Background
In December 2024, border officials at Montréal-Trudeau International Airport seized more than US$37,000 and CA$475 from Jean Carlos Mejia after he returned from Las Vegas without reporting currency worth at least CA$10,000, as required by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. Mejia said the money consisted of casino and sports-betting winnings, plus US$2,000 he had taken to Las Vegas.
Mejia sought administrative review and submitted betting receipts, a casino win/loss summary, videos, and screenshots of casino chips. A ministerial delegate concluded that the evidence did not provide a verifiable paper trail linking the particular currency seized to a legitimate source and confirmed its forfeiture under section 29 of the Act. Mejia sought judicial review of that forfeiture decision; he did not appeal the separate section 27 determination that he had violated the reporting requirement.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Pallotta dismissed the application. The delegate reasonably concluded that Mejia had not met his burden of showing that the seized currency was not proceeds of crime. The receipts before the delegate showed approximately US$8,300 in sports-betting winnings on December 20, 2024, while the win/loss summary did not identify when other winnings were accumulated. The photographs and videos did not establish that the chips belonged to Mejia or had been exchanged for cash.
The Court also declined to consider new evidence in Mejia’s affidavit because it was not before the delegate and did not fall within an exception to the rule limiting judicial review to the administrative record. The RCMP’s decision not to attend the seizure and Mejia’s reporting of winnings on earlier trips did not establish the source of the currency seized in December 2024. The delegate’s reasons were transparent, intelligible, and justified, and the finding that no portion of the seized funds had been linked to an identifiable legitimate source was reasonably open on the record.
Key Takeaways
- A person seeking relief from currency forfeiture must provide sufficient, verifiable evidence linking the specific seized funds to a legitimate source.
- A failure to prove that seized currency is not proceeds of crime does not amount to an affirmative finding that it is proceeds of crime.
- An applicant generally cannot supplement the administrative record on judicial review with evidence that was not presented to the original decision-maker.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that general proof of gambling activity or prior winnings may be insufficient to recover seized currency. Claimants need an objective and complete paper trail connecting the particular cash in their possession to its asserted lawful origin.
It also clarifies the limited scope of judicial review under section 29: the court reviews the reasonableness of the delegate’s forfeiture decision on the record that was before the delegate, rather than reconsidering the border officer’s seizure or accepting new proof of legitimacy. The Attorney General was awarded all-inclusive costs of $1,500.