Unexplained wealth orders put a reverse onus on the owner of the property in question to prove that they acquired it through legal means, or risk having it confiscated First, authorities moved to seize a house on British Columbia’s Salt Spring Island, bought for $1-million cash by the former spouse of a man accused of having ties to a global pump-and-dump stock scheme. Next, they went after millions of dollars held in the trust account of a recently disbarred lawyer on behalf of an alleged participant in a securities fraud involving a Bob Marley-themed coffee venture. Then there was the downtown Vancouver safety deposit box stuffed with cash, gold bars and luxury watches belonging to the co-founder of a defunct cryptocurrency exchange.
These asset seizures were carried out with a new legal tool that some Canadian provinces are using to go after the proceeds of alleged crimes. Unexplained wealth orders, as they’re known, put a reverse onus on the owner of the property in question to prove that he or she acquired it through legal means, or risk having it confiscated – making it easier for law enforcement to seize property without having to prove that a specific crime occurred. British Columbia and Manitoba have both recently implemented the tool, although Manitoba has yet to use it. Proponents of unexplained wealth orders argue that they allow law enforcement to disrupt the operations of organized crime groups, which often employ sophisticated money laundering techniques that make it extremely challenging for investigators to follow the money.
“This is a huge tool for law enforcement to really go after the funds of criminal organizations, and that makes a big difference in sending a message that they can’t operate with impunity here in Manitoba,” said Matt Wiebe, Manitoba’s Minister of Justice and Attorney-General. But critics argue that the orders infringe on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for instance by removing the presumption of innocence. “They’re being asked to come to court and actually prove that they haven’t committed a crime,” said Vibert Jack, the litigation director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which is opposed to unexplained wealth orders and civil forfeiture in general. “It’s up to the state to prove that a person has committed a crime before they punish them.”
Ultimately, experts say, the matter will be resolved in court. If the new legal tool passes muster, other provinces are expected to follow suit. British Columbia got the idea for unexplained wealth orders from Britain, which implemented the legal tool in 2018. Nicknamed “McMafia” orders after a book and television series of the same name, they were introduced amid growing concern that London’s luxury real estate market had become a haven for dirty money. Australia and Ireland have similar regimes. In fact, more than 100 countries have laws that target illicit enrichment, according to an analysis by Andrew Dornbierer at the Basel Institute on Governance.
unexplained wealth regime is designed to target individuals and entities suspected of concealing assets in a way that makes them difficult to trace. This regime is based on the principle of “know your customer” (KYC) and aims to identify and prevent money laundering. unexplained wealth regime is a relatively new development, having been implemented in 2021.
The order, filed by the B.C. Securities Commission, alleges that the firm, now known as Silverton Capital, engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors of billions of dollars. The order also alleges that the firm’s founder, a former investment banker, used his wealth to buy properties in Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia, acquiring a significant amount of real estate.
Davenport’s purchase of the property was a “sham” transaction designed to conceal the proceeds of a drug trafficking operation. The court order, issued by Justice of the Peace, was a direct response to a request for information from the director of civil forfeiture. The request was made after the director had already received a tip from an anonymous source that suggested Ms.
The second unexplained wealth order was made in a forfeiture case involving more than $3.5-million sitting in a trust account belonging to Ronald Pelletier, a Vancouver lawyer who has since been disbarred. The funds were being held on behalf of Kevin Miller, a Malta resident accused of participating in a multimillion-dollar pump-and-dump scheme involving the stock of Jammin’ Java, a coffee company that used trademarks of the late reggae artist Bob Marley. Mr. Miller has taken the Law Society of B.C. to court in an effort to recover the frozen funds. In a court document, he states that there is “no direct connection” between the money in Mr. Pelletier’s trust account and the “alleged unlawful activity,” and that he did not acquire the funds through any unlawful activity.
The third-order motion was filed by the Canadian government, seeking to seize assets belonging to Mr. Patryn and his associates. The motion argued that these assets were obtained through criminal activity and should be forfeited to the government. The Canadian government’s argument was based on the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act (PCFT).
20, 2023, was issued against Mr. Patryn. This order, along with the previous three, is based on the assumption that Mr. Patryn has amassed wealth through unlawful activities. The investigation into Mr. Patryn’s finances has been ongoing for several years, and the court has previously issued orders requiring him to provide information about his assets and income. Mr.
This decision, made by the High Court in London, is significant because it sets a precedent for future cases involving unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) and offshore trusts. It suggests that the court will be more cautious in applying UWOs and will be more likely to scrutinize the evidence presented to support them. The case involved a Kazakh official, who was accused of murder in Austria. He died in prison while awaiting trial.
* Unexplained wealth orders (UWOs) are a powerful tool for combating money laundering. * They are designed to target individuals suspected of having acquired wealth through illegal activities. * The effectiveness of UWOs in Canada hinges on their ability to withstand legal challenges.
**BCCLA Fights for Individual Rights in B.C.
Justice Robert J. Smith, a judge in the B.C. Supreme Court, has ruled that the orders are unconstitutional. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is a non-profit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals and communities.
The outcome of the case will depend on the interpretation of the law and the application of legal principles. The courts will consider the evidence presented, the arguments made by the parties, and the relevant legal precedents. This is a complex legal case with many factors at play.
