RICO, short for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is a (US) federal law enacted in 1970 as a crime-fighting tool for use against the Mafia. It includes prison sentences of up to 20 years and seizure of financial assets for those found guilty of such “racketeering.”[1] A noble cause – who could disagree with clamping down on organized crime? Fast-forward 45 years, and have a look at the proposed application of the RICO Act by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) against scientists who speaks out against Michael Mann, Dr. Rajandra Pachauri, and the rest of the Clime Syndicate at the IPCC.[2]
The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA) was not intended as a way to catch those engaging in menial tax evasion, but rather as a tool to help federal prosecutors fight the worst of the worst: international criminal syndicates who were daring and powerful enough to make prosecution a nightmare. Unlike targeting your average street thug, the BSA was supposed to be a big gun capable of taking out the really tough guys. Organized crime. Terrorists. Drug cartels. The kind of people whose money could influence law enforcement with bribes and/or intimidation.[3] Another noble cause! Again, fast forward 45 years, and see who the US government is harassing with FBAR penalties (not to mention giving a whole new meaning to “off-shore bank account”).
Operation Choke Point is an initiative of the United States Department of Justice that was announced in 2013, which is investigating banks in the United States and the business they do with payment processors, payday lenders, and other companies believed to be at higher risk for fraud and money laundering (another noble cause). This operation, disclosed in August 2013 Wall Street Journal story has been accused of bypassing due process; the government is pressuring the financial industry to cut off the companies’ access to banking services, without first having shown that the targeted companies are violating the law. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, critics believe “it’s a thinly veiled ideological attack on industries the Obama administration doesn’t like, such as gun sellers and coal producers.” [4] Earlier this year, FDIC chairman Martin Gruenberg told Congress that Choke Point was over, but many business owners believe the FDIC and DOJ has passed enforcement duties along to a newly created independent agency: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the brainchild of progressive senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The CFPB operates under the guidance of the Federal Reserve and doesn’t rely on Congress for funding, which critics say allow it to operate without any meaningful checks on its power. [5]
We are all familiar with civil forfeiture in the United States. Proponents see civil forfeiture as a powerful tool to thwart criminal organizations involved in the illegal drug trade, with $12 billion annual profits, since it allows authorities to seize cash and other assets resulting from narcotics trafficking. Proponents argue that it is an efficient method since it allows law enforcement agencies to use these seized proceeds to further battle illegal activity, that is directly converting bad things to good purposes by harming criminals economically while helping law enforcement financially. Critics argue that innocent owners become entangled in the process such that their right to property is violated, with few legal protections and due process rules to protect them in situations where they are presumed guilty instead of being presumed innocent. [6]
These are just a few of many pieces of legislation, purportedly enacted to go after criminals, that are now used to prosecute, intimidate, extort and criminalize honest, law-abiding citizens. The people acting with malevolence here are not those who these laws are being applied to, but those who are applying the laws. Someone once said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Tyranny is defined as “cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control” – my question is, “are we there yet?”
The Harper government passed Bill C-24 to protect us from terrorists. They included the IGA implementing FATCA in Bill C-31 to protect Canadian banks from debilitating sanctions at the hands of the US government. The intention of Bill C-51 is also to protect us from terrorism. These are all good things! But from my perspective (I have the stink of the US on me), C-31 made me a second class citizen in my own country. Bill C-24 provides “my government” with the potential ability to strip me of my Canadian citizenship merely because I had the misfortune to be born in the US and I have been vocal in my disdain for my treatment by the Canadian government. Bill C-51 would ease the transfer of information between federal agencies, including confidential data (like that collected in the long form census) – of course, none of these federal agencies would even consider transferring any of this information to a foreign government! Ask Maher Arar!
Obviously, my concern that government would ever misapply a law or share my personal information among federal agencies (and foreign governments) indicates my need to be fitted with a tinfoil hat! Anyone would have to have been paranoid, or just plain crazy, to think laws enacted to go after the Mafia, drug cartels and terrorists would ever be applied to law-abiding citizens!
