You are here: / / Possession of Stolen Property
  • Vancouver at night

Possession of Stolen Property

The Charge

Closely related to theft, possession of stolen property is an offence punishable by indictment, if the value of the property is over $5000, for up to two years imprisonment. Where the value is under $5000, the offence is punishable on summary conviction for up to two years jail, less a day. Section 354 of the Criminal Code sets out that it is an offence to possess property “knowing that the property was obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission of an offence.”  Thus, it is illegal to possess property that has been stolen or obtained fraudulently. It is an essential element of the offence that the Crown proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused knew that the property was derived from an offence and that the accused exercised control over the property.

The Investigation

Actual theft or fraud is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the property belonged to someone other than the accused and that the accused had knowledge that the property he possessed was, in fact, obtained through the commission of an offence. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the property’s true owner and any witnesses who observed the accused in possession of the property. Knowledge that the property was obtained through an offence may be inferred, such as where the suspect is driving a vehicle with a broken door lock and a “punched” ignition. Additionally, police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect in an effort to get the suspect to admit that they knew the property was obtained illegally. This is where we as experienced defence lawyers can help by providing advice to our clients regarding their rights under the Charter, including their right to remain silent.

Recent Successes

R. v. M.F. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. V.H. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charges: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether or not it was contrary to the public interest for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through a course of rehabilitation. The Court granted our client the discharge and placed her on probation. No record of conviction.

R. v. J.M. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Health insurance fraud investigation.
Issue: Given our client's civil settlement of the alleged false insurance claims. whether there was any public interest in proceeding with criminal charges.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to negotiate an appropriate civil settlement and repayment to the employer. No criminal prosecution.

R. v. K.D. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Mischief Under $5000 (reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given our client's background and rehabilitative efforts, whether it was in the oublic interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persude the criminal charge upon our client entering into a 12 month peace bond. No criminal record.

R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Theft under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client's background and remorse, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to admit our client into the Alternative Measures program. Upon completion, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings, bringing the matter to an end. No criminal conviction.

R. v. N.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5,000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Given our client's background, was it in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program and, upon our client's completion of the program, Crown enteres a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. v. C.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Fraud (in the range of $50,000).
Issue: Based on information Mr. Gauthier was able to provide to the civil investigators about our client's personal circumstances, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to settle the matter civilly on our client's behalf. No charges were recommended. No criminal record.

R. v. A.L. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to steer our client through the police investigation by providing information to police on our client's behalf. Ultimately, Crown counsel decided to not approve any criminal charge. No jail; no criminal record.

R. v. A.Z. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given information we provided to Crown counsel regarding our client's background, the circumstances of the incident and the complainant's wishes, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings, bringing the case to an end.  No criminal record.

R. v. I.R. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual assault, assault x 2
Issues: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, and whether our client should be excused from having to register as a sex offender.
Result: Upon hearing Mr. Johnston’s submissions regarding our client’s personal circumstances, rehabilitative progress, and the unusual nature of the offences, the Court imposed a sentence of probation, rather than the conditional sentence the Crown had sought. For the same reasons, the Court also agreed to excuse our client from the usual requirement of having to register as a sex offender.

R. v. R.A.M. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Robbery, uttering threats, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose
Issues: Whether there was a reasonable chance our client would be convicted at trial, and whether there was public interest in continuing to prosecute our client.
Result: Given Mr. Johnston’s representations on behalf of our client and the unusual circumstances of the offence, the Crown agreed there would be difficulty establishing our client was the one who committed the alleged offences, and that it was not in the public interest to continue prosecuting our client. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.  

R. v. M.M. – Merritt Provincial Court

Charges: Assault, breach of release order (x3) Issue: Whether there was a reasonable prospect our client could be convicted of all charges at trial, and what the appropriate sentence would be.
Result: Mr. Johnston persuaded the Crown they were unlikely to prove most of the charges at trial given issues with the credibility and reliability of Crown witnesses and the fact our client had a valid defence to one of the charges. Our client pled guilty to one count of breach, which he had been prepared to admit from the outset, and the Crown directed stays of proceedings on all other counts. Given information Mr. Johnston provided about our client’s circumstances at the time of the offences and his rehabilitative efforts since, the Crown also  agreed to support a time-served sentence with no probation, even though our client had a lengthy criminal record and had recently been convicted of several breaches for which he had received far longer jail sentences. No further jail. No probation.
   
View All

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees that people must be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in any search case is to analyze the actions of the investigating police officers to test whether their search was, in fact, lawful and authorized by the Charter. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a justice or judge in the form of a search warrant. Where police overreach their authority, and conduct a search based on mere suspicion, rather than probable grounds, we will apply to the court under s.24(2) of the Charter to have the “fruits of the search” excluded from the trial. Without the admission of the property into the trial, the court will likely find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Knowledge

Section 4(3) of the Criminal Code sets out that a person has something in “possession” when they:

  • Are in actual possession of it; or
  • Knowingly keep the thing in any place; and
  • Where one of two persons or more, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has the thing in their custody, it shall be deemed to be in the custody of all of them.

Even in situations where police find an accused in actual possession of stolen property, absent any confession, the accused will be found not guilty if they can establish that they believed on reasonable grounds that they were in lawful possession of the property or that they were acting under the authority of a person whom they reasonably believed had lawful authority over the 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.

Connect