section 467.1(2)


Facilitation of an offense does not require knowledge or actual commission of the offense for the purposes of this section.


467.1(2) For the purposes of this section and section 467.11, facilitation of an offence does not require knowledge of a particular offence the commission of which is facilitated, or that an offence actually be committed.


Section 467.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada serves as a legal provision that outlines the concept of facilitation of an offence. The section specifies that for the purposes of this section and section 467.11, the facilitation of an offence does not require knowledge of a particular offence the commission of which is facilitated, or that an offence actually be committed. Essentially, this means that the act of facilitating a crime does not necessarily require specific knowledge of the crime being committed or even the actual commission of the crime; it is enough that the individual's actions helped to make the crime possible or easier to commit. For example, imagine a scenario where a person provides someone else with the tools necessary to break into a building, but does not know and is not part of the actual break-in itself. In this case, even if the crime committed is not the same as what the individual had in mind when providing the tools, they can still be charged with facilitation of the crime. Overall, Section 467.1(2) serves as an important legal provision that helps to capture individuals who may be indirectly facilitating crime, even if they are not directly involved in the commission of the offence. By providing a broader definition of facilitation, this section ensures that the law can effectively combat criminal activity and hold all those involved accountable.


Section 467.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada deals with facilitation of an offence and the essential elements of this offence. Not all offences committed are done so without the aid of others, and facilitators have long been considered as aiding and abetting the commission of the crime. Hence this section is significant in that it defines the meaning of facilitation and its attribution in the commission of offenses. The basic premise of the section is that facilitation of an offense does not require knowledge of a particular offense that the culprit intends to facilitate or whether an offense is actually committed. This interpretation makes it clear that the facilitator need not have explicit knowledge of the details of the crime they seek to facilitate. As such, the facilitator may be held liable for any crime they help to facilitate, even if they do not know the specifics of the crime. This inclusion of knowledge in facilitation ensures that any individual aiding in the commission of a criminal act is held responsible, regardless of whether they are aware of the crime's precise nature being facilitated. In practical terms, this means that facilitators of offenses such as smuggling, laundering, false statements, or forgery, can be punished under this provision even if the facilitator does not have full knowledge or intention of the specific offence. Therefore, the facilitator will bear the same legal burden as the principal offender, effectively discouraging individuals from participating in criminal activities or aiding others in the same. It is a legal strategy that has been hugely successful in reducing criminal activities and has been used by various countries worldwide. Given the absence of the requisite knowledge aspects, the section clarifies that facilitation is a wide-ranging concept that applies to all manner of offences that are committed in Canada. Therefore, no matter the type of crime, whether serious or not, facilitators will be held to account for their role in the commission of the criminal act. The framing of this section is also a testament to Canada's commitment to deterrence and the fight against crime, showing that any form of help can be culpable. Furthermore, this section reinforces the Canadian legal system's commitment to ensuring that all individuals receive equal protection under the law. In conclusion, section 467.1(2) proves to be a critical component of Canada's Criminal Code in regulating the commission of offences and bringing individuals to account. As a result of this provision, it is clear that individuals who provide assistance or aid to others in the commission of a crime will be prosecuted just as severely as those who directly commit the crime. This provision acts as an efficient legal instrument to reduce crime rates in Canada, and its application to other areas of law may further strengthen the legal system in curtailing criminality.


Section 467.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, in essence, makes it easier for the authorities to charge individuals with the facilitation of an offense. The provision states that the facilitation of an offense does not require knowledge of the specific offense committed or whether an offense was indeed committed. This section primarily seeks to keep individuals from being able to use ignorance or lack of knowledge as a defense against prosecution. A strategic consideration when dealing with this section of the Criminal Code is that it significantly lowers the burden of proof required to charge and convict an accused. The prosecution does not need to show that the accused knew that a crime was being facilitated or that the actual crime was committed. The more relaxed standard makes prosecutions easier and increases the potential of conviction, which can deter other individuals from attempting to facilitate an offense. Another strategic consideration is that the provision targets individuals who seek to aid or encourage the commission of offenses, regardless of the offender's intent or knowledge of the crimes committed. The broad interpretation of this provision could lead to targeting individuals who may have innocently helped an offender without knowing about the crimes committed, thus creating frustration and anger among the populace. As such, there is a need to balance the provision's intent with the potential collateral consequences of its enforcement. One potential strategy that could be employed is to provide education and disseminate information to the public on the Criminal Code provision. There should be awareness-raising campaigns aimed at the general public, so individuals can learn about their responsibilities when dealing with individuals that may commit a crime. The authorities should also take steps to distinguish between those who knowingly aid in the commission of the offense and those who unknowingly provide assistance. Another strategy is to provide protection to individuals who inadvertently provide assistance by creating safe harbor provisions within the law to protect certain professionals such as lawyers or accountants who unknowingly assist in a crime. This would prevent individuals from incurring legal and financial troubles stemming from actions that were not taken with malicious intent. In conclusion, the Criminal Code provision that facilitates charging individuals with the facilitation of an offense is critical for combating criminal activity. However, authorities must balance the provision's intent with the potential collateral damage it may have on the public. As such, the authorities should look to provide a balance that makes it easier to prosecute criminals while protecting those who innocently provide assistance.