Canada - police state with harsh sentences

[westwoody]

CRA will want a chunk of it as undeclared income along with a fine, usually equal or double the amount of the unpaid tax.

The guy might not have been stupid at all, just scared out of his wits. Easy for us to say what we would have done while we sit at our computers, not easy when you are in an interview room and your life is fuct no matter what you do.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

- Is it illegal in any way to carry $1 million in cash in a backpack within Canada (you are not crossing the border)?

Possibly. Doing so could be the actus reus prohibited in s. 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code. The mens rea of that offence is that the accused knew that the money was the proceeds of an indictable offence.

- Is it legal to arrest/interrogate a person, who is not doing anything illegal, based on pure suspicions (e.g. this guy has lots of cash on him - he must be doing something illegal) without any serious probable cause?[/QUOTE]
A police officer may detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing an offence. Investigation during the detention may create suffiicient grounds for arrest and search. It depends on the circumstances of each case. S. 8 of the Charter protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. S. 24(2) allows courts to exclude evidence obrtained in violation of a Charter right where admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. For a full discussion of these issues, take a look at R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 SCR 353. If you google R. v. Grant, you will find the case.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

1) Where did you get 1 million in cash? I found it in a ditch or under that dumpster.. not the right answer.

2) What bank did the withdrawal come from? Do you have bank records of the transaction? No okay....

3) Then where did the money come from?

Actually, the correct answer to all of these questions is the same: "Officer, I respectfully decline to answer any question that you ask me. Am I being detained?"

The basic rule is never, ever talk to the police under any circumstances. You break this rule at your peril. Every criminal lawyer, your humble correspondent included, has stories about clients who never would have been convicted if they had just kept their mouths shut.

If you are interested in why, I urge you to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE. It's longish but very entertaining, and explains in the best possible way why you can never help yourself by talking to the police, and will probably harm yourself, just as the guy in OP's story did. The lecturer is American, but the same general principles apply here.

 

[phreak]

- Is it illegal in any way to carry $1 million in cash in a backpack within Canada (you are not crossing the border)?

Possibly. Doing so could be the actus reus prohibited in s. 462.31(1) of the Criminal Code. The mens rea of that offence is that the accused knew that the money was the proceeds of an indictable offence.

- Is it legal to arrest/interrogate a person, who is not doing anything illegal, based on pure suspicions (e.g. this guy has lots of cash on him - he must be doing something illegal) without any serious probable cause?
A police officer may detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is committing an offence. Investigation during the detention may create suffiicient grounds for arrest and search. It depends on the circumstances of each case. S. 8 of the Charter protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. S. 24(2) allows courts to exclude evidence obrtained in violation of a Charter right where admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. For a full discussion of these issues, take a look at R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 SCR 353. If you google R. v. Grant, you will find the case.

I've read the Supreme Court judgement in R. v. Grant case: it's still not clear what was considered a 'reasonable suspicion' in our case.

The defendant was with a backpack at the intercity bus station (not suspicious); he proactively asked security to search him in private (definitely not suspicious - criminals avoid search by all means, not ask for it); the defendant proactively presented more than 1 million in cash to the security and provided reasonable explanations (unusual but not suspicious considering the good will of the defendant).

Then the persecution part started: cops were called (what for? - there was no indication that the money was the proceeds of crime) who started acting like there is no presumption of innocence in Canada. As a result the scared defendant, who was intimidated by cops, incriminated himself and went to jail for 3 years. Welcome to 'democratic' Canada...

 

[sunkist32]

Any police officer can be bought or judge for that matter. If he doesn't do what you ask then its not enough, thats all. Of course they should take the money, its better than taking bullets. And they know this. In this business we pay,
everybody is on the payroll. Never had a problem that couldn't be solved with money.

 

[Larry Storch]

I'm just waiting for the thread where he's convinced we all have brain implants and are being manipulated by the government and their alien overlords using signals from our toasters.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Then the persecution part started: cops were called (what for? - there was no indication that the money was the proceeds of crime) who started acting like there is no presumption of innocence in Canada. As a result the scared defendant, who was intimidated by cops, incriminated himself and went to jail for 3 years. Welcome to 'democratic' Canada...

Seriously, mate, I don't get you. There are tons of cases involving abuse of police authority, and this is the one that gets you all riled up? The cops were onside here because your hero gave them everything on a plate. That's why his lawyer had him plead out: he was toast.

This one boils down 100% to unbelievable idiocy on the part of someone who was in the process of committing an indictable offence. If you're going to commit a crime, at least try to use some common sense in the process. Here's an example: before transporting a very large amount of crime proceeds, why not learn what to do if the police start sniffing around?

Or don't; it's better for the lawyers.

 

[phreak]

Seriously, mate, I don't get you. There are tons of cases involving abuse of police authority, and this is the one that gets you all riled up? The cops were onside here because your hero gave them everything on a plate. That's why his lawyer had him plead out: he was toast.

This one boils down 100% to unbelievable idiocy on the part of someone who was in the process of committing an indictable offence. If you're going to commit a crime, at least try to use some common sense in the process. Here's an example: before transporting a very large amount of crime proceeds, why not learn what to do if the police start sniffing around?

Or don't; it's better for the lawyers.

There are many cases involving abuse of police authority, but this one stands out: usually cops abuse their authority while they are in the process of dealing with the actual crime/offence, or at least they honestly believe that is the case ('R. v. Grant' is a good example). Our case is different: the defendant was non-violent, was not in high crime area, didn't act suspiciously (at least not suspiciously in terms of committing an offence). Still he was arrested just for having 'too much' cash on him. It would sound believable if it happened in some third world 'banana republic', but in Canada... Yes, the guy is a moron, but that is not an excuse to arrest him and put in jail for 3 years.

Besides that, don't you think that a 3 year sentence for this 'offence' is kind of cruel and unusual? People get 3 years for having a loaded illegal gun on them! And what was the point to plead guilty in this case? Was there a chance that the defendant would have been sentenced to MORE than 3 years if he didn't plead guilty? Like 3 years was not cruel and unusual enough?

 

[uncleg]