INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section clarifies that other laws related to forfeiture of property are not affected by Part 83.
SECTION WORDING
83.17 (1) This Part does not affect the operation of any other provision of this or any other Act of Parliament respecting the forfeiture of property.
EXPLANATION
Section 83.17(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that has been included in the Code to clarify the relationship between the forfeiture of property that is connected to crime and the provisions under Part II. Part II of the Criminal Code deals with offences related to terrorism. The section essentially states that the provisions of Part II related to the forfeiture of property do not affect other provisions of the Criminal Code or any other laws related to the forfeiture of property. In other words, the provisions for the forfeiture of property in Part II of the Criminal Code do not overrule or affect the provisions for the forfeiture of property found elsewhere in Canadian law. This provision is important because it clarifies that the forfeiture of property as a penalty for criminal conduct can be applied in a variety of contexts, not just in cases that fall under Part II of the Criminal Code. For example, the Criminal Code contains specific provisions for the forfeiture of property in cases related to drug trafficking or organized crime. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the Canadian legal system has the tools it needs to combat crime and protect the interests of victims, even if the crime in question is not related to terrorism. By clarifying that the forfeiture of property provisions in Part II do not limit the scope of other forfeiture provisions in Canadian law, this section helps to ensure consistency and coherence in the Canadian legal system.
COMMENTARY
Section 83.17(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the forfeiture of property. This section states that this part of the code does not affect the operation of any other provision of this or any other act of parliament respecting the forfeiture of property. The forfeiture of property is a legal process whereby property is seized by the government. In most cases, forfeiture is used as a tool to combat criminal activity. When property is seized, the owner of the property loses all rights and control over it. The seized property is then subject to a legal process to determine whether the property may be forfeited to the government permanently or returned to the owner. The Criminal Code of Canada has numerous provisions for the forfeiture of property. Section 83.18 requires the forfeiture of property that was used in the commission of an offence related to terrorism. Section 462.34 allows the court to order the forfeiture of property that was obtained or derived from the commission of a criminal offence. There are also provisions for the forfeiture of property related to drug offences, criminal organizations, and proceeds of crime. Section 83.17(1) clarifies that the provisions for the forfeiture of property in the Criminal Code of Canada do not operate in isolation. The forfeiture of property must be considered in the context of other acts of parliament that deal with the same issue. This means that the government can use different forms of legislation, such as the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, to forfeit property in addition to the Criminal Code of Canada. In summary, section 83.17(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that provides clarity on the forfeiture of property. This regulation clarifies that the Criminal Code of Canada is not the only act of parliament dealing with the issue of forfeiture of property. This provision ensures that the government has multiple options for forfeiture and can use the most appropriate legislation for the case at hand. Therefore, this provision plays a significant role in ensuring the effectiveness of the forfeiture of property laws in Canada.
STRATEGY
Section 83.17(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision related to the forfeiture of property in cases involving terrorism and national security. The provision clarifies that this part of the Criminal Code does not affect the application of other forfeiture laws in Canada. For instance, other Acts of Parliament could still allow the Crown to seize assets of individuals who are suspected of committing terrorist offences or being involved in other criminal activities such as money laundering or drug trafficking. Strategic considerations when dealing with section 83.17(1) would depend on various factors, including the nature of the offence, the type of property involved, and the jurisdiction where the forfeiture proceedings would take place. Generally, there are two broad strategies that could be used: proactive and reactive. Proactive strategies involve taking steps before any forfeiture proceedings are initiated to protect one's property or minimize the risk of property seizure. For instance, individuals who are likely to be targeted under the Criminal Code or other Acts of Parliament could consider transferring assets to a trust or a corporate entity, which may reduce the likelihood of assets being seized by authorities. Additionally, individuals could consider obtaining legal advice from a lawyer with expertise in forfeiture law, who can provide guidance on how to mitigate the risk of forfeiture. Reactive strategies, on the other hand, take place after assets have been seized, and involve challenging the Crown's claim to the property. A common strategy is to argue that the asset was not used in the commission of a crime or that it was not the proceeds of a crime. This may require obtaining expert evidence or demonstrating a lack of intent on the part of the owner to use the property for illegal purposes. Another approach is to challenge the constitutionality of the forfeiture laws themselves, arguing that they violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other legal principles. One key consideration in all forfeiture cases is the burden of proof. In Canada, the onus is on the Crown to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the property is connected to a criminal offence. This means that individuals fighting forfeiture will need to contest the Crown's evidence and provide their own evidence to support their claim. Another strategic consideration is the potential impact of forfeiture on one's reputation and business interests. Even if property is later returned, the damage to one's reputation or the loss of business opportunities could be substantial. Therefore, individuals and organizations facing forfeiture proceedings may have to weigh the costs and benefits of challenging the Crown's case, negotiating a settlement, or cooperating with authorities. In conclusion, section 83.17(1) is an important provision to consider when dealing with forfeiture proceedings in Canada. While the provision allows other Acts of Parliament to govern forfeiture, there are still strategic considerations that individuals can take to protect their assets and defend against forfeiture claims. The choice of strategy will depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the objectives of the parties involved.