In this episode, host Greg Dent sits down with Chris Thompson, a former lawyer who now works in the provincial government's financial crimes capacity. They dive into the topic of Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs), a powerful tool in the fight against financial crime that has recently been introduced in Canada, starting with British Columbia.
Chris provides a comprehensive overview of UWOs, explaining that they are court orders that compel individuals to explain the source of funds for their assets, even without a criminal conviction. He highlights how UWOs are an important tool for law enforcement, as they help overcome the challenges of tracing complex financial transactions, particularly when it comes to organized crime.
The discussion explores the controversial aspects of UWOs, such as the lower standard of proof required compared to criminal convictions. This raises concerns about the presumption of innocence and the potential for abuse. However, Chris argues that there are safeguards in place, such as the need for court approval, and that UWOs are necessary to prevent criminals from living off the proceeds of their crimes.
The episode also delves into a case study of the successful use of UWOs in the UK, the Haji-Ioannou case, which demonstrates the effectiveness of this tool in addressing suspected proceeds of crime. Additionally, the conversation touches on the practical considerations and future directions for UWOs in Canada, as other provinces may follow BC's lead in introducing this legislation.
Overall, this episode provides a comprehensive understanding of Unexplained Wealth Orders, their importance in the fight against financial crime, and the ongoing debate around balancing law enforcement powers and civil liberties.
Key Takeaways:
· Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs) are a court order that compels individuals to explain the source of funds for assets, even without a criminal conviction.
· UWOs are an important tool in fighting organized crime and removing the proceeds of
crime, as they help law enforcement overcome challenges in tracing complex financial transactions.
· The lower standard of proof required for UWOs(reasonable grounds to suspect) compared to criminal convictions is controversial, as it raises concerns about the presumption of innocence.
· Effective implementation of UWOs requires a balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties, with safeguards such as court approval.
· UWOs have been successfully used in other jurisdictions, such as the high-profile Haji-Ioannou case in the UK, and are now being introduced in Canada, starting with British Columbia.
Okay, welcome to another episode of The know your
compliance podcast. I am extremely excited to be sitting
down with a good friend of mine, Chris Thompson. Now, Chris is
trained as a lawyer and works for the provincial government in
a financial crimes capacity, so I'm his background is wonderful
for the conversation about unexplained law focus, but I'll
let Chris introduce himself, and then we'll get into the topic.
Yes,
I'm a proud former lawyer. The practice of
law was not for me, but it was an interesting venture that led
me to where I am now, which I'm quite happy at. But I mean, if
you guys Google me. You can probably figure out where it
worked. But just as a disclaimer, I am appearing here
in my own capacity and abuse. I'm about to espouse are mine
and mine alone. So
all right, you, you have not been sanctioned or
officially sanctioned,
correct? Cool, cool, yeah, nor is it anything
we'd actually deal with normally. We wouldn't deal with
these. But it's a personal interest to me so well,
I think, and that's actually why I reached out to
you in the first place, is the intersection of your
professional obligations right now and your background as a
trained lawyer and having worked as a lawyer are kind of the
perfect intersection for this specific topic. So with all of
that being said, the topic today we're going to be talking about
is unexplained wealth. Is unexplained wealth orders. And,
well, I wanted to have this conversation because unexplained
wealth orders are newer into Canada. In fact, new into BC,
only at this point in time. But are a really important tool. You
know, we spend our world in on the really trusted side. I think
we spend our life in deep in fin track and fatfa is big component
of unexplained wealth orders. Yes, and so I think there's some
obvious kind of reasons for us to be having a conversation. But
let's start at the very beginning, because some of our
audience won't necessarily know what an explained wealth order
some of our audience comes from other provinces. Some Yeah, so
can you give us, like a two, three minute intro to what an
unexplained wealth order is for a struggle?
