April 25, 2012
I believe that criminals should pay for their crimes, even if they go to jail their debt to the victim remains or they could work in jail and repay the damages they have occurred. It is not fair for law abiding taxpayers to be saddled with these payments. When people know that they would have to be responsible for their criminal activities no matter how long it takes to repay their debt to society financially, I think that would make a greater difference to
PROVINCE PROPOSES CHANGES TO LEGISLATION TARGETING PROFITS OF CRIME
Amendments to the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act would add protection for victims and decrease the cost and complexity of the forfeiture process for uncontested seizures, Justice Minister Andrew Swan said today as he introduced the proposed revisions.
“This legislation is about making sure that crime doesn’t pay and these proposed changes would make the forfeiture program more effective and efficient in that task,” said Swan.
Under the existing act, the province can apply for a court order to seize the profits from unlawful acts, property bought with those profits and property used to commit crime.
New provisions would establish an administrative forfeiture mechanism for certain types of unclaimed personal property. These unclaimed assets could be forfeited without the expense of having to go to court. If the forfeiture is challenged by someone with a right to claim the property, the province could either stop pursing the forfeiture or go through the court process.
The existing legislation uses the civil law process to pursue property and a criminal conviction against a person is not necessary for the act to apply. However, revisions to the act would establish a process to put the forfeiture on hold, freezing assets to stop them from being sold in cases where there is a parallel criminal process involving victims. It would mean that a victim wouldn’t have to testify in the forfeiture case before giving evidence in criminal courts. The court would need to be satisfied such an order would be in the interests of justice.
The bill would let money from the criminal property forfeiture fund go to the victims’ assistance fund under the Vicitms’ Bill of Rights to support programs and services that benefit victims of crime. As well, enhanced disclosure provisions would give the unit that enforces the legislation better access to information it needs for its applications.
To date, more than $2.5 million in assets has been successfully forfeited to Manitoba through the civil court process. More court actions are underway with 62 statements of claim involving $14 million in assets including cash, vehicles and houses. Revenue generated is used to:
The amended legislation would complement other provincial efforts using civil law to defeat and discourage organized crime and illegal activities, Swan said. Manitoba’s Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act has resulted in the closure of more than 540 unlawful operations such as drug houses, brothels and properties used for other activities which threaten public safety. The Fortified Buildings Act has been used to target fortified gang houses and other buildings.“This legislation is about making sure that crime doesn’t pay and these proposed changes would make the forfeiture program more effective and efficient in that task,” said Swan.
Under the existing act, the province can apply for a court order to seize the profits from unlawful acts, property bought with those profits and property used to commit crime.
New provisions would establish an administrative forfeiture mechanism for certain types of unclaimed personal property. These unclaimed assets could be forfeited without the expense of having to go to court. If the forfeiture is challenged by someone with a right to claim the property, the province could either stop pursing the forfeiture or go through the court process.
The existing legislation uses the civil law process to pursue property and a criminal conviction against a person is not necessary for the act to apply. However, revisions to the act would establish a process to put the forfeiture on hold, freezing assets to stop them from being sold in cases where there is a parallel criminal process involving victims. It would mean that a victim wouldn’t have to testify in the forfeiture case before giving evidence in criminal courts. The court would need to be satisfied such an order would be in the interests of justice.
The bill would let money from the criminal property forfeiture fund go to the victims’ assistance fund under the Vicitms’ Bill of Rights to support programs and services that benefit victims of crime. As well, enhanced disclosure provisions would give the unit that enforces the legislation better access to information it needs for its applications.
To date, more than $2.5 million in assets has been successfully forfeited to Manitoba through the civil court process. More court actions are underway with 62 statements of claim involving $14 million in assets including cash, vehicles and houses. Revenue generated is used to:
- cover the costs of bringing the court application and seizing, managing and selling property ordered forfeited by a court;
- provide grants to support police training and public safety initiatives;
- remedy the effects of the specific unlawful activity that led to the seizure; and
- compensate direct victims of those specific unlawful activities.
- 30 -
I believe that criminals should pay for their crimes, even if they go to jail their debt to the victim remains or they could work in jail and repay the damages they have occurred. It is not fair for law abiding taxpayers to be saddled with these payments. When people know that they would have to be responsible for their criminal activities no matter how long it takes to repay their debt to society financially, I think that would make a greater difference to
No comments:
Post a Comment