INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Possession of property or proceeds from crime, knowing it was obtained illegally, is a criminal offence.
SECTION WORDING
354(1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from (a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or (b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.
EXPLANATION
Section 354(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada criminalizes the possession of any property, thing or proceeds obtained through the commission of an indictable offence in Canada or an offence that, if committed in Canada, would have been indictable. This section is designed to curb the use of ill-gotten monies, property or proceeds that have been acquired through the commission of criminal offences. The possession of such property or proceeds, with the knowledge that they are the fruit of criminal activity, is an offence punishable by law. This law makes it illegal for anyone to knowingly benefit from the proceeds of an illegal activity, even if they themselves did not participate in the commission of the crime. The purpose of this law is to discourage individuals from profiting from criminal activity or aiding the perpetrators of such activities. This section of the Criminal Code not only punishes accomplices but also those who intentionally or negligently ignore the fact that they are benefiting from criminal activity. In conclusion, Section 354(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a law that seeks to prevent individuals from benefiting from criminal activities by making it illegal to possess property, thing or proceeds acquired through illegal means. It is a part of the Canadian criminal justice system's ongoing commitment to promoting the rule of law and ensuring that crime does not pay.
COMMENTARY
Section 354(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada represents a crucial aspect of Canadian law concerning possession of stolen property. It is an essential provision that serves the purpose of defining the offence of possession of stolen property, outlining its essential elements, and clarifying its legal consequences. The section defines the offence as the act of having in one's possession any property, thing, or proceeds with knowledge that all or part of these items were obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from an offence punishable by indictment that occurred in Canada or an act or omission, anywhere, which, if it had taken place in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment. The offence contemplated in this section extends to both the principal offender and the individual holding the proceeds of a criminal offense. To secure conviction under section 354(1) of the Criminal Code, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had possession, knowledge, and the requisite intent. Possession means having physical custody or control over the subject matter without necessarily owning it. The knowledge and intent elements are vital, as they demonstrate the accused's guilty mind in possessing the stolen property. The accused must have factual knowledge that they possessed stolen property and legal knowledge that possessing that property is criminal. The intent in possession means that the accused must have been aware that the property was stolen and that they intended to derive some benefit or advantage from it. In evaluating cases under section 354(1), the courts usually apply the general rule that the Crown must prove possession, knowledge, and intent before the accused can be convicted of the offense. The courts have also developed the concept of "wilful blindness" as an important legal principle in cases where the accused has chosen not to inquire or investigate the sources or origins of the item they possessed. In such situations, where the accused has deliberately refused an inquiry into the property's source, the courts may infer knowledge on the part of the accused, leading to a conviction under section 354(1) of the Criminal Code. The consequences of conviction under section 354(1) of the Criminal Code can be significant. It is an indictable offense, meaning it carries a possible sentence of up to ten years imprisonment. Judges have also imposed substantial fines, restitution orders, and other penalties, such as forfeiture of the unlawfully gained proceeds or property. Section 354(1) of the Criminal Code is an important tool in the fight against crime and serves as an effective deterrent to those who are considering possessing proceeds or property from criminal activity. In conclusion, section 354(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a core provision in the criminal law of Canada, and it plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system by criminalizing possession of stolen property. The section provides a legal framework to identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals who possess stolen property, proceeds, or things. Convictions under section 354(1) have significant consequences and act as a deterrent for potential offenders. Overall, section 354(1) serves as a vital legal instrument in fostering respect for the laws of Canada and curbing criminal activities in Canada.
STRATEGY
When dealing with section 354(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that need to be taken into account. The section essentially criminalizes possession of any property or proceeds that the offender knows have been obtained through illegal means. This means that it is not necessary for the offender to have committed the original offence from which the property or proceeds were derived - mere possession of such items is sufficient to warrant a charge under this section. One of the key strategic considerations when dealing with this section is the concept of knowledge. In order to be convicted under section 354(1), the offender must have known that the property or proceeds were derived from an offense punishable by indictment. This knowledge requirement is a high threshold to meet, which means that the prosecution will need to prove that the offender had actual knowledge of the origin of the property or proceeds. This can be difficult to establish, particularly if the offender has taken steps to distance themselves from the original offense. Given this high threshold, one strategy that could be employed when dealing with section 354(1) is to deny knowledge of the origin of the property or proceeds. This could involve claiming that the property was legitimately obtained or that the source of the proceeds was unknown to the offender. However, this strategy is risky, as it may require the offender to provide an alternative explanation for how they came into possession of the property or proceeds. Another strategic consideration when dealing with section 354(1) is the jurisdictional reach of the section. It covers not only offenses committed in Canada but also acts or omissions committed elsewhere that would be punishable by indictment if they had occurred in Canada. This means that an offender could be charged under this section for possessing property or proceeds that were obtained through illegal means in another jurisdiction. This broad jurisdictional reach means that it may be easier to establish the origin of the property or proceeds, as they may be linked to offenses that occurred in other countries. A potential strategy in light of this broad jurisdictional reach could be to argue that the offender did not have the necessary knowledge of the offense in question. For example, the offender could claim that they were unaware of the legal status of the activity that led to the proceeds or property in question. However, as noted earlier, this would require the offender to provide an alternative explanation for how they came into possession of the property or proceeds, which could be difficult to do. Overall, when dealing with section 354(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is important to consider the high knowledge threshold required for a conviction, as well as the broad jurisdictional reach of the section. Strategies that could be employed include denying knowledge of the offense, arguing that the offender did not have the necessary knowledge, or providing an alternative explanation for how the property or proceeds were obtained. However, each of these strategies carries risks and would need to be carefully considered in light of the specific circumstances of the case.