So in in one sentence, an unexplained wealth
order is an order from a government or an investigatory
body to explain the source of funds for an asset. And the
context of that is, typically you have investigations that go
into that look into criminal bodies or criminal gangs or any
types of financial non financial crime, and criminals have to
hide the money somewhere. And a lot of the times, the
investigations, for whatever reason, don't result in criminal
charges, or they're hampered in some way, or they can't be
charged threshold, but whatever the case is, but there's these
assets that you're reasonably there's a reasonably sure are
proceeds of crime. I mean, we all know the obvious examples,
the the 18 year old kid at your high school that's driving a
Bentley, right, and mom works at Safeway, and Dad is unemployed
or something like, okay, it does not take a genius to figure out
that that kid's doing something sketchy positive, right? Yeah,
and so fat. If the Financial Action passports is very a
global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog,
they have said essentially that a country must have a non
conviction based civil forfeiture, unless their
constitution for visit, which is our civil forfeiture of the
civil forfeiture office, which is different than an unexplained
wealth order. But Fauci also says that they should also have
a law that forces someone to explain the lawful origin of
property, interesting. And so this, these UW O's are sort of
newer in kind of a worldwide context, and there's a number of
countries that have started. But as you're saying, Yeah, BC, as
far as I know, it was the first Canadian province to do
Yeah. And I mean, from a BC point of view, it came
straight out of the column commission, really, yes. If we
go back to where the the origins of how we got here are,
I think it was recommendation, like 101 it was
like 99 that I'm saying we need people to investigate stuff. And
then number 101 was,
we need a UW, L, we need a new tool in this fight.
Yeah. Now I think some of our listeners are probably going to
pick up on one of the real challenges, and I think we'll
come back to the challenge in a second. But one of the real
challenges is there's kind of a presumption of guilt all of a
sudden, instead of a presumption really sets, is what, what some
would say, yes, yeah. So I think I want to asterisk that up
front, because I know some people are going to be just
focused in on that, because that's the first thing you hear,
yes, if you're not, if you're not thinking through that, well,
if you're not looking at that in a bigger picture of broader
sense kind of thing, yeah. I think where I wanted to kind of
go first though was, Is this a tool that was necessary? I mean,
I acknowledge that fat for recommends it and look like as a
member of the g7 we started fat for, like Canada has clearly
bought into all of this things, whether we've done a good job of
implementing a recommendation. Questions that we signed on for
in the first place, but many would argue we have not, but
that's a that's well outside the scope, but I guess so. One are
unexplained wealth orders a necessary tool, and are they
being used effectively? Or where are we in that continuum? I
suppose that's where I would start. Yeah,
and it depends on what you mean by the word
necessary, like it's it will be an incredibly useful tool, and
it will assist in taking on a lot of organized crime and and
not punishing offenders in the legal sense, but removing some
of the proceeds of crime. But they always say, you know, uh,
crime doesn't pay. Yeah, it does. Actually, it pays quite
well. That's, that's, that's why crime exists. Any, anyone,
anyone who works in any kind of law enforcement agency will tell
you, crime pays very well in the general case, I mean, it's,
we're all doing our best to stop and deter and detect and assess
and disrupt and all those things. But you need tools and
is it necessary? Well, if you want to be able to to take steps
to remove the proceeds of crime, given the legal infrastructure
that we have now, like the charter and all those things,
yeah, I would say yes. I mean, is the world going to collapse
if we don't have them? Yeah, going on. We haven't had them
forever, up until now, and society hasn't collapsed into
energy and chaos. But I think it's an incredibly useful tool,
or could be an incredibly useful tool, and to, again, just assist
in fighting crime in a different capacity, okay? And like
just to, I want to really double down and double
click on something you just said, which I think is hugely
important, crime does pay. Like, that's, oh, yeah, in fact,
that's why crime exists. If, if you could go and make billions
of dollars selling whatever else, you probably wouldn't sell
cocaine. Like, that's crime case, period, full stop. And
that's, that's fundamentally why I'm why I do what I do with the
company, is because I do believe that by by implementing
appropriate controls in businesses, we can actually make
a dent in our society and remove some of the crime that that we
do see, and I like that, that I'm fully bought in, yes. So
that part, I'm on board with
that to some degree, though. That's more of a
preventative thing, like UWS roll out for the fact, well,
yeah. But if you, if you can prevent it, if you can
make it, yeah, if you make it less likely that people are
going to get to keep the keep the money at the end of all
this, yeah, that's true. They're they're less likely to to want
to do it in the first place. It becomes less appealing. Yes. Now
UW owes have been in place in other jurisdictions. Yes. And I
know you did a bit of reading into that ahead of time. Maybe
walk us through. We were talking about off fire. We were talking
