I do not think so, because here is the wording: “[...] during regular maintenance or any repair or other work done on the vehicle for a legitimate purpose [...]”. No judge could consider organized crime a legitimate purpose. No court of law would consider the wording ambiguous. Perhaps it is not relevant. I did not think to ask the minister when he came before the committee. When we do the clause-by-clause study on Wednesday, we can ask the question, but, as far as I am concerned, the term “legitimate purpose” protects us against the scenario you are foreseeing.
