WHY NO "RICO" IN CANADA???
D. Rodney Smelser
I didn't want to join in some of the other threads relating to Justice
Minister Allan Rock's rejection of a Montreal police request for new
legislation to deal with Biker Gangs. Those threads had started out on
the usual note of Quebec versus Canada that corrupts and disenables any
reasoned discussion of real issues in Canadian federal politics.
My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
States?
I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
of the street.
Rod
Paul Arsenault
In article <5gs5rq$p...@fountain.mindlink.net>, rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca
says...
[snip]
>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>States?
[snip]
This is exactly what we need. What the Quebec police seem to be requesting, and
Alan Rock is rightfully rejecting, is called "prior restraint". That is, if you
are arrested, and are a member of a gang, you get a stiffer sentence not
because of what you did, but because the police think you might do something in
the future. RICO laws tie your punishment to your actions i.e. if you deal
drugs as part of a gang, the government can confiscate the very house you sold
drugs from. As an aside, it is interesting to see that Mr. Rock understands
proir restraint, since his bill C-68 is such a clear violation.
>Rod
Paul Arsenault
--
pea AT nbnet DOT nb DOT ca
Werner Knoll
"D. Rodney Smelser" <rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>>On 20 Mar 1997 20:14:50 GMT, "D. Rodney Smelser"
>><rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>>>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>>>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>>>States?
>>>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>>>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>>>of the street.
>>Good point Rod and we most certainly need some legislation to combat
>>organized crime in this country and more specifically in this very
>>province. Protection rackets (island highway), Bingo rackets,
>>funneling public money to the Cayman Islands, gambling. Its never
>>going to end until the government protects us from these crooks.
>
>
>I had invited responses from lawyers and police officers, and from
>racketeers and mobsters.
>
>
>John Corman claims to be some kind of accountant, or financial manager,
>or money handler of some sort. Let me take this opportunity, then, to
>thank John for responding to the call with his opinions.
>
>
>Rod
>
>
Gee Rod you left many people out of this debate. I do not belong to any of
this group of people you listed. I am sure passing a law like this would
affect all political parties to some degree.
The Liberal and other right wing parties may be a little better off than
the other parties, because the average guy on the street feels that a law
like this made by the Liberals or other free enterprise parties will have
many exemptions to protect the free enterprise system.
Werner Knoll.
D. Rodney Smelser
>Minister Allan Rock's rejection of a Montreal police request for new
>legislation to deal with Biker Gangs. Those threads had started out on
>the usual note of Quebec versus Canada that corrupts and disenables any
>reasoned discussion of real issues in Canadian federal politics.
>
>
>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>States?
>
>
>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>of the street.
>
>
>
>
> I have read that those in the business of constitutional law in
> Canada, (and it has become a business), feel that a law similar
> to RICO would not pass a charter challenge and Allan Rock, earlier
> this week, echoed that sentiment.
Well, Barry, that's interesting, and it's consistent with what Rock said
about "status criminals".
But the US also has an entrenched Charter or Rights, their Bill of
Rights, and they have had it for a lot longer than we have had our
Charter. How has the US RICO statute managed to survive constitutional
challenges? Remember, the American lawmakers do not have a
"notwithstanding" clause that they can invoke to save laws from a
constitutional challenge.
Rod
Barry Bruyea
Rod
Rod
Good question. I think what we are dealing with in any
comparison between the two high courts is a)familiarity &
b)makeup.
The Americans have been ruling their country with the aid of the
high court a lot longer than we have, so therefore, the judges have
a tendency to go with the flow, i.e. rule with the legislature more
often than ours; not always, but certainly more often.
The makeup is important. Americans have to sit in front of the
senate and justify their appointment, therefore any canditate whose
views or past decisions are at complete odds with the elected
officials putting their stamp of approval on the appointment is not
likely to get the job. In our case, the appointment is virtually
without conultation; at least not in any public forum. As a
consequence, our judges tend to put themselves not only above the
legislature and the people, but, and I think, totally apart from the
population. They are still enamored with their position.
A friend of mine in the states always says that when supreme courts
get involved in "governing" a country, the rule of the jury box
excedes that of the ballot box. Trite, but maybe all too true. It
kind of fulfills Trudeau's dream; a country ruled by an elite,
rather than an electorate.
Barry
>
D. Rodney Smelser
jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>On 20 Mar 1997 20:14:50 GMT, "D. Rodney Smelser"
><rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>>States?
>>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>>of the street.
