10 years
Indictable offence with a 10-year maximum. Serious criminality under IRPA s.36(1). Money laundering also triggers inadmissibility under IRPA s.37 (organized criminality). Severe immigration consequences with potential for inadmissibility on multiple grounds.
Moving or disguising money that came from a crime so that it looks clean. The ceiling is 10 years, right on the serious criminality line. Where the money traces back to a criminal group the organized crime ground can apply as well, and that is assessed on its own terms.
(1) Every one commits an offence who uses, transfers the possession of, sends or delivers to any person or place, transports, transmits, alters, disposes of or otherwise deals with, in any manner and by any means, any property or any proceeds of any property with intent to conceal or convert that property or those proceeds, knowing or believing that, or being reckless as to whether, all or a part of that property or of those proceeds was obtained or derived directly or indirectly as a result of (a) the commission in Canada of a designated offence; or (b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted a designated offence. (1.1) [Repealed, 2024, c. 17, s. 378] (1.2) [Repealed, 2024, c. 17, s. 378] (1.3) [Repealed, 2024, c. 17, s. 378] (2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. (2.1) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. (2.2) Subject to subsection (2.4), in a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) or (2.1), it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew, believed they knew or was reckless as to the specific nature of the designated offence. (2.3) Subject to subsection (2.4), the court may infer that an accused had the knowledge or belief or demonstrated the recklessness referred to in subsection (1) if it is satisfied, given the circumstances of the offence, that the manner in which the accused dealt with the property or its proceeds is markedly unusual or the accused’s dealings are inconsistent with lawful activities typical of the sector in which they take place, including business activities. (2.4) Subsections (2.2) and (2.3) do not apply in cases where the accused is also charged with the designated offence. (3) A peace officer or a person acting under the direction of a peace officer is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2.1) if the peace officer or person does any of the things mentioned in that subsection for the purposes of an investigation or otherwise in the execution of the peace officer’s duties.