[2014] 1 F.C.R. D-3
Customs and Excise
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act
Judicial review of decision by respondent deciding that applicant contravening Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, s. 12(1), that currency seized from applicant to be held as forfeit pursuant to Act, s. 29(1)(c)—Applicant, convicted drug smuggler, admitting to customs officer to carrying more than $10 000 in unreported currency—Customs officer deciding to seize currency as suspected proceeds of crime—Applicant explaining that seized funds proceeds from sale of vehicle, gift, personal savings—Portion of seized funds, i.e. proceeds from sale of vehicle, accepted as legitimate—However, respondent informing applicant that all of seized funds to be held as forfeit notwithstanding only portion of funds considered illicit—Whether Act, s. 29 permitting respondent to hold forfeit only illicit funds—Reasonable for respondent to hold forfeit amount said to be applicant’s savings, money received as gift—Decision confirming forfeiture of seized funds including legitimate funds unreasonable exercise of discretion—It does not follow, because Act, s.29(1)(b) specifying that portion of penalty may be returned, that legitimate portion of seized funds may not be returned under Act, s. 29(1)(a) because that paragraph not referring to “portion”—Not reasonable for respondent to exercise discretion in favour of holding legitimate funds forfeit—Confiscation of legitimate funds imposing draconian penalty—Parliament not stating in unequivocal terms intent to confiscate legitimate funds—Not open to respondent to confirm forfeiture of legitimate funds at later date—Interpretation advanced by respondent leading to absurdly punitive results—Penalty for failing to report, forfeiture of suspicious funds not “proximate concepts”—Some question as to whether implied exclusion principle of statutory interpretation applicable—Applicant’s request for return of legitimate funds sent for reconsideration by respondent in accordance with reasons herein—Application allowed.
Da Huang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (T-1219-12, 2013 FC 729, Simpson J., order dated June 28, 2013, 16 pp.)