Panama bound US-Canadian backpacker loses $100,000

 A MAN caught with more than US$100,000 cash in his backback as he attempted to leave Canada for Panama City lost his bid on Monday, Jan.25, to have the seized money returned.

In a unanimous decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal said Alexander Bourgeois had failed to show a lower court justice had made errors in finding the money came from criminal activity, even though he was never convicted of any crime.

Bourgeois was about to fly out of Toronto when an airport security employee operating an x-ray machine at Toronto’s international airport in 2011 detected something suspicious in his backpack, court documents show.

A search turned up US$100,000 in tightly wound bundles stuffed into 22 socks, and he was arrested. Police then found another two cash bundles worth US$4,877 in his pockets, along with a small amount of cocaine in his wallet.

Although criminal charges against Bourgeois — a dual Canadian and American citizen — were dropped, Ontario’s attorney general asked for forfeiture of the money under legislation known as the Civil Remedies Act.

Bourgeois, a member of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, tried to argue the money was legitimately his. He said it came from a combination of earnings from tips when he worked at a casino north of Toronto, gambling winnings, and insurance money arising from the death of his mother in a crash.

Superior Court Justice Sandra Chapnik, in a decision in September 2014, rejected those notions.

“Mr. Bourgeois has offered inconsistent explanations for the monies, ranging from carrying the money for an unknown man to simply being in the habit of bundling his own money in ‘circles’,” Chapnik said in her ruling.

Bourgeois appealed, argued Chapnik was wrong to find the funds were proceeds of crime, and that he was not a legitimate owner.

In rejecting his submissions, the Appeal Court found no lower court error.

“The application judge found that, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Bourgeois was acting as a cash courier — either for drug trafficking or other profit-motivated unlawful activity,” the Appeal Court said.

“She relied on, and accepted, a ‘veritable laundry-list of evidence’ and those findings are entitled to deference.”

Bourgeois also gave no reasonable explanation for his behaviour or the amount of money in his possession, the Appeal Court said