about the case in London. That seems like a particularly
interesting, useful to illustrate why these are
important tools in the fight of in financial investigation,
support,
yeah, and that's, I think, one of the one
of the aspects of this being a relatively new thing, is that
it's been used. You start with sort of the most egregious
cases, and you don't want to go with a brand new law the court
and try and test its constitutionality like a
marginal case, right? You want to go in there where the case,
where you literally your brief, can be like, dear court, duh
Stein, the plaintiffs, right? And that seems to have been the
case for a lot of the UWS that I've seen so far. So the
example, I thought a lot of this is, is from a report, and it's a
star Wealth Report, which you can just Google. It's, it's
quite interesting, if you like reading 128 pages on obscure
legal
so for listeners, probably do, actually, to be
honest. So
Well, probably 100% of the people at this table
do, exactly, yeah. So this is a case. That's the Haji ever case
out of the UK. This was 2018 so there was an a guy who worked in
the government of Azerbaijan. He moved to London, he and his
wife, and over the previous 10 years, so from oh six to 2016
she spent 16 million pounds, about 20 million US at Harris,
which is a luxury department store. They bought a house for
13 point 2 million US dollars, which were expenses that were
vastly out of keeping of what her husband could make in his
own home country. And their house was owned by a British
Virgin Islands BVI company linked to both her and her
husband. So this drew the attention of the UK authorities,
as also her husband, had been convicted in 2016 of
misappropriation and fraud. He got 15 years in jail and was
ordered to pay $39 million and so some of the funnier things is
like she spends $20 million at least $2 million at Herods a
year. And there was one I found she spent, uh. Let me pull it up
here. She spent, I think, 30 she spent 600,000 pounds in one day
on a spending spree. She also spent, I think, like, $30,000 in
one shot to Godiva chocolates. That's
a couple of chocolates. That's a couple of
that. Yes, I don't know how long would it
take you to eat $30,000 of Godiva, but that's
a pretty high quality job, true.
So not exactly a sympathetic case. And so here's
a case where, okay, this guy's been convicted in, I assume, he
was convicted in Azerbaijan and sentenced in order to prison.
And this woman's later living in London with what are kind of,
obviously proceeds of crime, like, there's, there's no way
this actually buy this money legally. So then the question
becomes, okay, if you don't have unexplained welfares, how do you
prevent this type of of living large based off your crime? And
I mean, she's not convicted of a crime, you know, it's arguable
whether or not she's done anything wrong, like she's just
been given a blank check from her husband, and maybe she
hasn't, but still, this is the person. These are the proceeds
of crime. And if you want to make crime not pay, you got to
go after these types of things. You absolutely have to, yeah,
and so they did, and that was the first case.
So you started by talking, and I think we didn't
go into the distinction which I'm hopefully vote to make,
which is you started by talking about this is an investigative
tool, yes, and this case just ended up in what sounded more
like forfeiture. In fact. Can we just parse the parse part? Parse
apart for our listeners a little bit for a second, the difference
there between forfeiture and, yeah,
investigation in some cases. I mean, it might
legally, there's a difference. There might be a distinction
without a difference, for the for the general public, but an
unexplained wealth order, in and of itself, is just an order from
the court for a subject to provide information on the
source of welfare property. So like, Hey, okay, you know, haul
someone out of gym class and get them to explain where they got
the money for their Bentley like that. That's it. It's a court
order. You have to go to court. You have to file a bunch of
stuff, and the court will say, yes, okay, you can make this
person tell you where they got the money from. And that's it.
It doesn't give you the authorization to seize it.
Doesn't give you any other powers. You can't freeze it, you
can't do any of those things. You just have the power to
compel the person to provide the information. And then, if the
information is insufficient, well, there's, then, when I was
looking into that, now, there's, there's three possibilities,
yeah, I
think this is not, yeah. Okay, so court grants the order. Well,
let me back up a sec. So what the what the person has to
provide is an affidavit to the court. So there's going to be
some kind of investigator they have to provide. They have to
swear an affidavit to a court saying, and this is BC specific.
It varies a little bit around the world, but the idea is the same.
And I should say, I think we've got a little bit
wrong. Manitoba has also introduced them, but hasn't used
them yet. Oh, okay, so, but BC is the first to use them, and
clearly, directionally, it seems likely that other provinces will
follow suit. That's I like to joke that BC lives in the future
on the water regular, yep,
so the bleeding edge, yeah,
exactly. Yeah, yes.
So if you think you know the high school kids
mentally is proceeds of crime. What do you have to say is on an
affidavit, there's a reason to suspect a person is involved in
illegal activities or as a politically exposed person, you
have to have a reason to believe that the person has an interest
in the underlying property that you're looking to investigate.
