Is this right?
November 7, 2011
As you may know, I have always been of the opinion, you do the crime, you do the time. If the report by your correspondent, Tim Smith, on page 6 of today's
Royal Gazette is correct, I am appalled at the prospect of what is possibly happening in Bermuda.
The quote, "Sir Richard said........ will be amended to allow the seizure of cash and property that are reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of crime".
That is fine and it has been on the books for some time, however in the next paragraph he continues "Earlier this year, the Proceeds of Crime Amendment Act of 2011 meant that defendants could be stripped of ill-gotten cash even when they haven't been convicted of a criminal offence."
If a person has not been convicted of a crime, how can it be proved they have ill-gotten gains? I always thought that if one is not guilty of any crime, why would one have to pay for something they did not do?
Not being a legal beagle, perhaps one of your correspondents could explain the motives behind this quote, assuming it is correct!