POT HOUSE FORFEITED TO CROWN

Only Fifth Home Ever Seized In B.C.

A north-Nanaimo home built and used for growing marijuana was
forfeited to Her Majesty Thursday and is now to be put up for sale.

The home, at 6075 Montgomery Way, was owned and built by Cuc Van Bui,
49, and Tu Thi Tran, 46 in 2001. The couple was convicted in B.C.
Supreme Court in February this year for possession of marijuana for
the purpose of trafficking, cultivating marijuana and theft of
electricity.

Police seized 600 plants, 475 of which were mature in the September
2003 raid. This is only the fifth home seized by the Crown in B.C. in
connection with drug dealing.

In addition to the forfeiture, Bui and Tran were also put on a
conditional sentence for a year by Justice Ross Lander. Aside from
statutory conditions, they must also allow an inspection of their
residence during daylight hours when requested.

Justice Lander noted the grow operation was sophisticated and highly
profitable. He cited calculations by an RCMP expert in marijuana
growing operations showing that 475 plants could potentially earn as
much as $900,000 out of three crops in a year.

Justice Lander also referred to tax returns for Bui and Tran, and
other documents seized by police in a search of the home. The highest
tax return, for both Bui and Tran, was for $22,000 in 2002.

A neighbour who testified at the hearing and works in the service
department at the Nanaimo Honda dealership said he used to see Bui and
Tran bring their Acura in for servicing.

During the hearing there was a reference to Bui and Tran earning a
living as clam diggers. Justice Lander also noted tax returns between
1997 and 1999 in which Bui and Tran declared Employment Insurance
income against only summer work.

But police also found documentation of a loan Bui had made another man
for $25,000, as well as a mortgage application in which their declared
income was $85,000. There was $147,000 remaining on the mortgage, said
the judge.

"They could not exist on their incomes, there had to be another source
which I infer was the growing of marijuana," said Justice Lander.

There was no evidence from the defence, he said, to show the
forfeiture might have an adverse impact on innocent members of the
family. It was unclear whether the two younger of couple's four
children are living in the house.