The property has to be worth more than $75,000 so you can't
be like, Hey, where's that? Watch from PFO. Like, No. Uncle
counts that. And there has to be one, a serious question to be
tried, that one of these three things are true, that the known
sources of income are insufficient to acquire or
maintain the property. The property was used to engage in
unlawful activity, or the property was acquired or
maintained as a result of unlawful activity. And again,
none of these are beyond a reasonable doubt or even balance
of probabilities. So balance of probabilities is 50% plus one,
yeah, the someone at trial, or fact, a court, whoever has to
find that it's more likely than not that something has something
happened. That's not the standard here. You've got reason
to suspect the person is involved in legal activities.
You have to have a reason to believe that the person has the
interest in the property. And the legal term, serious question
to be tried, basically means it has to make sense what you're
saying, like you can't just ponder stuff up out of thin air.
So a lot of our listeners will become will be
familiar with the concept of reasonable grounds to suspect,
because that's when the threshold for a suspicious
transaction report must be filed okay for fin track filing
purposes. And so this distinction becomes really
important, and really, to me, interesting actually, because
what you're saying is that i. Uh, an unexplained wealth order
doesn't rise to the same level as a as if I'm if I'm hearing
you right anyway, doesn't have to have absolute fact, or
doesn't have to be beyond reasonable doubt. No, no, that's
interesting.
And that's, again, the civil standard.
There's no There's no jail time. People's liberty isn't knows
liberty is threatened here, so you you don't need that beyond a
reasonable doubt standard, okay? And that's where some of the
controversy comes from. Is people saying, like, Well, hey,
they haven't been convicted of a crime. They haven't been any of
this stuff that the onus to prove your innocence is put on a
person who owns the asset. Now, legally speaking, like
conceptually, maybe that's true, depending on on how
sophisticated your understanding of criminal law is. But to be
found guilty of something, you have to be charged with a crime.
Nobody's being charged with a crime, therefore, you're not
innocent of anything anyway, like you're not guilty, you're
not innocent. There's no possibility of you being found
guilty of something because you're not being charged with a
crime, right? So there's no onus on you to prove your innocence
of anything because you're not being charged with a crime.
There's an onus on you to to show that this property at
question isn't the isn't the proceeds of crime, or at least
that you acquired it illegally. And I guess the
debater in me would then say, sure, but if I can't
prove that I acquired this legally, the assumption is that
I acquired illegally. That's correct, and that is an
interesting term from how we normally view a lot of things in
Canada. I think
maybe I mean, if you're used to looking at at
things in the criminal context, that's true, yeah. But anyone
who's ever filed their taxes knows that I was hoping it
brings it's all back to tax. I worked as a tax lawyer, followed
up tax there's certain situations in life where the
subject or the person who owns an asset question is really the
only one that can make sense of something that happens. So I
wouldn't expect CRA to file my taxes, because I know what I did
during the year. I know how my accounting structure set up. I
know. Well, I mean, I, you know, earn a wage. It's fairly
straightforward, like CRA could probably be pretty close to my
taxes. But, you know, I own a house and I got rental income,
they're not going to be able to parse through all my bank
accounts and figure out how much I spent on rental maintenance
like they're just not right without outrageous amounts of
efforts. So there's a quote with something like the the taxpayers
in the unique position of knowing all the information
about the subject, right? So what it's the the theory of
these unexplained wealth orders is that it's not practical for
the government to figure out where you got the money to buy
this asset from. Like, that's going to be prohibitively
complicated for someone who has to compel bank records and
transfers and a lot of these assets. I mean, if, if you're
really good at money laundering, the money will come from
overseas, like it's if you paid for your Bentley with a check
drawn on a Panama bank, yeah? Like, good luck, right? It's
going to take us years to figure that out, to be able to track it
down, and we just don't have the resources to do that. Okay, so I
mean unexplained wealth orders are a means to level the playing
field between law enforcement and criminals, because law
enforcement just doesn't have the resources to figure all this
stuff out, but it's very, very easy for someone. Most of the
time we can get into it's not but most of the time it's fairly
easy for someone who legitimately acquired asset, an
asset, to prove how to legitimately acquire it. Like,
if, I mean, I own a house, like, okay, Chris, who I own this
house? How do you bought this house? Okay, well, here's the
mortgage documents, here's the money, here's where I sold my
old house. Here's the bank records where it all came
through. Here's my income for the last like, it's easy, I can
do it in 10 minutes, right? Fair enough.
