• Our Areas of Practice

    We defend all criminal charges with skill and dedication.

    Vancouver at night

Civil Forfeiture

Have the police seized your property?

Have you received a Notice of Intent to Commence Forfeiture in the mail, or been served with a Notice of Civil Claim?

Time is of the essence. Call our office now for assistance. 

What is Civil Asset Forfeiture? 

Civil Forfeiture, also known as Civil Asset Forfeiture, is a program operated by the BC Provincial Government under the authority of the Civil Forfeiture Act. The government, through the Director of Civil Forfeiture, files a lawsuit in BC Supreme Court to confiscate assets deemed to be “Proceeds of Unlawful Activity  and “Instruments of Unlawful Activity”.

“Proceeds” refers to profit obtained through unlawful activity, such as:

  • Cash
  • Stolen goods
  • Assets purchased with unlawfully obtained money, such as jewelry, vehicles, and even real estate (land and buildings)

 “Instruments” refers to assets that have been been used to generate unlawful profit or are likely to be used in a manner that is likely to cause serious bodily harm, such as:

  • Vehicles used to sell drugs or steal property
  • Equipment used to manufacture drugs
  • Land and/or buildings used in unlawful operations
  • Vehicles driven in a manner that puts the public at risk

Civil forfeiture is separate and distinct from criminal court proceedings.  

A simple way to understand civil forfeiture is that the PROPERTY is on trial, not the person.

Under the Civil Forfeiture Act, assets can be frozen, possessed by, and forfeited to the Director of Civil Forfeiture even if:

  • You have not been charged with a crime
  • The criminal charges against you have been withdrawn
  • The criminal charges against you have been stayed
  • You have been found not guilty of criminal offence at trial

Criminal charges are a prosecution against a person. Civil forfeiture is a lawsuit against property, offically called an “in rem” proceeding.

In criminal proceedings, you are facing the Crown in criminal court. In civil forfeiture proceedings, you are facing the Director of Civil Forfeiture in civil court. The Crown and the Director are separate and do not have anything to do with each other. 

The Charge

Civil forfeiture is concerned with property. The purpose of the Civil Forfeiture Office is to commence proceedings against assets that has been acquired through unlawful acts (“Proceeds”) or used to commit unlawful acts (“Instruments”). 

Civil forfeiture proceedings typically arise out of drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, and theft investigations. However, any unlawful activity that may generate unlawful profit can be subject to civil forfeiture proceedings. 

Civil forfeiture can also be used against property that is being used in a manner that is likely to cause serious bodily harm (ex. dangerous driving) 

Vehicles that that have been used to flee from police or contain an after-market compartment are also subject to forfeiture. 

The Process

1. Police Seizure 

The process begins when the police seize property during an investigation; typically, cash, jewellery, vehicles, and sometimes even real estate (land and buildings). Property must be seized in accordance with the Charter and the Criminal Code, or any other legislation authorizing seizure of property. 

The police have several options regarding what they can do with the seized property. One option available is to forward the property to the Civil Forfeiture Office to be forfeited to the government if there is evidence the property was:

a) obtained illegally
b) used to generate profit through illegal means,
c) used in a manner likely to cause serious bodily harm, or
d) satisfies any of the other enumerated criteria in s. 19 – s. 19.05 of the Civil Forfeiture Act


2. Forfeiture Decision

After the property is forwarded by the police to the Civil Forfeiture Office, the Director of Civil Forfeiture reviews the file and can initiate proceedings to forfeit the property to the government. 

If you are the owner of property valued over $75,000 or the owner of real property (land), the Director of Civil Forfeiture will file a lawsuit against you in BC Supreme Court. They will then serve you with a Notice of Civil Claim. You must then file a Response to Civil Claim with the court registry and fight for your property in a civil court proceeding. 

If the property is under $75,000 in value and not real property, you will be sent a Notice of Intent to Commence Forfeiture in the mail to your last known address. If you move frequently or do not have a permanent address, the Notice of Intent to Commence Forfeiture is also published weekly in the BC Gazette under “Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General”

If your property is less than $75,000 and not real property, you must respond to the Notice using the required dispute form within 60 days from the post-mark on the Notice or the date it was published in the Gazette. If you do not respond or if you fill out the form incorrectly, your property is automatically forfeited to the government without further notice on the deadline date. 

If you respond to the Notice of Intent, the Director of Civil Forfeiture must then file a lawsuit against you in BC Supreme Court or return your property. 


3. Court Proceedings

Civil Forfeiture proceedings occur in civil court, not criminal court. 

