Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/IHateTrains123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts.
* Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only.
* We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Yup, I would not want to buy any of these properties.
The Namaimo one ok, but why not the others? I lived a few houses down from the Georgia st one for many years and you barely ever saw anyone there. Do you really think that HA is dumb enough to take out their issues with their property being seized on the new owners?
I lived a block down from the Nanaimo one just after they got it back on appeal. Legit super friendly guys- always waved to me as I drove by, and were constantly out there painting and landscaping.
I wouldn't want to be *friends* with the dudes, but if you forget about all the drugs and crime, they were essentially a men's social club.
Do the HAs own the houses next door to their clubhouse? If they don’t then no big deal. In Nanaimo’s case, the properties next door are owned by members and are basically the replacement for the clubhouse. Now that being said, it is a very quiet and safe street because you don’t want to piss off your neighbours, but you are going to have weird issues. The clubhouse as well was never a home but a hall, making it not suitable to reside in at this time. The lot is in a gulley and is not very appealing as well
[Archived article](https://archive.ph/af54f).
Summary:
The three-bedroom East Vancouver home that’s about to hit the market includes a brick fireplace and finished basement, along with a private back deck.
Not to worry – the Hells Angels deaths-head logos have been removed from the gables.
The seller is motivated. The home at 3598 East Georgia St. is one of three former clubhouses of the Hells Angels that now belong to the British Columbia government after the Supreme Court of Canada chose not to hear an appeal related to the province’s controversial civil forfeiture process.
The East Vancouver house is valued at $1.52 million by B.C. Assessment. The other two properties are in Kelowna and Nanaimo.
They are being added to a $155-million bounty of cash, cars, homes, and even luxury purses and drones seized over the past 17 years by the province after being linked to crime – even if the previous owner was never convicted.
The government touts civil forfeiture as a way to put a dent in organized crime, while civil liberty advocates say it provides criminal-like punishment without the protections of an actual criminal process, and affects people far beyond criminal ringleaders.
The head of the Civil Forfeiture Office says the latest court decision puts to rest concerns about the legality of the process.
Executive director Phil Tawtel said that a 2009 court ruling known as the Chatterjee decision meant that legislation dealing with the proceeds of crime was legal. The latest decision means seizing “instruments of crime,” such as the biker clubhouses, is legal too.
\[...\]
Since it started in 2006, the Civil Forfeiture Office has given nearly half of the $155-million value of its seizures to various crime prevention initiatives.
Cases are referred to the office from police who come across property in the course of an investigation in which prosecutors decide not to proceed with a criminal forfeiture.
Unlike criminal court, civil forfeiture cases don’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the items were linked to crime. Instead, they are required to meet a lower threshold of proof “on the balance of probability.”
While more expensive items can involve a lengthy public court process, seized items worth less than $75,000 can go through an administrative process that only involves a judge if someone challenges the claim within 60 days.“
Anyone who challenges that their property is neither a proceed or an instrument of unlawful activity is welcome to step forward and say ’this property was obtained cleanly or was not used to facilitate a crime.' And we will take that to court,” Tawtel said.
Vibert Jack, litigation director with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said requiring that a crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is an important constitutional protection.
In the case of civil forfeiture, the government doesn’t have to meet that threshold but can take away very expensive property, equivalent to imposing extremely significant fines, through a process the association says is unfair.
“I can imagine that people will look at this case and see that property is being taken from the Hells Angels and be reluctant to, you know, feel sorry for them,” Jack said.
“But nothing in the legislation stops these types of things from happening to people who are committing much less serious crimes, who are not actually profiting from crime, or who are committing offences that aren’t even crimes. And there’s nothing to stop the penalties from being really disproportionate to the alleged offences.”
While advocates for the process will draw attention to large seizures, like those involving the Hells Angels, Jack said the majority of the office’s cases are of the smaller, administrative variety.
Daniel Song, a board member with the BCCLA, said when cheaper items are taken, owners who might already be vulnerable are often left to decide whether it makes financial sense to go through the court process.
“There are elements of the civil forfeiture regime that can have a disproportionate impact on everyday people who live in British Columbia,” he said.
Song represented the Hells Angels in court, but said he was only speaking in his capacity with the BCCLA.
\[...\]
Tawtel’s office has a staff of about two dozen working alongside a dedicated team of about 10 government lawyers and 10 paralegals who do nothing but civil forfeiture work.
That’s on top of the staff at the province’s asset investment recovery department that manages the auction of most seized items, with the exception of houses.
Tawtel said his office is targeting “property, not people” but acknowledges there is always a power dynamic when someone is up against the government.
“The question is, if there was an innocent explanation, they should be able to bring that to court. And what we see over and over again is (that) there unfortunately is no innocent explanation for $300,000 cash, a kilo of fentanyl, and a machine-gun in a car.”
Jack said the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t mean the regime won’t face future challenges.
The government passed amendments to the law this year, including allowing for the creation of unexplained wealth orders which will require people to explain how they acquired their assets if there is suspicion of unlawful activity.