John Corman
On 20 Mar 1997 20:14:50 GMT, "D. Rodney Smelser"
<rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>States?
>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>of the street.
==========================================================
Good point Rod and we most certainly need some legislation to combat
organized crime in this country and more specifically in this very
province. Protection rackets (island highway), Bingo rackets,
funneling public money to the Cayman Islands, gambling. Its never
going to end until the government protects us from these crooks.
Harvey/Sheila
"D. Rodney Smelser" <rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
[Snip of Alan Rock, biker gangs in Quebec and threads degenerating.]
>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>States?
>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>of the street.
>Rod
I'm none of the above, but I have an opinion. We're more sensible
when it come to things like this. ;-)
From what I've read (Unfortunately, I can't remember any speifics.),
RICO lends itself to massive abuse. It's overbroad, or whatever the
term is, vague, and it can be used against almost anyone.
Sheila Paterson
Barry Bruyea
Minister Allan Rock's rejection of a Montreal police request for new
legislation to deal with Biker Gangs. Those threads had started out on
the usual note of Quebec versus Canada that corrupts and disenables any
reasoned discussion of real issues in Canadian federal politics.
My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
States?
I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
of the street.
>Rod
D. Anderson
John Corman <jco...@island.net> wrote in article
> province. Protection rackets (island highway), Bingo rackets,
> funneling public money to the Cayman Islands, gambling. Its never
> going to end until the government protects us from these crooks.
Actually, if Quebec wanted to it could pass such a law. There is nothing
stopping Ottawa or Quebec from passing a RICO type law except - these are
also often the same people getting swimming pools and political donations
for ignoring it. Politicians are lip servicing this one plain and simple.
Maybe consider that next time you vote for the standard quo parties.
Ottawa actually fosters it by providing special racist laws based on
color/heritage in tax free zones, no better seen as in the tax system.
ibm.net
In <5gsg6v$qh1$3...@news1.sympatico.ca>, s...@below.for.address (Paul Arsenault) writes:
>In article <5gs5rq$p...@fountain.mindlink.net>, rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca
>says...
>>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>>States?
If the US jumped off a bridge...
>This is exactly what we need. What the Quebec police seem to be requesting, and
>Alan Rock is rightfully rejecting, is called "prior restraint". That is, if you
>are arrested, and are a member of a gang, you get a stiffer sentence not
>because of what you did, but because the police think you might do something in
>the future. RICO laws tie your punishment to your actions i.e. if you deal
>drugs as part of a gang, the government can confiscate the very house you sold
>drugs from. As an aside, it is interesting to see that Mr. Rock understands
>proir restraint, since his bill C-68 is such a clear violation.
In the states a person who grows a pot plant for personal use can
and sometimes does have his house confiscated. There have been
many allegations of abuse of the RICO law. This
is too sweeping a power for any government to have.
If there was an eye for an eye limitation it would be slightly less
tyranical... but then the courts would be sorting out the financial
impact of crime? Nah too complicated, lets just skip this idea
altogether and put more police on the job to do the old fashioned
police work that will put these bikers away, without turning our
country into a police state.
/----------------------------------------------------------
/ Allen Maher
/ mahera at ibm.net
John Corman
On 20 Mar 1997 20:14:50 GMT, "D. Rodney Smelser"
<rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>States?
>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>of the street.
Good point Rod and we most certainly need some legislation to combat
organized crime in this country and more specifically in this very
funneling public money to the Cayman Islands, gambling. Its never
going to end until the government protects us from these crooks.
Paul Arsenault
[snip]
>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>States?
[snip]
This is exactly what we need. What the Quebec police seem to be requesting, and
Alan Rock is rightfully rejecting, is called "prior restraint". That is, if you
are arrested, and are a member of a gang, you get a stiffer sentence not
because of what you did, but because the police think you might do something in
the future. RICO laws tie your punishment to your actions i.e. if you deal
drugs as part of a gang, the government can confiscate the very house you sold
drugs from. As an aside, it is interesting to see that Mr. Rock understands
proir restraint, since his bill C-68 is such a clear violation.
>Rod
Harvey/Sheila
"D. Rodney Smelser" <rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
[Snip of Alan Rock, biker gangs in Quebec and threads degenerating.]
>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>States?
>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>of the street.
>Rod
Stephen Jenuth
In <5h73ns$m...@nr1.calgary.istar.net> crs...@inforamp.net (Harvey/Sheila) writes:
>"D. Rodney Smelser" <rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>[Snip of Alan Rock, biker gangs in Quebec and threads degenerating.]
