Topic: Sale of Canadian military uniforms on internet sparks investigation

[Jager]

We ship worldwide and accept Paypal to confirmed addresses. Canadian residents add 5% GST, BC residents add 7% PST. Please wait for invoice before paying with paypal.

Right..... I'm sure the government gets the money that he 'collects' for taxes.

[Loachman]

He is openly in business. He has to submit his records for tax purposes. The government is rather serious about such things. That he is selling restricted items openly is another matter. Either he has legitimate sources (slim chance, but not impossible) or nobody officially cares to go after him.

[Kokanee]

...or nobody officially cares to go after him.

I gave the MP's at my base a pile of PM's and posts from a fellow on a webforum whom was quite clearly selling restricted items he had pilfered from supply @ CFB Petawawa (he confirmed as such in his pm's to me) back in 2004. Initially my evidence was greeted with enthusiasm and thanks, but then a week later I went back for a scheduled followup appt and a MP Sgt told me "here's your stuff back, we're not going to do anything with it as the problem is just too big."

At that point I stopped caring.

[George Wallace]

I gave the MP's at my base a pile of PM's and posts from a fellow on a webforum whom was quite clearly selling restricted items he had pilfered from supply @ CFB Petawawa (he confirmed as such in his pm's to me) back in 2004. Initially my evidence was greeted with enthusiasm and thanks, but then a week later I went back for a scheduled followup appt and a MP Sgt told me "here's your stuff back, we're not going to do anything with it as the problem is just too big."

At that point I stopped caring.

Really pisses you off when that happens doesn't it!  Seen it happen in Pet on other occasions, in other circumstances, in other sections. 

[Kokanee]

Indeed George; I have zero patience for military members, let alone civilian workers who steal clothing/equipment and sell it to make a buck as I (like a good many people here) have had to go without on occasion during OPs.

[Pegcity]

I would be concerned that the uniforms could be purchased by hostile groups and sent to Afghanistan and used in ambushes. This is not acceptable at all.
What is the justification for having a real uniform, you do not need a real uniform for paint balling. 

[57Chevy]

I would be concerned that the uniforms could be purchased by hostile groups and sent to Afghanistan and used in ambushes. This is not acceptable at all.
What is the justification for having a real uniform, you do not need a real uniform for paint balling.

I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.

[Occam]

I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.

I can't see a manufacturer risking the loss of future contracts, as well as sanctions under ITAR, by selling off controlled items in excess of a contracted amount.

[57Chevy]

I can't see a manufacturer risking the loss of future contracts, as well as sanctions under ITAR, by selling off controlled items in excess of a contracted amount.

I can, and the possibility exists.
I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.
One cannot just assume that items of kit whether controlled or not are stolen and then sold off.

[CDN Aviator]

I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.

You can't ?

Have you looked at the CF court martial calendar over the last few years ?


For example :

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/roche.pdf

Charge 1: S. 114 NDA, stealing, when entrusted by reason of her employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.

Example :

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/belanger.pdf

Charge 1: S. 114 NDA, stealing when entrusted, by reason of his employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen.

http://www.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/ccm-cmc/fca-cs/doc/gray.pdf

Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: S. 114 NDA, stealing

These are for 2010, so far, alone.

[Occam]

I cannot see that it would be theft by military personnel. But that possibility exists also.

I'll see your "possibility" and raise you one "likelihood".   

[Chapeski]

I can see the problem there, and I'm sure the various unit patches/insigna can also be easily found.
The problem may not be the cause of theft though. The manufacturer usually produces in excess of
contracted quantities. Sometimes up to about 10%. If the buyer does not accept them then they are sold off.

If we are talking about the CADPat uniforms and such, the manufacturer is not permitted to sell any legitimate pieces (ex: anything that has been treated for the IR resistance) The legit items that are for sale on ebay would be stolen items. Unfortunately the level of stolen or "lost" kit that appears on ebay is excessively high. Reports are constantly sent to the MP's to deal with, however they don't have the manpower to recover all of the material.

[Brasidas]

If we are talking about the CADPat uniforms and such, the manufacturer is not permitted to sell any legitimate pieces (ex: anything that has been treated for the IR resistance) The legit items that are for sale on ebay would be stolen items. Unfortunately the level of stolen or "lost" kit that appears on ebay is excessively high. Reports are constantly sent to the MP's to deal with, however they don't have the manpower to recover all of the material.

