A Nanaimo dad has lost his bid to overturn the forfeiture of the family home after he and his wife were convicted of running a sophisticated marijuana grow-op in the house.
After RCMP executed a search warrant at the two-level, single-family residence in September 2003, Cuc Van Bui and his wife, Thu Thi Tran, were convicted of production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and theft of electricity.
At the time of the police search, Bui and his wife were living with their four children in the home.
Police found the couple in a crawl space tending a 625-plant grow-op and also seized $6,000 in cash.
The crawl space was accessed through a trap door in the master bedroom and had been specially outfitted to grow marijuana crops. It was capable of producing annual revenues of between $587,000 and $991,000.
The couple each received a 12-month conditional sentence, with the trial judge ordering the home, assessed at $314,000 in 2005, to be forfeited.
Bui later paid B.C. Hydro $14,000 for the theft of electricity.
Tax returns for the couple reported "relatively little" income, a significant part of which was employment insurance.
Bui appealed the forfeiture, arguing that it was "disproportionate" in that the trial judge failed to consider that the home was the principal dwelling of two of his four children.
After the home was searched, the children continued to attend school in Nanaimo, with one graduating at the end of the school year. The following year, three of them were enrolled in school in Maple Ridge, but they moved back to the Nanaimo residence in 2005.
In rejecting the appeal, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice David Frankel noted that the home was not the principal residence for the children during the 28½-month period between when the charges were laid and the forfeiture.
Frankel said there was nothing in the record to indicate where and how family members lived during the time they were away from the property, or why they returned when they did.
"It is entirely possible, as the Crown argues, that Mr. Bui brought his children back to Nanaimo just prior to the original date for the forfeiture hearing only, for the purpose of being able to shield the property from forfeiture."
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Province
Author: Keith Fraser
Contact: The Province
Copyright: 2010 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Website: Grow-op owners can't get house back
* Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article
After RCMP executed a search warrant at the two-level, single-family residence in September 2003, Cuc Van Bui and his wife, Thu Thi Tran, were convicted of production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and theft of electricity.
At the time of the police search, Bui and his wife were living with their four children in the home.
Police found the couple in a crawl space tending a 625-plant grow-op and also seized $6,000 in cash.
The crawl space was accessed through a trap door in the master bedroom and had been specially outfitted to grow marijuana crops. It was capable of producing annual revenues of between $587,000 and $991,000.
The couple each received a 12-month conditional sentence, with the trial judge ordering the home, assessed at $314,000 in 2005, to be forfeited.
Bui later paid B.C. Hydro $14,000 for the theft of electricity.
Tax returns for the couple reported "relatively little" income, a significant part of which was employment insurance.
Bui appealed the forfeiture, arguing that it was "disproportionate" in that the trial judge failed to consider that the home was the principal dwelling of two of his four children.
After the home was searched, the children continued to attend school in Nanaimo, with one graduating at the end of the school year. The following year, three of them were enrolled in school in Maple Ridge, but they moved back to the Nanaimo residence in 2005.
In rejecting the appeal, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice David Frankel noted that the home was not the principal residence for the children during the 28½-month period between when the charges were laid and the forfeiture.
Frankel said there was nothing in the record to indicate where and how family members lived during the time they were away from the property, or why they returned when they did.
"It is entirely possible, as the Crown argues, that Mr. Bui brought his children back to Nanaimo just prior to the original date for the forfeiture hearing only, for the purpose of being able to shield the property from forfeiture."
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Province
Author: Keith Fraser
Contact: The Province
Copyright: 2010 Canwest Publishing Inc.
Website: Grow-op owners can't get house back
* Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article