And in fact, going back to the taxes, your your
taxes would probably support your case, because that's
legitimately where the money came and you weren't trying to
hide, yeah, I think you weren't trying to hide any money into
that. So, yes, yeah, yes, yes, of course. No, that perfect.
So I think now, sorry, the one part where it
does get interesting is if it's like, I bought this house 15
years ago. Well, I can't get the bank records. No banks keep
records for 789, years. And I don't know if anyone's even
looked at that yet, but the cases in BC are the ones again,
where they're, what are called unsympathetic defendants, where
it's like, well, yes, but yeah, there's going to be at some
point, I think someone's going to say, like, Hey, man, yeah, I
had a great night at a casino in on my 50th birthday, 17 years
ago, and then you I deposited the money as a to the bank
account. But the like, the bank records are long, so that's, you
know, that's a bridge someone's gonna have to cross at some
point. It doesn't sound like a fund bridge track to cross, I
gotta be honest. Well, then the other side of this, maybe then
the government will just think, like. Right? The detractors of
the people who are arguing against this law, they're going
to say stuff like, and it's legitimate that, you know, it
can be abused. Taxpayers may not have the documentation, like all
of that's true in or at least it's plausible, yeah, now there
are safeguards in that this stuff has to go through a court,
like someone in the law enforcement to kind of, like, I
wouldn't be able to just go and see someone Bentley and, like,
start driving it around. Well, thank goodness. And that's I
probably would be able to fit in the Bentley. But anyway, you
know, a lot of the almost any law enforcement power can be
abused, but that's what we have the courts for. And I think
most, most law enforcement agents and most law enforcement
agencies, almost all the time, are trying to do, you know,
proper, defective investigations. And I've, I've
been in situations where I'm like, Okay, well, I asked for
some information. The person's like, Hey, man, X, happened?
It's no one's fault. Like, I had a flood in the basement 10 years
ago. Here's the records. Like, the sewage backed up, like you
want the box, like it's all yours, man. Like, oh, that's
okay. You keep and you give people the benefit of the doubt.
Okay, if there's sort of legitimate reason to, but again,
this is this, UW, Bo, is the one situation while you're not
giving people the benefit of the doubt as a policy, yeah. But if
there's, I think there's different reasons where, if it's
if you've got something that's wildly uncharacteristic with
your income, well, you should have the paperwork, especially
if it's recent.
So it's interesting. I think that, like as as we've
talked through this, to me the the most obvious use case,
immediate use case for this that I think will be interesting when
it eventually happens, is there the common example of where real
estate brokerages are failing in their contract obligations is
when the homemaker or the student buys the west side of
house and Anyway, it's such a it's such a cliche example that
I think it's almost a meme at this point.
But we've had a few of those where you pull land
title and it's like, yeah, owners, so and so, student, 99%
and then 1% mom in where, right?
That question, and now suddenly, maybe that's,
would that be a good example of a good example of a case where a
nine planned author might be useful
if there's ties to crime? Yeah. I mean, it's
again, it's not, it's not a fishing expedition. Okay, we
cannot just look at, you know, the the government, or whatever,
the civil forfeiture office, or anyone the police. Just can't go
wandering around saying like you are an Aston Martin, tell me how
you know how you buy it. No, if you're just a law abiding
citizen, and there's no reasonable grounds to suspect
them, all these other pieces that you're actually tied to
organized crime, you're not
going to get it on its own welfare. If that third
part of that three part test that that actually was
important, but I think is the part that kind of gives us some
comfort and protection, I guess is what you're suggesting. Well,
there's
a the the third part is a serious question to be
tried is the non sources of income or insufficient
properties? Yeah? We Yeah. We still have to go to court with a
bunch of facts, right? We can't just show up with some dude with
a shiny thing and say, like, hey, what that shiny thing? Can
you get him to prove to us how he bought it? Like, no, there's
a process to go through,
so not a tool of bureaucratic welfare, not that
I'm aware of. Okay, yes, yeah. Okay, so I think we've started
to cover this a fair bit, and I think I just want to kind of
make sure we've addressed it, because I think it's the one
thing that people generally kind of get their backs up against
the wall, as you quite rightly said, the BC liberties, Civil
Liberties Association, sorry, came out pretty hard against
unexplainable authorities, yeah. And what's the, what's the case
against? And, I guess, what's the, what's the rationale, where
I think, where you think this probably passes the smell test
that at Port of all, yeah.
