Key Takeaways
- Former RCMP officer William Majcher is on trial in B.C. Supreme Court for allegedly preparing to commit an offence under Canada’s Security of Information Act by acting on behalf of Chinese authorities.
- Crown prosecutor Ryan Carrier argued that Majcher’s actions constituted an “end‑run” around Canadian sovereignty, using the threat of Chinese criminal proceedings to pressure a Vancouver‑based real‑estate mogul.
- Central to the Crown’s case is a June 2017 email in which Majcher described locating over $100 million of assets tied to an unnamed “fraudster” and promised to obtain a copy of a pending Chinese arrest warrant.
- The prosecution links the unnamed fraudster to Hongwei (Kevin) Sun, a Chinese‑wanted financier who built a real‑estate empire in Vancouver after allegedly stealing hundreds of millions from a Chinese bank.
- Defense counsel Ian Donaldson maintains the arrest was based on “suspicion, speculation, hypotheses, and guesswork,” noting a prior ruling that overturned a related search warrant on similar grounds.
- The trial has drawn support from former police officers and private investigators, while Majcher says he hopes for a not‑guilty verdict so he can return to Hong Kong and his children.
Background on the Trial and Charges
William Majcher, a retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer who moved to Hong Kong after his 2007 departure from the force, founded a corporate‑risk firm specializing in asset recovery. In 2023 he was arrested and charged with one count of “engaging in preparatory acts to commit an offence” under Canada’s Security of Information Act. The Crown alleges that, while operating his private firm, Majcher undertook steps that would facilitate Chinese law‑enforcement objectives concerning a fugitive financier living in Canada. The case is being heard before Justice Martha Devlin in the British Columbia Supreme Court, with the Crown having completed its closing submissions and the defence set to deliver its final arguments on Monday.
Crown Prosecutor’s Closing Argument
During his closing submissions, Crown prosecutor Ryan Carrier painted a picture of a calculated campaign. He told Justice Devlin that a “constellation” of facts demonstrated Majcher was laying the groundwork for an extortion‑style pressure campaign against a B.C.–based permanent resident whom the People’s Republic of China (PRC) wanted returned to face justice. Carrier asserted that Majcher knowingly used the spectre of Chinese criminal proceedings to induce the target to comply with foreign‑government demands, thereby benefiting PRC law enforcement and projecting its power into Canadian territory—a act he described as “an affront to Canadian sovereignty, a most serious threat.”
Allegations of an ‘End‑Run’ Around Canadian Sovereignty
The Crown’s theory hinges on the claim that Chinese authorities employed Majcher to bypass Canadian legal barriers that prevent foreign agents from directly arresting or approaching suspects on Canadian soil. According to Carrier, after the RCMP closed its investigation into Hongwei (Kevin) Sun in 2016, Chinese officials sought an alternative route: they enlisted Majcher to locate Sun’s assets, threaten him with a pending Chinese arrest warrant, and ultimately coerce a settlement that would serve as a precedent for quietly resolving economic crimes. This alleged maneuver, the prosecutor argued, allowed the PRC to exert extraterritorial influence without violating Canadian law directly—a clear affront to national sovereignty.
Testimony of RCMP Liaison Officer Peter Tsui
Former head of the RCMP’s liaison office in Beijing, Superintendent Peter Tsui, testified that China’s Ministry of Public Security first approached the RCMP in 2016 with a request to act on historic fraud charges against Sun. Canadian police refused, providing a “hard no.” Tsui said the Chinese subsequently altered tactics, asking whether they could simply speak with Sun. The RCMP tracked the fugitive, but Sun declared he would not talk to either Canadian or Chinese authorities, insisting he could not be touched while residing in Canada. Tsui’s testimony helped frame the timeline that culminated in the March 2018 cancellation of Sun’s international red notice, which the Chinese claimed was due to negotiations sparked by an expired passport.
The Controversial Email to a Colleague
A pivotal piece of evidence is an email Majcher sent to a colleague in June 2017, after the RCMP had closed its Sun file but before the Chinese appeared to have entered negotiations. In the message, Majcher wrote about an unnamed “fraudster” who was “now a … major real estate mogul in Vancouver” and stated that his firm had located over $100 million of assets tied to that individual. He noted that “the Chinese Police have opened a Task Force and standing by to issue a global arrest warrant” and expressed hope to obtain a copy of the warrant before issuance so he could “impress upon the crook that we hold the keys to his future.” Majcher added that he was meeting an associate of the target in Hong Kong to explore a settlement, framing the effort as a precedent case the Chinese wished to use to settle economic crimes quietly and expeditiously.
Linking the Email to Kevin Sun
Carrier argued that the details in the email—particularly the reference to a Vancouver‑based real‑estate mogul with over $100 million in traceable assets—could only point to Hongwei (Kevin) Sun. Sun had been accused of diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from a Chinese bank into a Lower Mainland property portfolio, making him a high‑profile target for PRC authorities. The prosecutor emphasized that Majcher, as a private citizen, lacked the authority to guarantee Sun a passport or immunity from jail; only the Chinese state could provide such assurances. Therefore, the email demonstrated that Majcher was acting for, or in conjunction with, Chinese authorities, satisfying the preparatory‑act element of the Security of Information Act charge.
Defense’s Position and Pre‑Trial Rulings
Majcher’s lawyer, veteran defender Ian Donaldson, contends the Crown’s case rests on “suspicion, speculation, hypotheses, and guesswork.” In pre‑trial proceedings, Donaldson persuaded Justice Devlin to rule that Majcher’s March 2023 arrest violated his right not to be arbitrarily detained, a decision echoed when the judge previously tossed out a search warrant linked to the investigation on similar grounds. The defence maintains that the email does not prove criminal intent, arguing instead that Majcher was merely conducting legitimate asset‑recovery work and that any implication of collusion with Chinese authorities is speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence of wrongdoing.
Reactions from Supporters and Majcher’s Personal Statement
Throughout the trial, the courtroom gallery has been filled with Majcher’s supporters, including former police officers and private investigators who say the investigation has disrupted their lives and careers. Majcher’s wife has attended each day, underscoring the personal toll the proceedings have taken. Outside the courthouse, Majcher expressed hope for a not‑guilty verdict that would allow him to return to Hong Kong and reunite with his children, framing the case as an unjust attack on his reputation and livelihood after decades of service.
Legal Implications and Broader Concerns
Beyond the individual fate of Majcher, the case raises broader questions about foreign influence operations, the limits of Canada’s Security of Information Act, and how to distinguish legitimate private‑sector risk work from illicit state‑directed activity. A conviction could signal a stricter judicial stance on actions that appear to facilitate foreign law‑enforcement objectives within Canadian borders, potentially affecting private firms engaged in cross‑border asset recovery. Conversely, an acquittal might reinforce the need for clearer statutory guidance and stronger investigative thresholds before charging individuals with preparatory acts under national‑security legislation.
What Lies Ahead: Defense’s Final Submissions and Possible Verdict
With the Crown’s submissions complete, the defence will present its final arguments on Monday, after which Justice Devlin will deliberate. The outcome hinges on whether the judge finds the email and surrounding circumstances sufficient to prove that Majcher knowingly prepared to assist Chinese authorities in extorting a Canadian resident, or whether she concurs with the defence that the evidence remains conjectural. Whatever the verdict, the trial is poised to become a reference point for how Canadian courts address allegations of foreign‑state‑linked conduct that straddles the line between private enterprise and national‑security threats.