What if I bought the item and did not know it was stolen?

That is a complete answer to the charge, provided the belief was genuine and you were not wilfully blind. Evidence of what you paid, who you bought it from, and whether the circumstances should have raised suspicion will all be examined.

What is the doctrine of recent possession?

Where an accused is found in possession of recently stolen property without a plausible explanation, the trier of fact may, but need not, infer that the accused knew it was stolen or was the thief. Providing a credible explanation displaces the inference.

Is buying something suspiciously cheap enough to convict?

A price far below market value is powerful circumstantial evidence of wilful blindness, especially combined with a cash purchase from an unknown seller. It is not conclusive on its own, but it is the kind of circumstance that shifts these cases.

Specialized Prosecutions

Possession Of Stolen Property Lawyer in Canada

A possession of stolen property lawyer defends charges under Criminal Code, ss. 354 and 355. This page sets out what the offence covers, what the Crown must prove, the penalties on conviction and the defences that are commonly available, then lists criminal defence firms you can contact.

Criminal Code, ss. 354 and 355·hybrid offence

What Possession of Stolen Property covers in Canadian criminal law

Section 354 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to have in one's possession any property, thing or proceeds knowing that it was obtained by the commission of an indictable offence. Section 355 sets the punishment, which turns on whether the value exceeds $5,000.

The central element is knowledge. The Crown must prove that the accused knew the property was stolen, or was wilfully blind to that fact. Wilful blindness, deliberately declining to make inquiries because one suspects the truth, is treated as the equivalent of knowledge.

Section 354(2) creates an evidentiary provision for vehicles and vehicle parts with obliterated identification numbers, and the doctrine of recent possession permits, but does not require, an inference of knowledge from unexplained possession of recently stolen goods.

What the Crown must prove

The Crown carries the burden of proving every element beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt on any one of them means an acquittal.

The property was obtained by the commission of an indictable offence
The accused had possession of it, meaning knowledge and control
The accused knew the property had been so obtained, or was wilfully blind
The value of the property, where the Crown alleges over $5,000
Identity of the accused and the date and jurisdiction of the alleged offence

Penalties and consequences on conviction

A maximum of ten years imprisonment for property over $5,000 under section 355(a)
A maximum of two years on indictment for property of $5,000 or less
Restitution to the owner and forfeiture of the property
A criminal record for an offence of dishonesty
Immigration consequences where the ten-year maximum applies

Common defences

Absence of knowledge that the property was stolen, and a genuine explanation for how it was acquired
No wilful blindness, where the circumstances of purchase were not suspicious
Absence of possession, where the property was in a shared space
Rebutting the doctrine of recent possession with a credible explanation
The Crown cannot prove the property was obtained by an indictable offence
Section 8 Charter challenges to the search that located the property

Possession of stolen property lawyer: frequently asked questions

What if I bought the item and did not know it was stolen?: That is a complete answer to the charge, provided the belief was genuine and you were not wilfully blind. Evidence of what you paid, who you bought it from, and whether the circumstances should have raised suspicion will all be examined.
What is the doctrine of recent possession?: Where an accused is found in possession of recently stolen property without a plausible explanation, the trier of fact may, but need not, infer that the accused knew it was stolen or was the thief. Providing a credible explanation displaces the inference.
Is buying something suspiciously cheap enough to convict?: A price far below market value is powerful circumstantial evidence of wilful blindness, especially combined with a cash purchase from an unknown seller. It is not conclusive on its own, but it is the kind of circumstance that shifts these cases.

Find a possession of stolen property lawyer

These criminal defence firms handle Criminal Code matters and can advise on Possession of Stolen Property charges. Confirm the scope of a firm’s practice before retaining counsel.