So the the case against again, is, like you were
saying, is we have a presumption of accidents, yeah, the general
public writ large has the right to just go about our daily lives
without harassment for police or any investigatory body
generally, right? And the idea is that in order for be this
subject of the scrutiny of the state, they must have some kind
of evidence or probable cause, whatever your standard is, like
that, there are we have, we generally have a right to be
left alone, right? Yeah, and this is a situation where people
feel that your your right to be left alone and your right to be
innocent until proven guilty, that those two things are kind
of being violated, one of the other rights, again, in the
charter, or not in the charter, sorry, but one of our rights is
until proven guilty. Like there's a fundamental concept in
in our criminal system, our criminal systems, and pretty
much everyone's around the world, yeah, that you know, we
would sooner let 99 guilty. People go for free, then put one
innocent person behind bars. And I think that right way to go.
And then it's certainly frustrating in law enforcement
jobs at times, but you know, it's not, it's not supposed to
be easy. It's not supposed to be easy to lock someone up or take
the money or, you know, give them sanctions. And so the
opponents say this concept of we shouldn't have to prove our
innocence, and this concept of basically being left alone by
the state unless we've done something wrong, both of those
are at odds with the idea of unexplained wealth over quite
and like the Azerbaijani lady, has she done anything criminal?
I don't know. Maybe not, like there was no allegations. She
hasn't been charged with anything. She hasn't been
convicted in hasn't been convicted in anything. All she's
done is married some guy who probably extorted millions of
dollars out of whoever, and then she is just living
off the luxury. Yeah, she somehow managed to spend 30
million of dollars. Well, her husband made about a million
dollars in the same period of time, exactly.
Yeah, yeah. And so the the the next step of
that. So my rationale is, my rationale, I think everyone's
rational is, is it, is it conscionable to think that,
okay, just because someone isn't convicted of a crime, that they
should be able to live off the proceeds of crimes, yeah, and
if, like, you take the counter example, like, that's, you know,
brother a and Brother B. Brother B's a drug dealer, earns much
money, buys brother a, a Bentley in a house and all these other
things. Okay, well, do we want to let brother a keep the beta
in the house? I kind of think no. I mean, brother a hasn't
committed a crime. He hasn't done anything wrong. I just
don't think in in sort of a legal system writ large and fat,
if agrees with me, on a worldwide basis, that it just
doesn't make sense, it would offend the sensibilities of most
people, yeah, to see like the little brothers of drug dealers
being able to keep their Bentleys and all these other
proceeds of crime forever.
It does make it a bit easier to become a criminal with
while you personally might not be advanced if your entire
family and the ones you love or whatever will be then, yeah,
you're probably right, yeah.
One of the other things you got to think about,
too with these unexplained wealth orders is it? One of the
goals was to really go after the heads of organized crime gangs.
Okay? Because they're typically structured in a way that the
people up at the top aren't the ones going up and committing the
day to day Crimean, but they're the ones that have the the
mansions. They're crimers. Do crime. They crying. You need to
stop crying. Carry on. Yeah. So yeah, the the heads of organized
crime gangs, you know, the money funnels up and and the low level
guys that keep getting that, getting charged with whatever it
is that they're doing, yeah. And if you want to go after the
upper level Echelon people, it's going to be really, really hard
to get everyone to get everyone to flip on the way up. And an
easier way to do it is just take all their stuff, right if you
can prove that all of this stuff, or at least with an
unexplained wealth order, if they're unable to prove that all
of their assets, or whatever assets you're investigating,
weren't proceeds of crime, weren't not proceeds of crimes,
or too many negatives, if the upper, if the upper members of
the if the Crimean can't prove a legitimate source of their
assets, right, then I think it's, I don't think anyone's
going to be against taking toys away from gangsters. Yeah.
Well, I think that's, that's probably the more
sympathetic approach to this, which is, you know, like the the
guy living in the $20 million mansion who has hundreds of
people selling little baggies of coke? Yeah, I don't like Coke.
Is my thing today, but I've mentioned it twice, being a
lawyer,
our stereotypical Yeah, but crap, I
went BMW to damn it. Oh, it's black, but the turn signals
work. I use them all the time.