>>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>>States?
>>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>>of the street.
>>Rod
>I'm none of the above, but I have an opinion. We're more sensible
>when it come to things like this. ;-)
I would like to think that we are more sensible, but I doubt
that this is the true reason. There seems to be little reason
for the law, given that any significant organized crime offence
can be prosecuted as either a conspiracy, or under the proceeds
of crime legislation. The problem is getting evidence, rather
than not having a law.
I think that the reason why the US has a RICO is largely as a
result of federalism (as it is found in the United States).
In the United States, it seems that criminal law is a state
responsibility. I believe (someone could correct me) that a
state law can only apply within the state. State prosecutions
are conducted by locally elected district attorneys, and this
causes further problems, given that elections cost money and
mobsters have the money to pay for such elections.
Local police forces are in many places also run by locally
elected officials. With all the same problems. As are a lot
of judges in State courts (in contrast with federal courts
which are appointed for life and not elected).
These problems were even greater in the 1960s when the RICO
was proposed/passed.
In summary, the federal government with its "professional"
FBI and attorney general's department had no jurisdiction and
could do nothing about organized crime.
Enter the RICO. Using the "interstate commerce" powers, the
federal government creates the RICO. And presto, federal
jurisdiction, federal police involvement, federal prosecutions,
federal courts, and federal credit when it works or is perceived
to work.
Canada has a different (distinct :-) form of federalism. Criminal
law is federal, and the federal government makes the law. The
federal government has the power to create a police force
(the RCMP) to investigate federal parts of the crimes (which tend
to involve drugs).
There is essentially one unitary court system in each province.
And they most important courts are federally appointed.
While most prosecutions are provincial, they are generally conducted
by professional prosecutors responsible to the provincial government
and not the local government. Police forces (which subject to some
local control) are also responsible to the province (which has the
jurisdiction to change the rules regarding discipline at will).
Of course, there is always a constitutional question in it. If the
federal government passed a RICO who would prosecute? The provincial
government who are responsible for the administration of criminal
justice in the provinces, and the federal government who can
prosecute outside of the criminal law.
Why would anyone enter this can of worms, especially when if
you have the evidence to prosecute a real RICO charge, you
have the evidence to prosecute a conspiracy or a proceeds
of crime charge.
--
Best regards,
Stephen Jenuth (sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca)
-------
"We are going to be governed whether we like it or not... We must
therefore concern ourselves with politics... to mitigate as far as
possible the damage done by the madness of our rulers." P.E. Trudeau
D. Rodney Smelser
Barry Bruyea <qui...@headwaters.com> wrote:
>
> Good question. I think what we are dealing with in any
> comparison between the two high courts is a)familiarity &
> b)makeup.
>
> The Americans have been ruling their country with the aid of the
> high court a lot longer than we have, so therefore, the judges have
> a tendency to go with the flow, i.e. rule with the legislature more
> often than ours; not always, but certainly more often.
That is certainly not the view of American conservatives. Right now
there is a move being sponsored by some conservative Republicans to
impeach some judges, appointed by Clinton, whom they dislike. The reason
often given is that these judges have been too busy writing or rewriting
the law. I think the phrase is "judicial activism".
> The makeup is important. Americans have to sit in front of the
> senate and justify their appointment, therefore any canditate whose
> views or past decisions are at complete odds with the elected
> officials putting their stamp of approval on the appointment is not
> likely to get the job. In our case, the appointment is virtually
>without conultation; at least not in any public forum. As a
>consequence, our judges tend to put themselves not only above the
>legislature and the people, but, and I think, totally apart from the
> population. They are still enamored with their position.
Well, once appointed in the US, judges are secure for life, just as they
are here. So, why should they worry about political or public opinion,
once they have gotten past the confirmation process?
> A friend of mine in the states always says that when supreme courts
> get involved in "governing" a country, the rule of the jury box
> excedes that of the ballot box. Trite, but maybe all too true. It
> kind of fulfills Trudeau's dream; a country ruled by an elite,
>rather than an electorate.
>
> Barry
Trudeau may or may not have had such a dream. If he did, it would have
been an odd one for him to have, on purely Machiavellian grounds, in that
his electoral popularity and power were considerable until the very end,
in 1984.
Rod
D. Rodney Smelser
>>>On 20 Mar 1997 20:14:50 GMT, "D. Rodney Smelser"
>>><rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>>>>My question is simply this: Why is there no RICO (Racketeer Influenced
>>>>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>>>>States?
