INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The court may infer that property was obtained from a designated offence if the value exceeds the persons property before the offence and their income from other sources cannot account for the increase in value.
SECTION WORDING
462.39 For the purpose of subsection 462.37(1) or 462.38(2), the court may infer that property was obtained or derived as a result of the commission of a designated offence where evidence establishes that the value, after the commission of that offence, of all the property of the person alleged to have committed the offence exceeds the value of all the property of that person before the commission of that offence and the court is satisfied that the income of that person from sources unrelated to designated offences committed by that person cannot reasonably account for such an increase in value.
EXPLANATION
Section 462.39 of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with the issue of property obtained or derived as a result of a designated offence. It allows for the court to infer that the property was obtained through the commission of an offense if the evidence shows that the value of all the person's property after the commission of the offense exceeds the value before and that the income from unrelated sources cannot account for the increase. The purpose of this provision is to help prosecutors in their efforts to confiscate the proceeds of crime acquired by individuals through criminal activities. It recognizes that individuals who commit designated offenses may often conceal or launder their ill-gotten gains, making it difficult for law enforcement officials to trace or seize the property. The section provides a tool for prosecutors to shift the burden of proof to the individual accused of a designated offense. The court may infer that the property is the result of the commission of the offense if the prosecutor can establish that there has been an increase in the value of property that cannot be explained by any legitimate income. This provision is an important tool for combating organized crime and other forms of criminal activity. It serves as a deterrent to those who seek to profit from criminal enterprises, and it makes it easier for law enforcement officials to crack down on these activities. As such, it is an important part of Canada's broader strategy for combating crime and protecting the public.
COMMENTARY
Section 462.39 of the Criminal Code of Canada is designed to allow for the inference that property was obtained or derived as a result of the commission of a designated offence. This inference can be made if the evidence shows that the value of all the property owned by the person alleged to have committed the offence exceeds the value of all their property before the commission of that offence. If the court is then satisfied that this increase in value cannot reasonably be accounted for by income from sources unrelated to designated offences committed by the person, then it can be assumed that the property was obtained or derived as a result of the commission of a designated offence. This section of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important tool in the fight against organized crime and other criminal enterprises that generate large amounts of illicit income. By allowing for the inference that property was obtained as a result of a designated offence, even if there is no direct evidence of such a crime, the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to explain how they obtained their wealth. However, it is important to note that this section of the Criminal Code of Canada is only one part of a larger framework for combating money laundering and other financial crimes. Law enforcement agencies must still gather evidence and build a case against alleged criminals, and the courts must carefully consider all the evidence presented before making any inferences or findings. Furthermore, it is also important to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected and that innocent people are not unfairly targeted or falsely accused. The use of inferences and presumptions in criminal cases must be carefully regulated and monitored to ensure that they are used responsibly and that they do not infringe on the rights of the accused. Overall, Section 462.39 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important tool in combating financial crimes and holding criminals accountable for their actions. However, it is also important to ensure that this tool is used responsibly and in accordance with the principles of justice and fairness.
STRATEGY
Section 462.39 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows the court to make an inference that property has been obtained or derived from the commission of a designated offence, if the evidence establishes that the value of the accused person's property has increased beyond what can be reasonably accounted for by income from unrelated sources. This section is particularly relevant in cases involving money laundering, where the accused may try to conceal the source of their income. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that should be taken into account, and several strategies that could be employed. One strategic consideration is the burden of proof. In order for the court to draw an inference under Section 462.39, the Crown must provide evidence that establishes the increase in the accused person's property and demonstrates that their income from sources unrelated to designated offences cannot reasonably account for such an increase. This means that the Crown must be able to demonstrate a clear link between the accused person's property and the designated offence. The defence may choose to challenge this evidence, for example, by pointing out any gaps or weaknesses in the Crown's case. Another strategic consideration is the timing of the offence. Section 462.39 is only applicable where the value of the accused person's property increased after the commission of the designated offence. This means that if the accused person already had significant assets before committing the offence, it may be more difficult for the Crown to establish that the increase in their property value was a result of the offence. The defence may choose to focus on demonstrating that the accused person's pre-existing assets are sufficient to explain the increase in property value. A third strategic consideration is the value of the property. Section 462.39 only applies where the value of the accused person's property has increased significantly after the commission of the designated offence. This means that where the increase in property value is relatively small, it may not be appropriate for the court to draw an inference that the property was obtained or derived as a result of the offence. The defence may choose to focus on demonstrating that the increase in property value is not significant enough to warrant such an inference. Strategies that could be employed when dealing with Section 462.39 include challenging the Crown's evidence, demonstrating that the accused person's pre-existing assets are sufficient to explain the increase in property value, or arguing that the increase in property value is not significant enough to warrant an inference that the property was obtained or derived as a result of the offence. The defence may also choose to focus on demonstrating that the accused person did not have knowledge of the source of the funds, or that the funds were not derived from criminal activity. Ultimately, the strategy employed will depend on the circumstances of the case and the strength of the evidence presented by both sides.