Yes. Thank you so much.
First of all, if we are to have a law whereby the proceeds of crime would actually end up going back into victim care, then we would have to fix the grant system first. You take the money out of the trafficker's hand, then a john's hand, and everybody's hand, and then you put it in a pile, and the pile will end up in a broken grant system, and a broken grant system is the one that is going to eat up the money again, and the money is not going to go where it needs to go.
My suggestion is that if we take the money away from the proceeds of crime, we just have to reform the granting system so that the money would actually go to the rehabilitation of the survivors and/or directly back to the victims who worked really hard and made $300,000 to $400,000, or $500,000 for the trafficker.
So that's one, and to answer your second question, I actually don't know why. I have done a little bit of research on it. The judges who have decided not to go for the harsh sentences have said that these would be too harsh. Then I don't understand why we have laws. Why do we have laws if the judges are not implementing our laws? That used to be what their feedback was, that it's just too harsh. It's too harsh of a sentence for a young individual to go to jail for 10 years for trafficking somebody.
That's the answer we used to get.