I can honestly say no, I have not. But to me, that makes absolute sense. And I do know that what we have done is this. Where we have come across family members and other people who have benefited from the proceeds of those crimes, depending on their involvement and their knowledge, they have actually been charged, and as a result of that, we've been able to attach those assets to them, to the crime. But realistically, looking at some analytical research as to that, no, we haven't done that.
The other difficulty we have, and we've seen that in years gone by with a lot of the larger cases, is with the police. I guess the mentality there is this: are we the resource that is to be used to go back to look and then detect where all of these assets have been segregated off to, or do we enforce it as the Criminal Code says: you committed the offence of fraud, you took the money, where is it? You can't explain it. Let's go. You're in. And that's pretty much where the police end it.
But I agree. If we have the ability now to move forward—and it is going to take an act to change that—and engage the police, or engage a component of the police now to trace those assets and remove those assets, as you've said, I agree with you, that is a good way of breaking the backs of organized crime. And in Canada we are now seeing a lot of that.