>>>>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>>>>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>>>>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>>>>of the street.
>>>Good point Rod and we most certainly need some legislation to combat
>>>organized crime in this country and more specifically in this very
>>>province. Protection rackets (island highway), Bingo rackets,
>>>funneling public money to the Cayman Islands, gambling. Its never
>>>going to end until the government protects us from these crooks.
>>
>>
>>racketeers and mobsters.
>>
>>
>>John Corman claims to be some kind of accountant, or financial manager,
>>or money handler of some sort. Let me take this opportunity, then, to
>>thank John for responding to the call with his opinions.
>>
>>
>>Rod
>>
>>
I didn't mean to be unduly exclusive, but I did want some of these people
to step forward and give some knowledgeable answers.
I do not belong to any of
>this group of people you listed. I am sure passing a law like this would
>affect all political parties to some degree.
>
>The Liberal and other right wing parties may be a little better off than
>the other parties, because the average guy on the street feels that a law
>like this made by the Liberals or other free enterprise parties will have
>many exemptions to protect the free enterprise system.
>
>Werner Knoll.
I would hate to think that gross political considerations are the only
reason why such a law does not exist in this country.
Rod
D. Rodney Smelser
sje...@cwlib.cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth) wrote:
>In <5h73ns$m...@nr1.calgary.istar.net> crs...@inforamp.net (Harvey/Sheila) writes:
>
>>>and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
>>>States?
>
>>>I would appreciate replies from lawyers, police officers, and others who
>>>are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
>>>who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
>>>of the street.
>
Thanks to Stephen for a very interesting response.
I am still curious as to why there are no federal criminal laws dealing
specifically with criminal organizations and enterprises, or with
organizations/enterprises that have been corrupted by organized crime. A
criminal organization is much larger and more permanent than a temporary
conspiracy between a few people to commit a certain crime or group of
crimes, such as bumping off two dissidents, and then distributing the
specific kilo of heroin they picked up on March 15th at Pier 27.
In this country the political pressure, at least from Reform, appears to
be directed more at youth crime than organized crime. Bratty kids who
shoplift and vandalize are seen as a greater problem than mobsters. I
guess I just don't know how bratty today's kids can get! Maybe it's the
music they're listening to?
Rod
jaybla...@gmail.com
> In article <5gs5rq$p...@fountain.mindlink.net>, rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca
> says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
> >States?
"In Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions enforce rules and regulations that cumulatively are equivalent to RICO."
I would like to ask, if the federal government behaves in a manner consistent with organized crime in achieving similar ends, then can it be charged with racketeering?
diehls...@gmail.com
Turiyan Gold
> I didn't want to join in some of the other threads relating to Justice
> Minister Allan Rock's rejection of a Montreal police request for new
> legislation to deal with Biker Gangs. Those threads had started out on
> the usual note of Quebec versus Canada that corrupts and disenables any
> reasoned discussion of real issues in Canadian federal politics.
>
> and Corrupt Organizations) statute in Canada as there is the United
> States?
>
> are knowledgeable in this area. And from any racketeers and mobsters
> who may wish to provide some enlightening information from the other side
> of the street.
>
> Rod
The simple answer is that there *is* a RICO statute in Canada. It's just not Canadian law. The issue is one of construement of statute. A dispute between a Canadian province and a US State would be "interstate commerce" See EEOC v. ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO.
In Canada a Special Prosecutor or Private Attorney General under the Civil RICO Act would be more analogous to an Ombuds or Auditor General accountable only to Parliament without any limitations imposed by politically elected government (Prosecutorial Immunity).
ROTELLA V. WOOD (98-896) 528 U.S. 549 (2000) 147 F.3d 438:
"There is a clear legislative record of congressional reliance on the Clayton Act when RICO was under consideration, and the Clayton Act’s injury-focused accrual rule was well established by the time civil RICO was enacted. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil litigation not merely to compensate victims but also to turn them into private attorneys general, supplementing Government efforts by undertaking litigation in the public good."
Turiyan
Turiyan Gold
> I am still curious as to why there are no federal criminal laws dealing
> specifically with criminal organizations and enterprises, or with
> organizations/enterprises that have been corrupted by organized crime. A
> criminal organization is much larger and more permanent than a temporary
> conspiracy between a few people to commit a certain crime or group of
> crimes, such as bumping off two dissidents, and then distributing the
> specific kilo of heroin they picked up on March 15th at Pier 27.
Would a Legitimate enterprise have a PO Box or "Suite" as an address?
Turiyan