Possessing Stolen Property

354. (1) Possession of property obtained by crime – Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property of thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly from

(a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
(b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.

In order to convict a person of being in possession of stolen property, the Crown must prove both the criminal origins of the property, and the person’s knowledge that the property involved was stolen. 

The Crown has the benefit of certain presumptions which may assist them in proving their case.  For example, if a person has acquired property under suspicious circumstances, a failure to inquire as to proof of ownership would constitute wilful blindness.  A presumption of knowledge may also be held against a person who is found in possession of recently stolen property.

The law relating to possession of stolen property can be complex.  Wade Jenson has the experience and the success necessary in defending such allegations. 

RECENT EXAMPLES:

1) The Professional Transport Driver

Criminal lawyer Wade Jenson was retained to defend a client charged with the indictable offences of ‘theft over $5,000’ and ‘possession of stolen property over $5,000’ after a vehicle that had been left idling by its’ owner was reported stolen.  Police encountered the vehicle being driven shortly thereafter, but when police attempted to stop the vehicle, the driver jumped out and attempted to flee.  Client was a professional driver whose employment required regular crossing of the Canada/U.S. border.  A criminal conviction would not only jeopardize his freedom but would likely result in the loss of his career.  When interviewed days later with his wife at the offices of Jenson & Co., client had no memory of the incident.  Wade Jenson obtained the expert opinion  of a UBC psychologist who ultimately diagnosed the client with “dissociative disorder”.  CHARGES DISMISSED.