Quote:
Originally Posted by dangonay
This was clearly posted a few pages back...
Why are people saying this should be challenged in the Supreme Court when it's the Supreme Court that decides if the property should be forfeited in the first place? The RCMP don't make these decisions, politicians or government officials don't make them, a Supreme Court judge does.
Like I said earlier, nobody knows a damn thing about what happened in court, so bitching about it being a stupid law is pointless.
|
Actually, I'd like to correct some misconceptions here:
1) An appointed official makes an APPLICATION to the Supreme Court about an asset they wish to forfeit.
2) The Supreme court reviews the file and either issues APPROVAL of the application or refuses to issue the forfeiture order. Approval of the application means that a hearing will be set, not that the asset will be forfeited.
3) A hearing is set by the Supreme Court but the parties are allowed to settle privately outside of court. The reason you haven't found any record of this case is because all civil forfeiture cases in BC has been settled out of court. Essentially, the Crown reached an agreement with the owner of the Ferrari and M6 allowing them to keep a portion of the proceeds of the sale of their vehicle rather than confiscating them outright. So there has NOT been a case yet where the Supreme court has decided that the asset forfeiture is justified.