# Province targets alleged sex offender's home



## GAP (30 Dec 2010)

Interesting....glad to see them hitting the pocketbook of the criminals via homes, cars, etc.....Do other provinces do this?

 Province targets alleged sex offender's home
Article Link
By: Gabrielle Giroday Posted: 30/12/2010 

The province has filed a civil suit aimed at seizing the Winnipeg home where a soccer coach allegedly abused a preteen girl who played on his team.

The coach made headlines earlier this year when he was charged with abusing the player between December 2008 and May 2010, beginning when she was 11 years old.

The girl had confided in her coach about family problems and the abuse allegedly escalated to the point where they shared explicit photos with each other and had sex in the man's Winnipeg home, according to court documents.

The man hasn't been tried on the criminal charges and remains in jail.

However, provincial officials are now going after his home because they say it was an "instrument" in a serious crime.

"What we're saying generally to the public is that if you're using property to assist in a criminal activity, don't expect to keep that property," said Gord Schumacher, provincial director of the criminal property forfeiture unit.

"That goes to drug dealers: If you're using your car or using your house, don't expect to keep it. That goes to the person who's producing child pornography in the basement: If you're using that house... and you're producing illicit documents or pictures or whatever you're doing, don't expect to hide behind those walls later."

Schumacher said the latest legal move is "unusual" because previously the unit has focused on things like "drug houses, grow-op houses (and) the cars drug dealers use," under the province's Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. The province says under the act, people can lose their property to the government if a court rules they used it for unlawful activity or bought it with proceeds of unlawful activity.

The law says Manitobans can also lose their cash or cars for the same reasons.
More on link


----------



## dapaterson (30 Dec 2010)

There are problems with taking this sort of action prior to a conviction.  There's the fundamental issue of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Seizing assets may prevent the person from hiring effective legal counsel.  There's also, generally, a lower standard of proof required under most seizure legislation - meaning he could, ultimately, be found not guilty but still have lost his home.

It also creates perverse incentives for local governments or law enforcement - if they receive the proceeds from seizures, it's in their interest to take more, not less.


----------



## GAP (30 Dec 2010)

I agree this should not come into effect until conviction, but if granted the gov. should be able to place a lien on property so it can't be sold off prior to conviction. A lien can always be removed if judged innocent


----------



## dapaterson (30 Dec 2010)

But a lien could also prevent him from taking out a loan on the property - something that may be needed to fund his defence.

No easy solutions.


----------



## Dissident (30 Dec 2010)

The scumbag can rot, but I disagree with forfeiture of assets to the gov. Bruce Montague comes to mind. 

You want to hurt criminals? Keep them in jail for a loooooong time.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are problems with taking this sort of action prior to a conviction.  There's the fundamental issue of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Seizing assets may prevent the person from hiring effective legal counsel.  There's also, generally, a lower standard of proof required under most seizure legislation - meaning he could, ultimately, be found not guilty but still have lost his home.
> 
> It also creates perverse incentives for local governments or law enforcement - if they receive the proceeds from seizures, it's in their interest to take more, not less.



This is exactly what the McSquinty Gov't of Ontario did to Bruce Montague.

http://brucemontague.ca/html/index.html


----------



## Container (30 Dec 2010)

There has to be a middle ground. Its ridiculous hard to seize assets of known, convicted criminals in this country.

In my own experience with attempts, and in dealings IPOC units it is very difficult. Im not saying it cant be done, or that it should be very easy. But the system could use an overhaul.

I had  a dealer convicted and in court when his assets were applied for- his wife said that she bought everything with money from her career.

 :-\


----------



## Dissident (30 Dec 2010)

Exactly.

Criminals will be prepared and find ways around it. 

Average Joe getting caught doing something wrong will be the easy target.


----------

