Eby's repeated attempts at money laundering charges and eye surgery gone wrong

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:A third charge approval review, ordered by David Eby, comes to the same conclusion as the first two: there is no basis for money laundering charges arising from a large RCMP investigation into cash or casino chips being provided to high-stakes Chinese gamblers. A long-running public inquiry, also ordered by Mr. Eby, revealed that high-stakes gamblers from China were bypassing Chinese limits on how much money they were permitted to take out of China. The high-stakes gamblers would transfer money from their Chinese bank account into the Chinese bank account of someone in Vancouver before flying over to gamble. The person in Vancouver would then provide the gambler with casino chips or cash to spend in the casino.The individuals in Vancouver would charge a fee for this service and end up with money in a Chinese bank account. As is often the case, the gambler would typically lose the money in the BC casino. The concern was that the cash or casino chips might have been the proceeds of drug sales or other criminal activity. Permitting cash obtained in this way to be this to be deposited into a bank would be undesirable as it would encourage more criminal activity. A large RCMP investigation, called E-Nationalize investigated this but found no evidence that the cash being provided to the gamblers was from illegal activity. Nonetheless, the RCMP sent a report to Crown Counsel suggesting that there could still be proceeds of crime charges on the theory that the people supplying the cash or casino chips in Vancouver didn’t have the correct kind of business licence. Crown Counsel declined to approve proceeds of crime charges premised on not having a business licence as they concluded there was no substantial likelihood of conviction and no public interest in conducting a long and complicated trial over such a trivial allegation. Mr.  Eby, as Attorney General, directed Peter Juk, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, to review the charge approval decision as he wanted the charges to be approved. When this kind of direction is given by the Attorney General, it must be published in the Gazette, as it is direct political interference with a prosecutorial decision. Mr. Eby used a section of the Crown Counsel Act that permitted the publication of his order to be delayed. Mr. Juk reviewed the charge approval decision made by Crown Counsel in the ordinary way and came to the same conclusion: no charges should be approved. Again, Mr. Eby was unhappy with this conclusion, likely because he had made money laundering a political issue and had ordered a lengthy and expensive public hearing into it. Having been told no on a second occasion, Mr. Eby ordered Mr. Juk to hire a lawyer in private practice as a special prosecutor to review the charge approval decision for a third time. Mr. Eby directed that the special prosecutor should consider a lower charge approval standard of “reasonable prospect of conviction” rather than “substantial likelihood of conviction” and wrote that he believed there was a “strong public interest in conducting a prosecution” on the theory of not having a business licence.Despite these directions, Chris Considine, the senior lawyer appointed as a special prosecutor, also concluded that charges should not be approved. He released an 11-page explanation of his decision. Also, on the show, a case involving medical negligence in the context of eye surgery is discussed. The plaintiff ended up with permanent disfigurement and significantly obstructed vision. He was awarded $180,000. Follow this link for links to the cases discussed.