Lin v R

Lin sought to have a notice of motion dismissed which sought to stay or quash an indictment against him for money laundering. The court was required to determine whether the indictment was defective for not identifying the class of indictable offences from which the money was reasonably suspected of being proceeds. The court also needed to consider the purpose of subsection 2 of the relevant section of the Criminal Code, which specifies various kinds of conduct proof of which is sufficient to satisfy subsection 1.

The court found that the indictment was not defective as it was sufficient to specify that the money was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime without identifying the specific class of indictable offences. The purpose of subsection 2 was to expand the operation of subsection 1, and therefore, the indictment was valid. The court also found that the application for leave to appeal was successful as the question of law was of sufficient importance to warrant an appeal.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the motion to stay or quash the indictment, grant leave to appeal, and dismiss the appeal. The court found that the indictment was valid and that the question of law was of sufficient importance to warrant an appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the motion to stay or quash the indictment was unsuccessful.