R. v. Garnett

R. v. Garnett

The only reasonable inference from the evidence was that Garnett had real suspicions about the illegal source of substantial cash and deliberately refrained from inquiry (wilful blindness); consequently the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly possessed proceeds of crime and dealt with them with the intent to convert (money laundering), warranting conviction on those counts.

Citation
2016 NSSC 131
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jacqueline Christine Garnett
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty on counts of possession of property obtained by the commission of an indictable offence (s.354) and money laundering (s.462.31); remaining counts stayed.
Legal Topics
Wilful Blindness, Imputed Knowledge, Possession of Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, Inference of Guilt, Credibility Assessment
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Money Laundering Proceeds of Crime Evidence Law Wilful Blindness Imputed Knowledge Possession of Proceeds of Crime Inference of Guilt +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jacqueline Christine Garnett

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the accused know or was she wilfully blind to the fact that funds were proceeds of crime?
  2. 2 Were elements of money laundering under s.462.31 proven (knowledge and intent to convert or conceal)?
  3. 3 Was there possession of property knowing it was derived from proceeds of crime under s.354?

Ratio Decidendi

The only reasonable inference from the evidence was that Garnett had real suspicions about the illegal source of substantial cash and deliberately refrained from inquiry (wilful blindness); consequently the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she knowingly possessed proceeds of crime and dealt with them with the intent to convert (money laundering), warranting conviction on those counts.

Court Disposition

Guilty on counts of possession of property obtained by the commission of an indictable offence (s.354) and money laundering (s.462.31); remaining counts stayed.

Orders

  • Accused found guilty of possession of proceeds of crime contrary to s.354 of the Criminal Code.
  • Accused found guilty of money laundering contrary to s.462.31 of the Criminal Code.