Case Comment: “Chatterjee v. Ontario”


Add to cart
Essay #: 055827
Total text length is 16,362 characters (approximately 11.3 pages).

Excerpts from the Paper

The beginning:
Case Comment: "Chatterjee v. Ontario"
The federal government of Canada has recently expanded the scope of its criminal forfeiture legislation to include “property that represents proceeds of crime, property that represents instruments of crime, as well as property that is owned or controlled by a terrorist group” (Davis, 183). Meanwhile, the provincial governments in Ontario and Alberta have also enacted novel legislation providing for civil forfeiture; these developments have instigated the interests of Canadian lawmakers and legal scholars in the concept of pursuing private property associated with criminal activity (Davis, 183). Yet, the “idea of suing, in addition to prosecuting, people for their misdeeds is hardly novel....
The end:
.....t of Canada. (2009): 624.
“Civil forfeitures in Ontario, 2007.” Ministry of the Attorney General. August 2007. 27 November 2009. <>
Davis, Kevin E. “The effects of forfeiture on third parties (Canada).” McGill Law Journal. 183.42 (2003): 183-225.
Gallant, M. Michelle. “
v. Ontario: Property, Crime and Civil Proceedings.” 2009. 27 November 2009. <
Young, Simon N.M. Civil Forfeiture of Criminal Property: Legal Measures for Targeting the Proceeds of Crime. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edgar Elgar Publishing Limited.