Law · Legal Information · Justice
 

Extortion

Forcing a person to give up property in a thing through the use of violence, fear or under pretense of authority.

In Shoppee, Justice Collins wrote:

"Extortion ... was a misdemeanor at common law. Extorsion is defined to be in a large sense, any oppression under colour of right. In a strict sense, the taking of money by any officer by colour of his office, either where none at all is due or not so much is due, or where it is not yet due.

"It seems quite clear that the crime of extortion was not committed unless some improper motive, or at all events intention, to do the wrong actually done was proved."

In the USA, Justice Gilbert used these words in Daniels:

"Extortion is the taking or obtaining of anything from another by means of ilegal compulsion or oppressive exaction, and the term implies that the money paid was extorted on the part of the one who received it, and was paid unwillingly by the one who paid it.

"The distinction between bribery and extortion seems to be that the former offense consists in offering a present or receiving one, the latter in demanding a fee or present by colour of office."

In Canada, the 2008 version of the Criminal Code prohibits extortion as set out at §346(1):

"Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done."

In R v Davis, Chief Justice lamer of Canada's Supreme Court wrote, in 1999:

"Extortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice. It punishes those who, through threats, accusations, menaces, or violence induce or attempt to induce their victims into doing anything or causing anything to be done. Threats, accusations, menaces and violence clearly intimidate. When threats are coupled with demands, there is an inducement to accede to the demands. This interferes with the victim's freedom of choice, as the victim may be coerced into doing something he or she would otherwise have chosen not to do."

REFERENCES:

  • Criminal Code of Canada, 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter C-46, published at canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/
  • Daniels v United States 17 Federal Reporter 2d339 (1927)
  • R v Davis 1999 3 SCR 759
  • Shoppee v Nathan (1892) 1 Queen's bench 245 (UK)

Latest LagMag headlines:

China Politburo - Take A $%##@!@@ Hike

A lone student stands-down a row of four communist tanks and still, 19 years later, lawyers and international law experts with far less courage, ... tremble and wait.

Banning the Use of Hand-Held Cell Phones While Driving

What is with banning hand-held cell phone use while driving that's so difficult for law-makers? Maybe this will help: The Emperor has no clothes! The Emperor has no clothes!

Birthday Legal Information Ramblings

It only takes two psychiatrists to lock someone away. Birthday or not, here's enough to find ten.


Read earlier headlines »
Subscribe to stay in touch »


Switch to variable width

Switch to fixed width

Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). It is not intended to be legal advice and you would be foolhardy to rely on it in respect to any specific situation you or an acquaintance may be facing. In addition, the law changes rapidly and sometimes with little notice so from time to time, an article may not be up to date. Therefore, this is merely legal information designed to educate the reader. If you have a real situation, this information will serve as a good springboard to get legal advice from a lawyer.

top