Federal government

Evidence Against Ryan Wedding‘s Lawyer Derived from FBI Witness

Evidence presented in the case against Ryan Wedding, a man accused of orchestrating a murder to obstruct a criminal inquiry, includes communications obtained through an FBI informant that implicate his lawyer, Deepak Paradkar.The RCMP filed an affidavit on November 17th, the day before this week’s arrests, detailing the allegations.

According to the affidavit, Mr. Paradkar is accused of receiving a phone that contained proof of former witness Hector Acebedo-Garcia‘s planned testimony against the cartel. Police allege Atna Ohna of Montreal handed the phone to Mr. Paradkar.court documents further allege that Mr. Ohna texted Mr. Acebedo-Garcia weeks before his death to confirm his cooperation with the FBI, and is now accused of passing the phone as data to Mr. Wedding’s institution.

Crucially, the evidence against mr. Paradkar includes a group chat conversation – via an encrypted messaging app – between himself, Mr. Wedding, and another individual who later became an FBI informant. In an october 2024 exchange, Mr. Paradkar allegedly told Mr. Wedding and the informant that eliminating Mr. Acebedo-Garcia would likely result in the dismissal of an impending indictment.

The case highlights the boundaries of attorney-client privilege, a fundamental principle of the justice system. david Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford university and former federal prosecutor, explained that the privilege protects confidential legal advice regarding past activity, but not discussions about future crimes. It also doesn’t apply to communications involving multiple parties, such as group chats.

Mr.Sklansky noted the stringent internal guidelines within the FBI and other law enforcement agencies regarding intercepted communications involving lawyers, frequently enough requiring special approval and dedicated teams to screen for privilege before evidence is shared with investigators. “You want to protect the ability of people to talk to a lawyer…in order to ensure that people get adequate counsel,” he said. “But if they’re using that privilege as a cloak for planning more crimes or more frauds, then American law says it no longer is in the public interest to protect those communications.”

Alain Roussy, an associate professor at the University of ottawa’s Faculty of Law, confirmed that both Canada and the U.S. have exceptions to solicitor-client privilege when communications directly further criminal activity. “If I’m saying, ‘oh could you help me launder money?’ And the lawyer says, ‘oh sure, here’s how it effectively works,’ then privilege does not attach to that kind of thing,” he explained.