This post is presented by our media partner Stratcann
View the original article here.
The BC Government is seeking to seize six properties they say are connected to the proceeds of illicit cannabis production.
Court records show that, following an investigation, the RCMP executed a search warrant at a house in Burnaby on February 1, 2024. In that search, police located several hundred cannabis plants, equipment related to growing cannabis, and more than 14 kilograms of dried cannabis, as well as product labels, packaging materials, scales, and currency.
Then, on February 9, 2024, according to court documents, the RCMP executed a search warrant at a second residential location in Burnaby, where police also discovered several hundred cannabis plants, growing equipment, more than 30 kilograms of dried cannabis, a gun, ammunition, and a bulletproof vest, as well as currency.
The provincial government alleges that no cannabis licences of any kind were associated with either property at the time. The defendants in the case are Jacky Yen Chuang and Li Hua Julie Chen.
The government argues that both properties and four others in Richmond, Abbotsford, and Burnaby are proceeds and instruments of unlawful activity. Some or all the funds used to acquire and/or maintain these properties were proceeds of the unlawful activity, continues the government’s argument, and/or tax evasion in breach of the Income Tax Act.
The allegations have yet to be proven in court.
In an unrelated case, the owners of a cannabis store, the S&M Medicinal Sweet Shoppe in Gibsons, BC, that was raided by BC Community Safety Unit Officers (CSU) in 2020 continue to challenge that raid and associated penalties.
The store owners, Michelle Sikora and Doug Sikora, filed a petition in June 2024, seeking to have the fine levied by the CSU to be retracted. In addition, in 2020, Michelle Sikora sought to have all cannabis seized from their store by the CSU be returned.
The petitioner’s argument was that, in part, the BC government’s actions violated their Charter rights. That first application was denied in 2021, with the provincial government finding that there was no evidence that Sikora had any valid licence or permit for the cannabis.
Then, in December 2021, both petitioners were each issued a Notice of Administration Penalty (AMP) for $118,919.10. This amount was based on the estimated value of seized cannabis being $54,459.55. The government calculates AMP penalties by doubling the value of seized material from a store operating without a licence from the province.
In January 2022, the couple challenged the monetary penalty by requesting an administrative hearing while again furthering their Charter argument, referencing the R v Smith case.
In June 2023, the deputy director of the CSU refined the administrative penalty, issuing the amount only to the corporate petitioner, not two each of the Sikora’s individually. The director also rejected the petitioner’s claim that the search and seizure by the CSU was in violation of sections 7, 8, and 11 of the charter.
The new monetary penalty applied to the corporate petitioner was $105,873.86 based on the estimated retail value of the seized cannabis of $52,936.98.
In June 2024, the petitioners then filed a case at the bar seeking to have the administrative penalty retracted and again sought to have the seized cannabis returned.
The provincial government’s representatives again denied the merits of these arguments, seeking to have the petition denied in a filing in October 2024.
A ruling in the case is pending.
This post was originally published by our media partner here.