Of course, our recently elected Liberal government is obviously different. Justin Trudeau transcends politics – if we had only had him as Prime Minister when the US demanded an IGA enacting FATCA, things would have been so different! He would have put Obama in his place. It was that evil Harper who caused all of our problems! (Anyone who believes any of this paragraph is more in need of a tinfoil hat than I am). I would point out that it is progressive policies and politicians who are predominantly responsible for this affliction.
As someone who has for the most part been a Harper supporter, I was betrayed by him (and relegated to second class citizenship as a result). I have stated in the past on this site that I have no doubt that the Liberals or NDP would have done the same – it seems every other country in the world did. But it was not the Liberals or NDP who had the misfortune to be in power at the time – it was the Harper government. I have made many negative comments about Harper as a result, and voted for the Liberal candidate (Bill Casey) in my riding.
I will be watching with great interest what transpires from here. If the Trudeau government does not get rid of the enabling IGA, will he be subjected to the same venom that Harper (deservedly) was? Will this be an issue he even cares about? Or will he just pay it lip service and say, “I tried, but it is Harper’s fault.” I am concerned that such a charade would be enough to appease many on this site. Can we get some kind of commitment from those of you on the left that, if Trudeau does not get rid of the IGA, he will be subjected to the same venom that Harper was? One of the first things he plans to do is to cozy up to Obama – that does not bode well for us.
And if you think the long form census data will only be used for benevolent purposes, you have not been paying attention to what is going on in the world. In the words of Ronald Reagan, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
[1] http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html
[3] https://www.irsmedic.com/2014/11/08/failure-bank-secrecy-act/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
[5] https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/08/21/operation-choke-point-the-governments-co
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
@ Canadian Cop
“I will be watching with great interest what transpires from here. If the Trudeau government does not get rid of the enabling IGA, will he be subjected to the same venom that Harper (deservedly) was? Will this be an issue he even cares about? Or will he just pay it lip service and say, “I tried, but it is Harper’s fault.” I am concerned that such a charade would be enough to appease many on this site. Can we get some kind of commitment from those of you on the left that, if Trudeau does not get rid of the IGA, he will be subjected to the same venom that Harper was? One of the first things he plans to do is to cozy up to Obama – that does not bode well for us.”
___
Be assured that Gwen and I will be with you. I am not so much into left and right labels as I am in my strong belief in and committment to access to justice. I appreciate your concerns. It may take a while and a heck of a lot of money to get there, but I wouldn’t be doing this if I thought we could not be successful and prevail. Nor do I think our donors and very vocal and active supporters would be so easily appeased.
May I ask a favour? Can you hang in there with me? It would mean a great deal to me if you could because yours was also one of many stories that touched me deeply when you shared it.
We will and are taking on the new government just as we did with Harper’s. Nothing has changed on our part. Let’s hope and expect that something changes on theirs. We are keeping the home fires burning.
I will note the incoming Liberal government has made it pretty clear it is going to repeal bill C-24. Why is this even more significant than it sounds. Well one reason if as a general rule historically governments don’t just freely give up this draconian power they acquire. In fact quite a few other countries(except the US of all nations due to Trop vs Dulles) have bill C-24 type legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trop_v._Dulles
I will also argue that even from the beginning both the RICO Act and the Bank Secrecy Act were targeted towards US Persons in Canada. At the time both were enacted many US politicians including many Democrats were quite angry at the number of “Draft Dodgers” living in Canada. So I am not sure these acts have been so much contorted beyond there original meaning as people have forgotten the environment they were passed in.
Also the view of Canada being “soft on crime” in the US goes all the way back to John Diefenbaker and his decision to maintain diplomatic relations with the Castro brothers in Cuba in 1961.(The Castro’s were long viewed as supporting narco traffickers and to the degree Dief supported Castro then Dief was supporter drug cartels).
This US law professor below is a big player in US Democrat politics.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/200802251760/headline-news/us-prosecutions-cast-long-shadow
“There exists in the international community the perception that Canada, in the words of Columbia University Law Professor John Coffee, is “a securities market enforcement-free zone compared to the U.S. and other countries.”
By contrast, Canadian enforcement figures compare favourably with those from the U.K. But it is proximity that governs.