In civil court, the Director of Civil Forfeiture must prove on a balance of probabilities that the property was used or obtained unlawfully; this means the judge must be only 51% sure that your property is Proceeds or an Instrument of Unlawful Activity. This is different from criminal court, where charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Unlike criminal proceedings, in civil court you may be obligated to provide evidence in your own defence. This may include documents and witness testimony. Further, you do not have the right to not testify in your own defence. You may be compelled to give oral evidence in a civil court process called “Examination for Discovery that can then be used in the civil court proceedings. 

Recent Successes

R. vs. C.Y. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon ( reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.

R. vs. M.P. – Abbotsford Police Investigation

Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. Q.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order.
Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client's rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent "home invasion". After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.

R. vs. G.T. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s progress with counselling, persuaded the Crown to gradually relax our client’s bail conditions and ultimately direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No further prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm; mischief to property under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction on the assault causing bodily harm charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault causing bodily harm charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and ordered restitution in relation to the smart phone that was damaged. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. W.J.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Upon presenting Crown counsel with a psychological report regarding our client's low risk to commit a similar act, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges whatsoever. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court (DCC)

Charges: Assault; Assault Peace Officer (x2).
Issue: Given the circumstances of our client being severely intoxicated and acting out f character, whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with our client's background information resulting in a joint recommendation to the Court for a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. E.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Probation.
Issue: Given the context of the offences and our client's rehabilitative efforts, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.>br> Result: Mr. Johnston informed Crown counsel of the significant rehabilitative progress our client had made since the offence dates and persuaded Crown to not pursue the 16 month  jail sentence they had been seeking. Crown agreed to proceed on the less serious charge of assault causing bodily harm and to stay the remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court granted our client a one year conditional sentence sentence and two years of probation. This was a particularly positive outcome for our client, who had a prior conviction for a similar offence. No jail.

The Defence

The Civil Forfeiture Act is a very powerful piece of legislation. It is important to know that fighting the Civil Forfeiture Office will involve a lot of time and effort on your part. 

It is also important to know that there are very strict timelines to file the various documents. It is crucial that you respond to correspondence from the Civil Forfeiture Office immediately. 

You are defending yourself in a lawsuit, and thus the rules of evidence are very different from a criminal prosecution. You will likely have to provide evidence in your defence. The Civil Forfeiture Office does not have to disclose their entire case to you upfront. This is notably different from the rules in criminal proceedings, where the Crown has the onus to prove the case against you and must provide you with disclosure of all the evidence they intend to rely on. 

Preventing proceedings against the seized assets 

If the police have seized your property but you have not received a Notice from the Civil Forfeiture Office, our team will negotiate with the police agency and/or the Civil Forfeiture Office to return your property before they initiate proceedings.  

The Property is not Proceeds and/or not an Instrument of Unlawful Activity 

To defend a civil forfeiture action, you must be able to provide evidence that the property was lawfully acquired. This often involves providing bank statements, pay stubs, and bills of sale. 

You may have to provide evidence that the property was not used to generate unlawful profit or was not used in a dangerous manner. This will involve producing evidence on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances of the allegation. 

Forfeiture is not in the interests of justice 

Proportionality and fairness must govern civil forfeiture proceedings. 

If the Director of Civil Forfeiture files a lawsuit against you, you may be able to argue that the value of the forfeiture is disproportionate to the severity of the alleged offence. 

You may also argue that the forfeiture is unfair. This defence is often used when innocent parties are prejudiced by the forfeiture of the property. Commonly, this defence is used when the owner of the property is unaware that the property is being used unlawfully by someone else. 

Charter Breaches 

The police must obey the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter rules pertaining to the admissibility of evidence apply to civil forfeiture proceedings. “Bifurcation” is the term used in civil court to describe the process to argue that the evidence was gathered in breach of the Charter and should be excluded, akin to a criminal voire dire. Our team at Mines & Company has extensive experience making Charter challenges and will pursue every angle to exclude unlawfully gathered evidence. 

Settlement

Criminal proceedings are “all or nothing;” you are either guilty or not guilty. Civil Forfeiture is very different. 

Civil forfeiture is not “all or nothing.” Because it is a civil proceeding, it is possible to reach an out of court settlement to agree to only forfeit a percentage of the property’s value. This is achieved through negotiations with the Director of Civil Forfeiture and may involve participating in formal mediation. Settlement has the benefit of reducing the amount of time and money spent defending against a civil forfeiture action. 

Civil Asset Forfeiture is a complex and intimidating area of law. Don’t fight it alone.
Mines & Company has the knowledge and the experience to help you recover your seized property. 

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.