Article content continued

The defendants have not been charged criminally. The threshold for proving a civil forfeiture claim is lower than for a criminal conviction, a balance of probabilities instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a response filed in B.C. Supreme Court on Feb. 19, the Naidus and Can Auto Electric and Appliance Repair Ltd. stated their income was derived from legitimate revenues generated from Can Auto employment, rent and other investments.

Watkins has not responded to the allegations, which have not been proven in court.

The accused directly responded to the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office’s claim that to launder money the accused deposited the proceeds of drug trafficking into various bank accounts, often in amounts under $10,000, which would trigger an automatic requirement for a bank to report the transaction to Canada’s financial intelligence gathering agency.

The Naidus response stated that Can Auto operated in part on the receipt of cash payments for its services.

The civil forfeiture office claim noted that between November 2014 and February 2018, the Ashok Naidu deposited more than $275,000 in cash into various bank accounts.

“(The B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office) makes broad allegations that cannot be substantiated that the defendants had no legitimate income that as a result all or substantially all the defendants’ property was purchased and maintained with proceeds of unlawful activity. This is false and the (civil forfeiture office) knew or ought to have known this to be false at the time of filing the notice of civil claim,” stated Avenel Naidu’s response, filed by his lawyer, Casey Leggett.