Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The Attorney General of Québec (PGQ) seeks civil forfeiture of $14,500 seized from Aboubacar Conde under the Loi sur la confiscation des produits d’activités illégales.

• PGQ alleges the money is linked to, or intended for use in, the illegal transport of stolen vehicles.

• During written discovery, Conde refused to answer questions or disclose financial documents, citing privacy and self-incrimination concerns.

• The court ruled that such financial records are relevant and admissible, particularly under article 11 of the forfeiture law, which allows a presumption based on disproportionate lifestyle versus declared income.

• The court reaffirmed that no right to silence exists in civil proceedings, and responses cannot be used for criminal prosecution, per article 285 C.p.c.

• All objections were rejected or partially rejected, and Conde was ordered to produce banking, business, and vehicle repair documents within specified limits.

Facts of the case and judicial findings

On February 28, 2023, police in Longueuil seized $14,500 in cash from a rented trailer operated by Aboubacar Conde. According to the Procureur général du Québec (PGQ), the cash was likely derived from or intended for illegal activity involving stolen vehicles. PGQ initiated civil forfeiture proceedings under the Loi sur la confiscation, l’administration et l’affectation des produits et instruments d’activités illégales (C-52.2), specifically alleging violations of articles 333.1 and 354 of the Criminal Code related to property crimes.

In preparation for trial, PGQ submitted written interrogatories to Conde. He refused to answer several questions and declined to provide financial and business documents. PGQ brought a motion seeking to compel responses and resolve the objections raised by the defendant.

Objections and court analysis

The court reviewed the matter under the applicable rules of the Code de procédure civile (C.p.c.), particularly articles 221–228 governing pre-trial examinations, and article 285 C.p.c., which protects against the use of compelled testimony in future criminal or civil actions (except perjury). The court cited the Procureur général du Québec c. El-Gamal, 2024 QCCQ 4041 decision, confirming that disclosure obligations are broad in civil forfeiture matters and that no right to silence applies.

1. First objection – Personal banking and credit documents (Engagements 2 & 3):
   Conde refused to provide personal banking, credit card, loan, and financial account statements from January 1, 2018 to February 28, 2023, claiming privacy. The court held that these records are directly relevant to determining whether a marked disproportion exists between his declared income and financial condition. Objection rejected.

2. Second objection – Business financial records (Engagement 5):
   Conde acknowledged owning Groupe Gnouma Inc. but refused to provide its financials, stating the seized funds came from personal savings. The court found this objection invalid since the business is directly connected to the activities leading to his arrest. Objection rejected.

3. Third objection – Source of the $14,500 and corresponding banking documentation (Engagement 9):
   Conde stated the money was from savings but refused to identify matching withdrawals in his account. The court found this refusal unjustified and ordered disclosure. Objection rejected.

4. Fourth objection – Repair records for Freightliner truck (Engagement 11):
   Conde argued repairs were done after the seizure and were unrelated. The court partially agreed, limiting the required disclosures to the three months before and after the seizure (i.e., from November 28, 2022 to May 28, 2023). Objection partially rejected.

Conclusion

The Court of Québec, per Judge Magali Lewis, J.C.Q., partially granted PGQ’s motion and ordered Aboubacar Conde to provide the requested documents, rejecting three objections entirely and one in part. The ruling confirms that financial transparency is essential in civil forfeiture cases and reiterates that civil defendants cannot refuse to disclose relevant financial information on privacy or self-incrimination grounds. The court also emphasized the importance of article 11 of the confiscation law, which permits a presumption when there is a significant mismatch between a person’s wealth and legitimate income, particularly when linked to suspected illegal activity.

The judgment does not rule on the merits of the forfeiture itself, which remains to be determined at trial. However, it firmly establishes the rules governing pre-trial disclosure in cases involving alleged proceeds of illegal activities.