Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies ...

Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies:
A Review of the Literature
smuggling, houses used to store contraband) and/or those that are the proceeds of crime. The
forfeiture of crime proceeds can be quite complex as the government must prove the ownership
of property and trace it to criminal behaviour. This latter task becomes more difficult when
individuals keep converting the proceeds into different forms (Abadinsky, 2003:323).
Forfeiture has been criticized on the grounds that innocent parties have been harmed and that
forfeiture laws have often been applied to low-level criminals. Innocent parties can include joint
tenants, business partners, lien holders, and purchasers who have not been informed that a
property subject to forfeiture proceedings was used in, or derived from, the criminal activity of
others. In addition, these laws have been said to turn due process on its head (Abadinsky,
2003:326). Civil forfeiture proceedings, for example, are directed against property (independent
of any criminal proceeding) alleged to have been used in criminal activity. In the American
context, these proceedings require only that the government show probable cause that the
property was implicated in criminal activity. The burden shifts to the property owner who must
show by a preponderance of the evidence that this was not the case (Albanese, 1996:228).
Another objection to forfeiture is that the assets taken are often shared by law enforcement
agencies, creating an incentive for these agencies to target the most wealthy, rather than the most
dangerous offenders (Naylor, 2000).
Yet another concern centers around the storage and disposition of seized and forfeited assets.
The most commonly seized assets are cash and cars, followed by boats, planes, jewelry, and
weapons. Residential and commercial property is seized less frequently, but tends to have a
higher monetary value (Albanese, 1996:230). Once assets are seized, they must be appraised and
then stored and maintained, while ownership and third party claims are heard in court. In the
event of a successful forfeiture proceeding, the property must be disposed of. Storage and
maintenance can be profitable, but can also be costly. The disposal, too, may be difficult as no
buyer may be found for a certain item. The US Marshal’s service has over 200 employees
assigned to handling assets seized by federal agencies and the US Custom’s Service has more
than 100 full-time paralegals to manage seized property (Albanese, 1996:230).
According to Beare (1996:171), the Canadian Proceeds of Crime legislation was not initially
accompanied by measures to manage seized assets. She asserts that, “Unfortunately, no adequate
provision was made for the management and maintenance of the goods seized by police.” The
challenges and liabilities involved in the seizure of certain properties were illustrated by the
RCMP’s seizure, in 1990, of the Ski-Montjoie facility in Quebec. Police investigations indicated
that this resort was owned by drug traffickers who purchased it with money laundered through
Switzerland. At the time of seizure, its market value was approximately $4.5 million. However,
the government faced creditors whose claims totaled $2.5 million. Also, it had difficulty selling
the property as land values in the area declined following the seizure (Beare, 1996: 171).
It became apparent that law enforcement agencies were not equipped to deal with property
management and, hence, in 1993, The Seized Property Management Act was introduced to
authorize the federal government to manage seized property and to dispose of it when forfeiture
is ordered by the courts. A directorate was formed to carry out these and related tasks within the
Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
28 | Research and Statistics Division / Department of Justice Canada