Federal court | Customs and Excise
DECLARATION
Minister reasonably declined to exercise discretion to grant relief from forfeiture
Applicant failed to report on arrival in Canada applicant had currency in excess of $10,000. Applicant was importing currency with value of $21,754. Undeclared currency was seized. Officer suspected currency was proceeds of crime. Manager determined applicant did not ask for interpreter and concluded that language was not contributing factor in applicant’s failure to report currency. Appeals Division determined currency seized under Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (Can.), were to be held as forfeited. Applicant argued there was failure of natural justice as interpreter was not provided to applicant when one was requested at port of entry. Applicant argued Minister failed to reasonably exercise discretion with respect to forfeiture. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant had no basis to argue there was breach of procedural fairness. Applicant did not successfully impugn factual finding that applicant made no request for interpreter. Applicant failed to establish link between seized funds and legitimate source of seized funds. Minister reasonably declined to exercise discretion to grant relief from forfeiture given applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfy Minister that seized funds were not proceeds of crime.
Satheesan v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (Apr. 5, 2013, F.C., Cecily Y. Strickland J., File No. T-1405-12) 227 A.C.W.S. (3d) 106.
Minister reasonably declined to exercise discretion to grant relief from forfeiture
Applicant failed to report on arrival in Canada applicant had currency in excess of $10,000. Applicant was importing currency with value of $21,754. Undeclared currency was seized. Officer suspected currency was proceeds of crime. Manager determined applicant did not ask for interpreter and concluded that language was not contributing factor in applicant’s failure to report currency. Appeals Division determined currency seized under Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (Can.), were to be held as forfeited. Applicant argued there was failure of natural justice as interpreter was not provided to applicant when one was requested at port of entry. Applicant argued Minister failed to reasonably exercise discretion with respect to forfeiture. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Applicant had no basis to argue there was breach of procedural fairness. Applicant did not successfully impugn factual finding that applicant made no request for interpreter. Applicant failed to establish link between seized funds and legitimate source of seized funds. Minister reasonably declined to exercise discretion to grant relief from forfeiture given applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfy Minister that seized funds were not proceeds of crime.
Satheesan v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (Apr. 5, 2013, F.C., Cecily Y. Strickland J., File No. T-1405-12) 227 A.C.W.S. (3d) 106.
