B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Service is facing claims in two court cases that unexplained property order applications are a violation of Charter rights.
A man barred from selling on the U.S. penny stock market has filed for an order with the BC Civil Forfeiture Commissioner for more than $4 million in undisclosed assets held in a custodial trust at the Law Society of B.C., under constitutional restrictions. claimed to have exceeded.
Meanwhile, Salt Spring Island residents claim a separate application demanding where the commissioner got the money to buy their home is a similar violation of their Charter rights.
The two defendants in B.C.’s Supreme Court are the first two UWO applications filed by the Chief Justice late last year, after a bill amending B.C.’s Civil Forfeiture Act to include UWOs was passed in March 2023. He was the person who filed the first legal challenge.
A UWO requires a person to disclose to the Commissioner the source of funds to acquire a particular asset (typically a luxury car or real estate) in cases where the judge determines that there is mere suspicion of illegal activity. Force.
A judge may grant such an order even if there is no conviction against the defendant. Court-enforced responses to UWOs may ultimately be used to confiscate assets. However, no case in British Columbia has yet reached this stage.
In both cases currently before the courts, the state government, through the Secretary, alleges that it has reasonable grounds to believe that the funds were obtained from the illegal practice of stock market manipulation in the United States. They are seeking forfeiture of funds and housing. Crime in Canada.
Money held in trust by the Law Society of B.C. was disputed.
In a response to the Commissioner filed on February 13, Kevin Patrick Miller asked the government for an order requiring Miller to explain the source of approximately $4 million held in trust by the Law Society. alleged that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s final judgment is being avoided. B.C.
In 2017, Mr. Miller neither admitted nor denied his role in the pump-and-dump scheme. settled with the SEC You will take out US$783,368 plus US$116,631 in interest.
However, Mr. Miller left approximately $3 million and $583,114 in the trust account of Vancouver lawyer Ronald Pelletier, despite the fact that Mr. Peltier “has gone to great lengths to protect his clients and their illicit funds.” The association found out that this was the case, and his account was subsequently frozen.
Mr. Peltier will be disbarred in November 2023, and the funds will remain under the control of the association.
Last year, the Secretary requested that Miller provide details about, among other things, how the “Miller Fund” was acquired and maintained.
The director claimed that the funds were the proceeds of crime. According to the UWO filing, Mr. Miller sent money to Mr. Pelletier through shell companies in the Marshall Islands and Panama.
Mr. Miller is now claiming that the director is abusing the court process by subjecting him to double jeopardy.
“The Crown believes that it is not possible to avoid a final SEC judgment by trying defendants in another court with a lower burden of proof on the same claims that have already been settled and are subject to a final SEC judgment. No. The amount from the defendant was greater than what the SEC had already settled.
“…the commencement of this action constitutes Plaintiff’s continuing prosecution for the same offense under the Securities Act.” These were subject to the SEC’s final judgment but were not appealed. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed for double jeopardy and/or abuse of process and/or defendant’s violation of common law and the Charter. We assert our rights,” Mr. Miller’s legal team at Groier & Company in Toronto wrote.
A trial date has not yet been set.
The house on Salts Spring Island was the proceeds of a divorce.Residents say the application is a violation of their rights
On February 9, Salt Spring Island resident Alicia Valerie Davenport filed a response to the Commissioner’s UWO application, alleging that her home was partially funded by proceeds from criminal stock market activities orchestrated in Vancouver. He refuted the director’s claim that there was.
The director said Davenport and his ex-spouse, Geordi Lee, were the beneficiaries of the company stock allegedly traded in the criminal scheme, and that Davenport and his ex-spouse, Geordie Lee, were the beneficiaries of the company stock that was allegedly traded in the criminal scheme, and that Davenport and his ex-spouse, Geordi Lee, were the beneficiaries of the company’s stock that was otherwise traded in the criminal scheme and that they were the beneficiaries of the otherwise legitimate business that supported the purchase of the home at 435 Stewart Road. He said he had no income.
The director said some or all of the funds were involved in illegal stock transactions orchestrated by Roger Knox and Richard Targett Adams, who run Swiss asset management companies and trading platforms called Silverton SA or Wintercap SA. He claimed that it was obtained from the scheme.
The Swiss company was part of an offshore shell company that hid the beneficial owners of illegally traded shares in a pump-and-dump scheme.
“As part of the illegal scheme, R. Knox had WB21 accounts with companies including Hilton Capital Inc., Morris Capital Inc., Quezon Group LLC, Laramee Holdings Inc., Santos Trest Inc., and Egredior Holdings Inc. They controlled various companies.”
The directors allege that proceeds of the scheme were transferred from WB21 to Davenport, and that an additional $1.15 million was wired from Hilton to the Biancardi law firm as a loan to Lee.
Davenport’s response, filed Feb. 9, denied the warden’s claims, noting that the home was ultimately derived from the net proceeds of three properties the couple had previously sold during their separation. .
“with respect to [director’s] Relief by unexplained property order; [Davenport] In fact, [Civil Forfeiture Act] It violates her Charter rights.”
Like Miller, Davenport, through his attorney at Harper Gray, has argued that the lawsuit is not in the interests of justice.
Civil forfeiture claims are controversial because they do not require a criminal conviction for the state to seize assets. Similarly, The command of riches without explanation Liberals and criminal defense lawyers see this as excessive state power.
gwood@glaciermedia.ca