“We’re close to the U.S., who zealously investigate and prosecute white-collar crime,” says Bill Braithwaite of Stikeman Elliott LLP. “Because we’re seen to be doing a lot less, we suffer from the comparison. On the other hand, we don’t question whether the Americans have got it right and we therefore assume that we’ve got it wrong.”
“There are also inherent differences, cultural and otherwise, between the Canadian and American regimes. For example, Americans tend to take white-collar crime much more seriously than Canadians do, and Canadian courts generally impose lighter sentences than does the U.S. for all types of crime. Critics also frequently misinterpret, or at least obscure, the underlying statistics”.
@Canadian Cop
I’m not on the left politically but I’m with you in your concerns. You expressed them eloquently. I’ll go you one better in that I worry about the border eventually being closed to many of us to extort FBAR fines and fines for other “form” crimes. For those with families in the US there would be two choices: “come clean” and face potential bankruptcy, or hide like a fugitive in Canada and never cross the border. This looks a lot like Soviet style tyranny. Tinfoil hat? You bet! I have mine on!
@ Lake Superior Guy
The third choice is to cross the border as I do when I need to without fear. After all, it is just one mile for me, even though as a plaintiff I have a rather large bulls eye target on my back. But in the event that I am apprehended there one day, I expect you will hear about it.
But on a more serious note, of course, the US could change the rules in a NY minute. I don’t borrow trouble, though my partner would often disagree. I continue to believe I live in one of the best countries ever. You can only imagine what I think of the draconian measures the USA resorts to, to fill its coffers on the backs of those of us they deem as tax cheats. Are they mad we left the homeland? Too bad.
Unlike many, I make a strenuous effort to deal with some sort of reality on the basis of having gathered information.
The recent spate of name-calling is symptomatic of wilful mental incapacity that revels in blind assertion. “Infantile tin foil hat drivel” tops the demerit list.
It gets so tempting to opt for total ataraxia amid such a zoo. Overcoming that temptation for now, here is a latch-on to the very first decent piece of evidence that a totally crude and quick excavation could uncover.
Epitome:
“The [census] results are a treasure trove to most businesses across the country. They use them for many things, the most obvious to draw the initial lines on their marketing plans.”
Business fees for use of data after the 1996 census of Canada totalled over $10.8 million. Those fees were “intended only to cover the costs of consultation and manipulating the data.”
Source:
Porter, Catherine. Selling the census: Canadian businesses are tapping into the vast database of information churned out by Statistics Canada. Toronto Star (14 July 2002) C4 [1644 words]
Single extract:
For the first time this year, Statistics Canada is making most of the data available free of change on the Internet. But only at the municipality level. To zoom in any closer, you have to pay.
For a profile of a dissemination area, StatsCan’s most microscopic level of 400 to 700 people on average, the cost starts at about $65. Want to know how many women, Hindus and common-law couples live in the two-block area southeast of College St. and Dovercourt Rd.? Easy.
But, if you want a cross-tabulation — how many of those women are Hindus between the ages of 20-24, co-habiting a rental apartment with a common-law partner and professionally employed in management? — then that starting price jumps to $1,000.
Slaves! Wake up! The corporatized state will never ever be your friend.
John Oliver explains civil forfeiture:
@ Canadian Cop
Sometimes I’d like to take off my tinfoil hat, tune out the cacophony and toss out our fluoride filter so I could chill out just like that young renunciant Charl encountered today … but I can’t. I haven’t said this in awhile but “Surgite!” There is no turning back from the challenge to rid Canada of the U.S. FATCA law. You are an inspiration.
@Ginny
Just out of curiosity based on where you live did you think about “crashing” the big citizenship tax conference that was recently held in Ann Arbor Michigan and was “closed” to the public. It would have been rather “interesting” if you had shown up uninvited. I suspect many of the presenters especially those with close ties to the US Government would have had quite a bit of heartburn.
https://www.law.umich.edu/events/Pages/EventDetails.aspx?EventKey=22742:0:20151009T090000&StartDateTime=10/09/2015
On another note Senator’s Levin former chief of staff and key cog in enacting FATCA works probably less than 3 miles from your house as the bird flies. What a small world we live in.