Fly by night e-bay merchants are one thing. Established, stable surplus stores sell this crap openly. Dropped by Supply Sergeant in Edmonton in the last couple weeks, could've picked up a tac vest, cadpat combats, bushcap and whatnot. I know I can do the same in Kingston. What kind of effort would it really take for MPs to drop by and say "This is against the law. Don't stock this. Here's a set of colour pictures on plain copy paper of the common stuff you can't stock. We'll be back to have a peek around in two weeks." ?

[Chapeski]

I stop in at Supply Sergeant about once or twice a month. I have a habbit of checking the manufacturers tags, and not once have I seen legitimate CADPat uniforms for sale. I haven't taken a look at the TAC vests yet, maybe next trip in. I'd be able to tell pretty much instantly if it is real or a recreation. Remember, it's not illegal to sell CADPat style clothing, it just can't be the chemical treated IR resistant stuff. The tag on the inside tells it all.

[Eye In The Sky]

I am now law expert but would MPs have juristiction to do that at a civilian business?  I would hazard a guess they would have to involve the city police or RCMP perhaps.

[Chapeski]

Well, if it was DND property in there they would have some authority I would imagine, however I'm sure they'd be in contact with LEO as a courtesy. As for what an MP does off duty, well that's their own perogative. If they happen to see something in there then they can inform their on duty co-workers to come down and deal with it.

[Jim Seggie]

Fly by night e-bay merchants are one thing. Established, stable surplus stores sell this crap openly. Dropped by Supply Sergeant in Edmonton in the last couple weeks, could've picked up a tac vest, cadpat combats, bushcap and whatnot. I know I can do the same in Kingston. What kind of effort would it really take for MPs to drop by and say "This is against the law. Don't stock this. Here's a set of colour pictures on plain copy paper of the common stuff you can't stock. We'll be back to have a peek around in two weeks." ?

I suppose the MPs could.

BUT.....then the local media states:

"Local small businesses bullied by Military Police"

Whether its true or not.

[Brasidas]

I stop in at Supply Sergeant about once or twice a month. I have a habbit of checking the manufacturers tags, and not once have I seen legitimate CADPat uniforms for sale. I haven't taken a look at the TAC vests yet, maybe next trip in. I'd be able to tell pretty much instantly if it is real or a recreation. Remember, it's not illegal to sell CADPat style clothing, it just can't be the chemical treated IR resistant stuff. The tag on the inside tells it all.

While in Kingston, an anal retentive coursemate dropped by the army surplus store by 86 Princess and bought himself a full extra set of combats so he could keep one to look pretty while on parade. It's out there. Unless it's legal to have knockoffs identical down to the sizing label, sans the IR stuff that goes away in the laundry, I can get it in a store.

As of June 24, there is an issue temperate-pattern tac vest at Supply Sergeant in West Ed.

[NON]

 Personally I don't wear Canadian Issue gear except two Items, since I served for 5+ years. I collect Canadian Second World war or Airborne Patches etc. Last week just out of curiosity I checked EvilBay aka Ebay its full of Canadian Armed Forces Gear present issue which I know It's illegal to own, Now I do have the Boonie Hat and the Cadpat shooters Vail but I bought them at the Valcartier PX, they sell them.

I contacted 3 sellers and advised them that this was not Kosher, two sent me to hell they advised me they could since the Items were sold to them by the Canadian Army ?? cant remember the name used.

Just go on Evilbay you'll see how much Canadian Gear they sell. I advised Ebay trust and safety a few times but I never got a reply from them, as example this seller has sold in the past

removed by mod

[AideMemoire]

Any security plan which absolutely relies upon 100% complete control of bits of kit is doomed to failure because of the sheer scale of issue and the number of different hands the kit has to pass through - each an opportunity for accidental loss, disposal due to unfamiliarity with disposal regs, 'doing someone a favour' and genuine human error.  Unfortunately it's fairly easy for the government to adopt the position "it's illegal to own...(x-bit-of-kit)" despite the fact no illegal activity took place anywhere in the prior chain of ownership - which needlessly creates a new class of criminals with the stroke of a clueless pen.


