Background
Roberto Iraheta entered Canada from El Salvador carrying US$27,000 but did not declare currency worth at least C$10,000 as required by the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. He told a Canada Border Services Agency officer that the money came from selling trucks in El Salvador, but he could not produce sale documents establishing the source of the entire amount or his ownership of the vehicles. The officer seized the currency as forfeit.
On administrative review, Iraheta submitted two differently worded bills of sale concerning the same truck and the same US$13,500 transaction. The Minister’s delegate confirmed forfeiture because the documents neither established Iraheta’s right to sell that truck nor accounted for the remaining US$13,500. Iraheta sought judicial review and attached additional documents concerning a second truck that were not in the record before the Minister.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court dismissed the application. It excluded the additional sales agreement and bills of sale because they had not been submitted to the Minister and did not fall within any recognized exception permitting new evidence on judicial review. The Court rejected Iraheta’s procedural-fairness argument, finding that CBSA had explained his evidentiary burden, invited supporting documents, and provided a final opportunity to supplement the record.
The Minister’s decision was reasonable because Iraheta bore the burden of establishing the seized currency’s legitimate source. The evidence before the Minister addressed only one US$13,500 sale, did not prove Iraheta owned the truck, and left half of the seized funds unexplained. The Minister did not have to prove that the money was proceeds of crime or show that Iraheta had been criminally charged; the question under section 29 was whether he had established grounds for relief from forfeiture.
Key Takeaways
- A person seeking relief from currency forfeiture under section 29 of the PCMLTFA bears the burden of establishing the legitimate source of the seized funds with persuasive evidence.
- Judicial review ordinarily proceeds on the record before the administrative decision-maker; an applicant cannot use new evidence to repair gaps in the earlier submission.
- Providing notice of the evidentiary burden and repeated opportunities to submit documents satisfied procedural fairness; the Minister was not required to identify duplication or request particular missing records.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of presenting complete ownership, transaction, and source-of-funds documentation during the statutory review process. Assertions that money came from legitimate sales—and evidence accounting for only part of the amount—may be insufficient to obtain relief from forfeiture.
It also clarifies that refusal to grant relief does not amount to an affirmative finding that the currency is proceeds of crime. The Minister may maintain forfeiture simply because the claimant has not established the funds’ legitimate origin.