The B.C. Court of Appeal has dismissed an application from two individuals to have their assets returned from the Director of Civil Forfeiture following a drug investigation.
Ge Wang and Lia Maya Sari contested the director’s seizure of two vehicles (a Tesla and a BMW), $1,270 in Canadian currency, $225 worth of casino chips, one gold and two silver bars, three watches, and a bitcoin wallet.
The items were seized by RCMP and forfeited to the director via a claim in B.C. Supreme Court after Wang was allegedly caught distributing precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl, in March 2022.
Undercover RCMP officers contacted Wang, who agreed to import from China precursor chemicals, the Oct. 29 appeal decision stated.
Wang is said to have used a Tesla and BMW vehicle for transporting the chemicals on four occasions while Sari also made a delivery, with each sale ranging from $3,000 to $220,000, according to the decision.
“Searches of the appellants’ storage locker at the residence, and searches of other properties the appellants controlled, yielded hundreds of pounds of the controlled substances, as well as other indicia of trafficking,” the decision states.
In order to take the items for forfeiture, the director must demonstrate to a judge there is first, a serious question to be tried and second, whether the items seized are instruments or proceeds of crime. This is a civil proceeding and the threshold for a judge to grant forfeiture is low.
In B.C. Supreme Court, Wang, Sari and their companies Techno Reno Home Ltd., and Reno Maple Home Inc. “had raised defences to the criminal allegations based on Ms. Sari being innocent of any wrongdoing, Mr. Wang being entrapped, and the police violating both parties’ Charter rights,” but the judge concluded all those issues are triable as well.
The appeal also heard from co-appellant Dongxiang She, who claimed she was the usual driver of the Tesla and used it to transport her 14-year-old autistic son.
Wang and Sari represented themselves and the three appeal judges found the two did not properly file new evidence, albeit it was determined the new evidence, such as She’s purported plight, could not have affected the original judge’s decision.