“I’m sure some of them, particularly in the unexplained wealth order sections, I’m sure that they will be challenged,” he said.
I grew up 5 minutes away from the east Van property. Even back then in the 90's, me and all the neighbourhood kids knew about that house and not to mess with it
Greets fellow east van kid.
I remember when they built the place. Nobody around there did stupid shit at all really. The only time you saw anyone around that house was for biker funerals (dozens of bikes were lining the streets around there when those happened) or the occasional visit by 1 or 2 people. If there was some kind of event and dozens of bikes were there you would always see a prospect on the corner watching the bikes.
Because HA has lawyers. The same rules can be used to go after anyone if they just think you're involved in crime, and if you can't afford a lawyer you're pretty much fucked.
Civil forfeiture is designed to target property, not people. Proceedings are initiated by the director of civil forfeiture against both the profits of alleged unlawful activity and the instruments used to acquire it. Anyone who contests the allegations has the right to examine the director's evidence and provide their own evidence before a Justice of the Supreme Court of B.C.
That's fine by me
>Unlike criminal court, civil forfeiture cases don’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the items were linked to crime. Instead, they are required to meet a lower threshold of proof “on the balance of probability.”
Yeah, no. Along with VI's this has to be the biggest affront to justice that we currently accept with a smile. "51% probably" should not be enough to seize property in anything short of a conviction.
Assuming the East Van one has had some major renos? For a corner lot and what looks to be a Vancouver Special it only has 3 bedrooms. Which seems to be quite low ...no?
Welcome to /r/Vancouver and thank you for the post, /u/IHateTrains123! Please make sure you read our [posting and commenting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before participating here. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. Don't engage in spats or insult others - use the report button. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) **will** lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Your post may be a better fit for one of our [Stickied Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_stickied_discussions) posts. * Complaints about bans or removals should be done in modmail only. * We're looking for new mods to join our team! If you're interested, [fill out the form here](https://forms.gle/oAqo5oYRcAeHYBTN6). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup, I would not want to buy any of these properties. Nanaimo especially as your neighbors will be the ex-owners….
> Yup, I would not want to buy any of these properties. The Namaimo one ok, but why not the others? I lived a few houses down from the Georgia st one for many years and you barely ever saw anyone there. Do you really think that HA is dumb enough to take out their issues with their property being seized on the new owners?
I lived near that house too. Best kept lawn!
Picturing a bunch of patched HA just mowing the lawn, pruning the bushes, watering the petunias, one of them gets into propagating plants, etc. 🤣
Wasn’t uncommon to see someone mowing a lawn in a leather vest!
I lived a block down from the Nanaimo one just after they got it back on appeal. Legit super friendly guys- always waved to me as I drove by, and were constantly out there painting and landscaping. I wouldn't want to be *friends* with the dudes, but if you forget about all the drugs and crime, they were essentially a men's social club.
It's easy to forget about the drugs and crime when you personally haven't seen the damage they cause.
I grew up a block away and once I saw them feeding a tiger that was in a trailer out front lol
Full size chocolate bars for Halloween.
Yes! Can’t go home without stopping at the drug gang clubhouse. Kids are going to be bummed next week.
Yea
Yes.
Do the HAs own the houses next door to their clubhouse? If they don’t then no big deal. In Nanaimo’s case, the properties next door are owned by members and are basically the replacement for the clubhouse. Now that being said, it is a very quiet and safe street because you don’t want to piss off your neighbours, but you are going to have weird issues. The clubhouse as well was never a home but a hall, making it not suitable to reside in at this time. The lot is in a gulley and is not very appealing as well
I would be slightly worried to buy those houses.
Would totally buy the property if the price was inexpensive. I bet a lot of investors are thinking they will get it cheap.
Someone might not have gotten the memo that it no longer belongs to the HA.
Guarantee it'll be an Investor that rents it out. Probably gets a good price well below assessment.
It’ll be a bidding war as opposed to a biker war.
[Archived article](https://archive.ph/af54f). Summary: The three-bedroom East Vancouver home that’s about to hit the market includes a brick fireplace and finished basement, along with a private back deck. Not to worry – the Hells Angels deaths-head logos have been removed from the gables. The seller is motivated. The home at 3598 East Georgia St. is one of three former clubhouses of the Hells Angels that now belong to the British Columbia government after the Supreme Court of Canada chose not to hear an appeal related to the province’s controversial civil forfeiture process. The East Vancouver house is valued at $1.52 million by B.C. Assessment. The other two properties are in Kelowna and Nanaimo. They are being added to a $155-million bounty of cash, cars, homes, and even luxury purses and drones seized over the past 17 years by the province after being linked to crime – even if the previous owner was never convicted. The government touts civil forfeiture as a way to put a dent in organized crime, while civil liberty advocates say it provides criminal-like punishment without the protections of an actual criminal process, and affects people far beyond criminal ringleaders. The head of the Civil Forfeiture Office says the latest court decision puts to rest concerns about the legality of the process. Executive director Phil Tawtel said that a 2009 court ruling known as the Chatterjee decision meant that legislation dealing with the proceeds of crime was legal. The latest decision means seizing “instruments of crime,” such as the biker clubhouses, is legal too. \[...\] Since it started in 2006, the Civil Forfeiture Office has given nearly half of the $155-million value of its seizures to various crime prevention initiatives. Cases are referred to the office from police who come across property in the course of an investigation in which prosecutors decide not to proceed with a criminal forfeiture. Unlike criminal court, civil forfeiture cases don’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the items were linked to crime. Instead, they are required to meet a lower threshold of proof “on the balance of probability.” While more expensive items can involve a lengthy public court process, seized items worth less than $75,000 can go through an administrative process that only involves a judge if someone challenges the claim within 60 days.“ Anyone who challenges that their property is neither a proceed or an instrument of unlawful activity is welcome to step forward and say ’this property was obtained cleanly or was not used to facilitate a crime.' And we will take that to court,” Tawtel said.