The supply chain is immense, and the longer kit is out there - the more opportunities there are for control problems.  I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.  I think that MPs and local LEOs who think of everything as a binary proposition (one or zero, black or white) just really aren't standing far enough away from the picture to be able to see the whole thing.   They have to take things at a case-by-case basis and have to prove illegal activity -- that's the job -- and to try to adopt the position that "well...it's illegal to own" is not doing that job, nor standing up for the rights of those same citizens most of us put the uniform on to defend to begin with. It's just convenient. And organizationally lazy.

[Occam]

in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release. 

If controlled goods were released onto civvie street, then someone broke the regs - therefore there was illegal activity.  Simple as that.  Someone didn't do their job, whether it was the person who was issued CADPAT selling it to a surplus store, or a supply tech selling a bin of stuff to a surplus store, or the person who was supposed to burn a bin of CADPAT clothing diverting it to a surplus store.  Someone broke the law.  There's no legal way for it to find its way onto civvie street.

[ArmyVern]

Any security plan which absolutely relies upon 100% complete control of bits of kit is doomed to failure because of the sheer scale of issue and the number of different hands the kit has to pass through - each an opportunity for accidental loss, disposal due to unfamiliarity with disposal regs, 'doing someone a favour' and genuine human error.  Unfortunately it's fairly easy for the government to adopt the position "it's illegal to own...(x-bit-of-kit)" despite the fact no illegal activity took place anywhere in the prior chain of ownership - which needlessly creates a new class of criminals with the stroke of a clueless pen.


The supply chain is immense, and the longer kit is out there - the more opportunities there are for control problems.  I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release.  I think that MPs and local LEOs who think of everything as a binary proposition (one or zero, black or white) just really aren't standing far enough away from the picture to be able to see the whole thing.   They have to take things at a case-by-case basis and have to prove illegal activity -- that's the job -- and to try to adopt the position that "well...it's illegal to own" is not doing that job, nor standing up for the rights of those same citizens most of us put the uniform on to defend to begin with. It's just convenient. And organizationally lazy.

Lest there be any doubt --- We have thiefs in the CF. Surprise.

I've probably seen 500 or so MLRs specificly dealing with combats "lost" ( ) from laundry in the shacks. Why do you think all those COs & Comdts specificly tell their troops not to leave their laundry unattended.

Give a google to the national Court Martial calendar ... see all those links to those S. 114 Court Martials (stealing while entrusted, by reason of employment, with the custody, control or distribution of the thing stolen) ...

[ArmyVern]

I can think of many, many, many examples I won't bore people with - but in each case bits of supposedly 'controlled' kit wound up in civvystreet and there wasn't one ounce of illegal activity involved in its release. 

You can't be speaking of any cadpat patterned item here ...

Since their inception into the system they have never been a 'retention' item and thus no soldier should find his cadpat patterned items making their way to civvy street; the good books say they must return it all to clothing stores - if not, they are breaking the rules (and probably lying on their MLRs at release time to say they "lost" it etc [an offense in and of itself as that is 'fraudulent completion of official government paperwork']).

And, since it's inception all cadpat items have had to be DMil'd prior to disposal action by Supply R&D sections (less the infamous CFB Edmonton R&D section foul-up at the outset). DMil'd via burning to beyond useable or via shredding to non-useable "scrim". A Sup Tech in that section is also signing all the CTAT & ITAR Demilitarization paperwork for all that cadpat "Certifying that item was DMil'd IAW specific instruction". Certifying something as "DMil'd", but not actually DMil'ing it according to it's specific disposal instruction and DMil code, is a federal offense and is punishable by fine, imprisonment or both.

[2010newbie]

I was in a surplus store in the GTA this past weekend and they had at least a half a dozen CADPAT ICE jackets in great condition. There were probably 30 pairs of CADPAT pants and tunics (all in pretty bad shape though) as well. I checked the labels and they all seemed to be genuine. I saw some tacvests also on my way out that looked pretty genuine, but I didn't get a chance to take a closer look.

The ICE jackets were what shocked me though because they were in such great condition and I remember seeing a posting at the Stores in Toronto saying they were short ICE jackets the last time I was there. It's awful when there isn't kit to issue to members, but surplus stores are acquiring it and selling it to the public.

I mentioned to them that I didn't think it was legal to sell to the public and they were "convinced" that it was.

[Rafterman1]

I checked the labels and they all seemed to be genuine.

What will it say on the labels if it is infact genuine?