Yeah, so, but anyhow, I think that's that becomes a
much more sympathetic argument for general people
to accept. I think, yeah. And one of the
other reasons too is a lot of the times it's really hard, if
not impossible, to get documents from other jurisdictions. Okay,
so if you want to prove that that the particular source of
funds for something was illegitimate and it comes from
Saudi Arabia or Lithuania or, I think the Philippines, don't
quote me on that one, though, like there's some jurisdictions
where various law enforcement agencies in Canada have
agreements with various law enforcement agencies around the
world, both civil and criminal. Criminal, it's typically called
an mlat, a mutual legal assistance treaty. It will take
years, right? Okay? And so if you are a criminal, and you run
your your funds through five countries, and it takes two
years to get an mlat, and take it 10 years to figure out where
the money came from, and that's just not feasible. So criminals
know. Of that, and then they use that. And so these orders are an
attempt to sort of level the playing field between the
criminals that understand the financial obscurity system, or
how to obscure finances, and law enforcement.
Which is, which is why? I mean, I guess if I, if I
go federal policing, would become a federal policing force
who had the tools like unexplained wealth orders is
probably better suited to fight some of these transactional
crimes, which is what you're suggesting. Well,
I mean, we have federal police, we have the
RCMP. I'm not sure that it's necessarily a lack of policing
effort. I think it's just a function of how the system works
like the international system, yeah, and I know the steps
involved, that was at a conference the other day. They
said it takes, you know, the the investigator has to draft an
order, and then they send it, I think, to crown. And then that
takes a while, and then it comes back with some corrections, and
it goes back and forth, and it gets approved somewhere else,
and then it has to go to some office, and then the office
sends it. It all has to get officially translated into,
like, Dutch or something. But then the lady who does the
official Dutch translations is on a two week kayaking trip,
and, like, I don't know Nunavut, or whatever it was, and so she
has to come back. And then the translation happens, and it gets
sent over to the Netherlands. And then, I don't know whatever
Dutch guy does the translation. Like, it's this, it's nuts. And
I kind of liken it to, this is my standard analogy. Do you know
how tennis? This is how I understand tennis. It used to be
played. So do you know where the numbers in tennis come from?
Like the zero, 1530, 3040, okay, no. So it used to be that when
you started, you both stood at like a line, which, let's call
zero, okay, when you won a point, you went 15 feet ahead.
Oh, and when you won that point, you went to 30 feet, you know,
in that point, you went to 40 feet. And one, when you won that
you won the match. That's kind, I feel that sort of like how the
approvals process in law enforcement works. You start at
line zero, and then you go with your supervisor, and then you
hit the ball back and forth. And eventually you hit a winner.
Then they approve it. You move up to line 15, which is the next
level of approval. Then you hit the ball back and forth a bunch
of times. Eventually you hit a winner. Then you go up to line
30, and then, like line 40 is whatever director of the
institution you're running, who has to ultimately sign off on
this thing, and then who might actually get you somewhere all
of a sudden, or who hits it back. And then you have to go
back to line zero and start over again. That sounds terrible. It
is. Yeah, I have said My job is 80% pretty good, 10% awesome,
and 10% mind. I'm only tedious, and some of that is the mind
Emily tedious part. It's just this endless series of back and
forth right now that's not all the time. That's fairly rare.
Most of the time, the stuff gets touched, like once or twice, but
for something where it's like overseas requests are everyone
knows they're a pain, and they take forever, and it's you're
kind of coordinating among a bunch of different institutions
and dealing with different languages in different time
zones, and it's a pain. So these I explained wealth orders are
kind of a means of leveling that playing field between the
criminals and
investigate what right? Okay, and really making
the the transactional side of it a little bit a little bit
easier, makes sense? Yeah, no, no, that makes sense. Cool.
Well, thank you so much. This has been a really, kind of a
helpful analysis in unexplained wealth orders. Ultimately, I
think why they're important. And I think the case that that they
that they may not the civil liberties they might impact, let
me put it that way, and ending that whole balance of whether
they're good or bad, and necessary or evil or whatever, I
think we've kind of hopefully kind of gone through that enough
that our listeners gotta get a sense of that. So thank you so
much, Chris for for understanding the topic and
being willing to spend your time with me talking about it. Happy
to be here, and thanks for being also awesome. Thanks. Thank you.
Bye.