You are here: / / Possession of Stolen Property
  • Vancouver at night

Possession of Stolen Property

The Charge

Closely related to theft, possession of stolen property is an offence punishable by indictment, if the value of the property is over $5000, for up to two years imprisonment. Where the value is under $5000, the offence is punishable on summary conviction for up to two years jail, less a day. Section 354 of the Criminal Code sets out that it is an offence to possess property “knowing that the property was obtained or derived directly or indirectly by the commission of an offence.”  Thus, it is illegal to possess property that has been stolen or obtained fraudulently. It is an essential element of the offence that the Crown proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused knew that the property was derived from an offence and that the accused exercised control over the property.

The Investigation

Actual theft or fraud is not an essential element of this offence. Rather, the Crown need only prove that the property belonged to someone other than the accused and that the accused had knowledge that the property he possessed was, in fact, obtained through the commission of an offence. The investigating officer will certainly take statements from the property’s true owner and any witnesses who observed the accused in possession of the property. Knowledge that the property was obtained through an offence may be inferred, such as where the suspect is driving a vehicle with a broken door lock and a “punched” ignition. Additionally, police will also very likely seek to obtain an explanation from their suspect in an effort to get the suspect to admit that they knew the property was obtained illegally. This is where we as experienced defence lawyers can help by providing advice to our clients regarding their rights under the Charter, including their right to remain silent.

Recent Successes

R. vs. C.Y. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a weapon ( reduced to Peace Bond).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to resolve this matter with a s. 810 Recognizance (Peace Bond) for a period of 12 months. Stay of proceedings on the criminal charge. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft and Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether the pre-charge delay of 3.5 years would reduce the sentence in this $215,000 employee fraud case.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the trial judge and Crown counsel that there was merit to our application for a judicial stay of proceedings based on our client's inability to properly defend the charges due to a delay of about 4 years in getting the charges approved. Notwithstanding this breach of trust, Mr. Mines was able to negotiate a plea arrangement in which our client received a 2 year conditional sentence order with a 10 pm curfew for 12 months. No monies were ordered to be repaid. No jail.

R. vs. M.P. – Abbotsford Police Investigation

Charges: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosucution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown and to ultimately persuade Crown counsel to not approve any charge in this case. No charge approves. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charge: Failing to stop at an accident resulting in bodily harm.
Issue: Given the circumstances of the offence, our client's background and his extreme remorse, whether a jail sentence was warranted.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was ble to direct our client through a course of psychological counselling and was able to persuade Crown counsel to agree to a non-custodial sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a 12 month conditional sentence. No jail.

R. vs. Q.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).
Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. K.H. – Abbotsford Provincial Court

Charges: Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence, wearing a mask for the purpose of committing an indictable offence, breach of release order.
Issue: Whether it would be consistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client's rehabilitative progress and good compliance with strict bail conditions, persuaded the Crown to seek a jail sentence of under two years for his role in a violent "home invasion". After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court agreed it would not be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing for our client to serve his sentence in the community instead of in custody. This was a significant result for our client as home invasion convictions typically result in lengthy jail sentences served in federal prison. No further time in custody.

R. vs. G.T. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnston provided Crown counsel with information which, along with our client’s progress with counselling, persuaded the Crown to gradually relax our client’s bail conditions and ultimately direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No further prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving.
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove the impaired driving offence in light of evidence brought forward by Mr. Gauthier which suggested that our client did not voluntarily consume the drug that may have contributed to the the manner of his driving and the ensuing accident.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of dangerous operation and, rather than being convicted of impaired driving, our client was granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. D.H.P. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault causing bodily harm; mischief to property under $5000.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction on the assault causing bodily harm charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault causing bodily harm charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and ordered restitution in relation to the smart phone that was damaged. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. W.J.M. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether there was a public interest in proceeding with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Upon presenting Crown counsel with a psychological report regarding our client's low risk to commit a similar act, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown to not approve any criminal charges whatsoever. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.A. – Vancouver Provincial Court (DCC)

Charges: Assault; Assault Peace Officer (x2).
Issue: Given the circumstances of our client being severely intoxicated and acting out f character, whether a criminal conviction was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with our client's background information resulting in a joint recommendation to the Court for a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. vs. E.L. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Probation.
Issue: Given the context of the offences and our client's rehabilitative efforts, whether a jail sentence was appropriate.>br> Result: Mr. Johnston informed Crown counsel of the significant rehabilitative progress our client had made since the offence dates and persuaded Crown to not pursue the 16 month  jail sentence they had been seeking. Crown agreed to proceed on the less serious charge of assault causing bodily harm and to stay the remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Johnston's submissions, the court granted our client a one year conditional sentence sentence and two years of probation. This was a particularly positive outcome for our client, who had a prior conviction for a similar offence. No jail.
View All

The Defence

Unreasonable Search

Section 8 of the Charter guarantees that people must be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The role of defence counsel in any search case is to analyze the actions of the investigating police officers to test whether their search was, in fact, lawful and authorized by the Charter. In some situations, police must obtain pre-authorization from a justice or judge in the form of a search warrant. Where police overreach their authority, and conduct a search based on mere suspicion, rather than probable grounds, we will apply to the court under s.24(2) of the Charter to have the “fruits of the search” excluded from the trial. Without the admission of the property into the trial, the court will likely find insufficient evidence to convict.

Lack of Knowledge

Section 4(3) of the Criminal Code sets out that a person has something in “possession” when they:

  • Are in actual possession of it; or
  • Knowingly keep the thing in any place; and
  • Where one of two persons or more, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has the thing in their custody, it shall be deemed to be in the custody of all of them.

Even in situations where police find an accused in actual possession of stolen property, absent any confession, the accused will be found not guilty if they can establish that they believed on reasonable grounds that they were in lawful possession of the property or that they were acting under the authority of a person whom they reasonably believed had lawful authority over the property.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.

Connect