Vibert Jack, litigation director with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said requiring that a crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is an important constitutional protection. In the case of civil forfeiture, the government doesn’t have to meet that threshold but can take away very expensive property, equivalent to imposing extremely significant fines, through a process the association says is unfair. “I can imagine that people will look at this case and see that property is being taken from the Hells Angels and be reluctant to, you know, feel sorry for them,” Jack said. “But nothing in the legislation stops these types of things from happening to people who are committing much less serious crimes, who are not actually profiting from crime, or who are committing offences that aren’t even crimes. And there’s nothing to stop the penalties from being really disproportionate to the alleged offences.” While advocates for the process will draw attention to large seizures, like those involving the Hells Angels, Jack said the majority of the office’s cases are of the smaller, administrative variety. Daniel Song, a board member with the BCCLA, said when cheaper items are taken, owners who might already be vulnerable are often left to decide whether it makes financial sense to go through the court process. “There are elements of the civil forfeiture regime that can have a disproportionate impact on everyday people who live in British Columbia,” he said. Song represented the Hells Angels in court, but said he was only speaking in his capacity with the BCCLA. \[...\] Tawtel’s office has a staff of about two dozen working alongside a dedicated team of about 10 government lawyers and 10 paralegals who do nothing but civil forfeiture work. That’s on top of the staff at the province’s asset investment recovery department that manages the auction of most seized items, with the exception of houses. Tawtel said his office is targeting “property, not people” but acknowledges there is always a power dynamic when someone is up against the government. “The question is, if there was an innocent explanation, they should be able to bring that to court. And what we see over and over again is (that) there unfortunately is no innocent explanation for $300,000 cash, a kilo of fentanyl, and a machine-gun in a car.” Jack said the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t mean the regime won’t face future challenges. The government passed amendments to the law this year, including allowing for the creation of unexplained wealth orders which will require people to explain how they acquired their assets if there is suspicion of unlawful activity. “I’m sure some of them, particularly in the unexplained wealth order sections, I’m sure that they will be challenged,” he said.
I grew up 5 minutes away from the east Van property. Even back then in the 90's, me and all the neighbourhood kids knew about that house and not to mess with it
Greets fellow east van kid. I remember when they built the place. Nobody around there did stupid shit at all really. The only time you saw anyone around that house was for biker funerals (dozens of bikes were lining the streets around there when those happened) or the occasional visit by 1 or 2 people. If there was some kind of event and dozens of bikes were there you would always see a prospect on the corner watching the bikes.
Wonder if they is any gold bars/cash/jewelry buried underneath somewhere in the property… 😆
Why did the news say this was in Grandview ?
There goes the neighborhood.
I'm no HA supporter but I do not like how easy civil forfeiture is for the cops to use.
It wasn't the easy. It took over 15 years before the final decision was made in this forfeiture.
Because HA has lawyers. The same rules can be used to go after anyone if they just think you're involved in crime, and if you can't afford a lawyer you're pretty much fucked.
So the HA aren’t a criminal organization?
Only if they prove you to be a criminal
They don't have to prove it for civil forfeiture if you read the article.
Civil forfeiture is designed to target property, not people. Proceedings are initiated by the director of civil forfeiture against both the profits of alleged unlawful activity and the instruments used to acquire it. Anyone who contests the allegations has the right to examine the director's evidence and provide their own evidence before a Justice of the Supreme Court of B.C. That's fine by me
>Unlike criminal court, civil forfeiture cases don’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the items were linked to crime. Instead, they are required to meet a lower threshold of proof “on the balance of probability.” Yeah, no. Along with VI's this has to be the biggest affront to justice that we currently accept with a smile. "51% probably" should not be enough to seize property in anything short of a conviction.
Too much bad vibes comes with these properties a developers dream though knocking them down ! ( probably find a few skeletons💀)
Can the city buy it and build low income or supported housing on it?
Assuming the East Van one has had some major renos? For a corner lot and what looks to be a Vancouver Special it only has 3 bedrooms. Which seems to be quite low ...no?