to file one.

Provincial officials have billed the new powers, which were included in legislation passed last year, as a means of cracking down on suspected drug traffickers and organized crime.

The new unexplained wealth orders build on the province’s existing civil forfeiture regime, a process in which governments can use civil courts to retain property and cash believed to be linked to crime.

erik.pindera@freepress.mb.ca