http://law.wayne.edu/profile/elise.bean/
@All
I always think PEI and Newfoundland are the two best Canadian provinces to live in based on their lack of civil forfeiture law. Also I suspect Ginny and Gwen probably won’t be amused but I am personally developing a strange fascination with watching old Hells Angels/Motorcycle gang movies like “Easy Rider” with a young Jack Nicholson due to the roundabout connection between ourselves and the Hells Angels through Joe Arvay and David Gruber.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#Canada
@Ginny Hillis
You are correct on my third choice, and I cross the border every week. But I do so with my eyes wide open and teeth clenched when the US border official wishes to know exactly WHAT grocery store I’m headed for to pick up a Thanksgiving turkey and a cheap twelve pack of beer, and WHAT gas station I’m going to, to fill up my tank. Many US border officers are cheerful and polite, seeing me as a simple “day tripper.” Others are just snotty, and leave me feeling like I’ve been to the principal’s office, or maybe the proctologist.
@Canadian cop
Thanks for the great info and time line. I was more or less aware of most of it but not in so much detail nor in one place. A great way to prove that it is not at all far fetched to think that great crime fighting statutes can easily be perverted into tools to terrorize law abiding citizens, especially those who disagree with the state.
It it has happened once, it is likely that it will happen again. And those of us who believe the Reagan quote you closed with will certainly be among the first targeted.
@GinnyHillis
I am soon heading out to participate in the Remembrance Day ceremony at the local elementary school. I don’t say it often enough, but I tried to express in my post from last Remembrance Day how much I admire and respect you and Gwen and appreciate what you have done for me and millions of others, many who are unaware of your brave and selfless acts. I may not say much on here (I bite my tongue a lot!) due to family, work and other life commitments but I visit the IBS site pretty much every day to keep abreast of developments and read as many comments as I can. I have financially supported the cause and will continue to do so, though I must admit I am waiting right now to see what our new Liberal government will do (I have no illusions, but I hope they prove me wrong). My admiration for you (and the others who carry the bulk of the load) is unwavering and I have often thought of jumping in there to express it over the past year, but worry that if I say it too often it will just seem like words. As Remembrance Day approaches, I will not only remember the sacrifices of our brave veterans but will also remember how you and Gwen have placed yourselves in harms way to protect the rest of us. It seems a lot of wars are now fought, not on the battlefields, but in the financial realm and you and Gwen are on the front lines. I hope this does not appear to in any way diminish our veterans, but I do believe you have placed others ahead of yourself and put yourself in harms way in an effort to protect our freedoms. Thank you and God bless you!
Hi CanadianCop. It is nice to see you posting again. Good article.
I’ve got a couple comments.
First, you wrote, ” Or will he [our new PM] just pay it lip service and say, “I tried, but it is Harper’s fault.” I am concerned that such a charade would be enough to appease many on this site. ”
I’ve seen NO ONE AT BROCK express the attitude that such a response from our new PM, no matter how sexy, would be acceptable. Quite the opposite.
Second, you wrote, “And if you think the long form census data will only be used for benevolent purposes, you have not been paying attention to what is going on in the world. ”
Does anyone here, at this site, really think there is no chance of anything ‘bad’ happening with that data? I don’t think so. But life is full of risks. I know there is a very real chance every time my kids get in my car they could be killed. In fact, statistics show that car accidents are one of the leading (maybe #1, not sure) cause of death among children. Should I refuse to take my children in a car?
Sometimes, the benefits of a particular action are worth the risk. Having reliable data available to enable evidenced-based policy decisions to be made about important, complicated societal issues is worth the personal risks I take filling out the long census form. This doesn’t mean I am unaware that I might get screwed over down the road.
The US has been ‘reinventing’ uses for existing laws for years. How about Al Capone? When the Fed’s couldn’t nail him for bootlegging, they resorted to ‘tax evasion.’ That’s what got him banged up in the end in the early 1930s.
Whitekat wrote: “Does anyone here, at this site, really think there is no chance of anything ‘bad’ happening with that data?”
The first clear wrong is forcing people to relinquish their private information. Thus, there is no chance that nothing bad can happen because those who refuse will be fined and prosecuted. I am absolutely sure that there will people who will refuse, as is their natural right to do so. To create a “duty” or “responsibility” of citizenship out of allowing one’s natural rights to be violated is unsatisfying intellectually. When rights and duties conflict, it seems to me that the courts normally prefer the Charter over Acts of Parliament.
Actually I am a little surprised at the number of people here who still believe that the Canadian government is largely a benevolent entity. Sure, some of the newcomers who may even be paid to astroturf–that’s one thing. But long time participants who IRS and Harper have damaged–one would think that such people would have learned to mistrust government by now.
It is very interesting to note that First Nations are among those who hate the census the most to the point that accurate counts on some reservations are impossible to get. But then I guess, they have had well over 400 years of negative experience with foreign governments on their own soil and many of them are still alive whom the government kidnapped them or their children and put them in residential school for the benevolent purposes of the government. Of course the government was trying to do good and yet in doing so were committing ethnic genocide. What I am suggesting is if the First Nations are naturally suspicious of government, shouldn’t we be too? –For even the benevolent intentions of the government may turn into a nightmare for some. This is the work of sociopaths. History is rife with such examples.
Never forget that in a free country, the citizen would freely decide what drugs, if any, to use. It’s not as if there could be any question whether governments have a right to control drugs. Governments never had any such right, period. The presentation on this thread puts forth as dogma what is actually a myth: The authority of government to use its coercive power to intimidate a person into abstinence from drugs.
Further debate on this point is off topic.
Don’t like the patronizing tone of this article, but the author makes some valid points that echo your concerns, Canadian Cop. For governments, tyranny is only a blink away:
“Canadians are lucky. They have escaped from a kind of prison, released back to being more themselves. But they would do well to remember that the trap they temporarily slipped into is all too common across the world – and that there is even a strong temptation for it.”
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/11/canadians-learn-tyranny-151108074538250.html
@Bubblebustin, Le Dauphin is the saviour of Canadian freedom, oui, oui, oui. Still, I’d like to see if federal employees are truly allowed to write as freely as Petros in their criticism of the new king.
Petros, semantics is everything. Just to clarify, because I think you may have misunderstood when I wrote:
“Does anyone here, at this site, really think there is no chance of anything ‘bad’ happening with that data? I don’t think so.”
When I said “I don’t think so”, I was answering the question I wrote immediately before that.
In other words, what I was trying to express is: that I suspect most people who frequent this blog (compliance condors, astroturfers, etc, excepted) understand that there is an inherent danger in the government collecting personal information. If we didn’t think that we wouldn’t be participating here in the first place! We’re not saying there is no threat and we are not saying we think the government is benevolent.
@Whitekat, yes, and you followed up that line with, “Sometimes, the benefits of a particular action are worth the risk. Having reliable data available to enable evidenced-based policy decisions to be made about important, complicated societal issues is worth the personal risks I take filling out the long census form. This doesn’t mean I am unaware that I might get screwed over down the road.”
You thus are saying that the benefits outweigh the risks. This I find remarkable after all that has happened since 2008. I am suggesting that the aboriginal mistrust of the Canadian government is indeed reasonable. And our experience, while not as awful as theirs, should lead us to see the government as far from benevolent.
But there are a lot similarities between Canada’s treatment of First Nations and it’s recent decision to throw US persons under the bus: The government singles out some people for special treatment for the net benefit of rest.
@ Canadian Cop
Your very kind words are very much appreciated. Gwen and I are simply two people trying to do the right thing. On the days either of us starts to feel a little down- and fortunately it has never happened at the same time- we find a way to cheer the other up.
But when posters like you acknowledge that we are doing this for others, that is the cheeriest thing to read! Thank you.
@Canadian Cop @ Ginny Hillis – I second that emotion!
Peter, no offence, but I’m done with this debate. My last comment was made just to clarify a previous statement that I thought you might have misunderstood.
A cousin of mine born in America but living in Europe asked me how exactly will Fbar be enforced where they live should their accounts be discovered? (By the way, they have never returned to America since infancy and are now aware of Fatca.) I cogitated for a while and came to the conclusion of “I just don’t know.” Does anyone know?…