Project Severo Collapse Demands Public Inquiry

By Fabian Dawson
Mata Press Service

On July 21, 2023, as the Trudeau government faced intense pressure over alleged Chinese foreign interference, the RCMP charged one of its own, William Majcher, in a prosecution framed as proof that Canada was acting against Beijing’s covert reach.

Earlier this month, that prosecution fell apart in the B.C. Supreme Court with Majcher’s acquittal. Justice Martha Devlin ruled that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed any of the alleged acts.

That ruling raises a disturbing question about whether the Mounties were sent hunting for a target to ease Ottawa’s political crisis over China. It followed earlier rulings by the same judge who found Majcher’s airport arrest unlawful and the related search of the Vancouver home of a retired Mountie invalid.

Taken together, the rulings point to a case weakened from the start by suspicion, inference and investigative shortcuts. That is why the fallout from Project Severo demands a public inquiry, so Canadians can understand how a costly, high-profile national security prosecution came apart under weak evidence, improper police conduct and institutional failure.

Majcher, a former RCMP inspector who moved to Hong Kong after leaving the force, ran an asset-recovery business that dealt with financial crime and efforts to recover alleged proceeds of crime.

At the centre of the prosecution was Hongwei Sun, also known as Kevin Sun, a Chinese businessman who was living in Vancouver. The Crown alleged Majcher prepared to help coerce Sun for the benefit of Beijing.

The RCMP seized on that strand of Majcher’s work, branded it Project Severo, dressed it in the language of foreign interference and pushed it into the global media spotlight as proof Ottawa was finally getting tough with Beijing.

In her final judgment, delivered on May 13, 2026, Justice Devlin said the Crown had failed to prove that Majcher actually did anything to prepare for the Security of Information Act offence he was charged with. The law required proof of action, not suspicion or alleged intent. On the evidence before her, that proof was not there.

Dragged into the file was Kenneth “Kim” Marsh, a retired RCMP staff sergeant whom the police force publicly labelled as an unindicted co-conspirator, even though he was never charged. His home was searched and his name was pulled into the Project Severo narrative, damaging his reputation, his business and decades of public service.

Marsh has already forced the issue into official channels, with files opened by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Closed-door reviews by institutions tied to the system that allowed Project Severo to advance, however, are no substitute for a public inquiry.

Such an inquiry should be a forensic examination of how Project Severo was investigated, approved, prosecuted and sold to the public.

It should, among other issues, examine the following:

• Did political pressure shape the investigation?

Project Severo was unveiled while the Trudeau government was under heavy fire over alleged Chinese foreign interference. A public inquiry should ask whether that political pressure shaped the timing, framing or public rollout of the case. It should also ask why the Crown and RCMP moved so quickly into a national media posture after Majcher was charged, with RCMP members standing behind the prosecutor at an impromptu briefing while the case was still live and evidence was still being gathered. If Project Severo was meant to show Ottawa was getting tough on Beijing, Canadians need to know whether evidence drove the case, or whether politics pushed it forward.

• How did asset-recovery work become a national security prosecution?

Majcher’s work involved financial crime, money tracing and efforts to recover alleged proceeds of crime. A public inquiry should ask how that work was turned into a foreign-interference case, and whether investigators properly tested lawful explanations before recasting China-related contacts, civil recovery discussions and hard-edged communications as evidence of a national security offence. If the Crown could not prove that Majcher actually prepared for the offence charged, Canadians need to know how the case got that far.

• Why did the case continue after the judge raised serious warnings?

Before Majcher was acquitted, Justice Devlin had already found major problems with the investigation. She found his airport arrest unlawful and the search of Marsh’s Vancouver home invalid. These were not minor procedural setbacks. They were warning signs about the foundation of the case. A public inquiry should ask who reassessed the file after those rulings, what advice was given, and why the prosecution still moved forward.

• Why was Marsh pulled into the case, then kept out of court?

Marsh’s name became part of a national security story without his evidence ever being tested in court. Who approved the search of his home? What evidence supported it? Did anyone weigh the damage being done to a retired Mountie who had not been charged with any offence? A public inquiry should also examine what happened to the proffer provided by Marsh’s lawyer to the federal Crown. That statement set out his account of the Kevin Sun matter, the civil recovery context, his limited dealings with Majcher and his earlier decision to bring information about Sun to law enforcement. In a case built heavily on inference, that evidence mattered. Canadians need to know who received the proffer, who reviewed it, why it was not disclosed to the defence, and whether the Crown theory was ever reassessed after it arrived. The question becomes even sharper because Marsh was subpoenaed and prepared to testify, yet his account was never heard in court. If his evidence supported a lawful explanation for conduct treated as suspicious, why was he kept off the stand? And did the Crown avoid calling him because his testimony would have weakened the theory Project Severo was built around?

• Why was former RCMP Supt. Calvin Chrustie not called?

The inquiry should examine why former RCMP Supt. Calvin Chrustie was not called. He was one of the officers who attended the retired Mountie’s Vancouver office after concerns about Kevin Sun were brought forward. If police were given information about Sun before Project Severo hardened into a criminal case, that matters. It goes directly to whether Marsh was reporting concerns to law enforcement, or whether investigators later recast that conduct to fit a foreign-interference theory.

• Were media reports and public narratives treated as evidence?

Project Severo unfolded in a charged political and media climate over Chinese foreign interference. A public inquiry should ask whether police and prosecutors allowed suspicion, headlines and unverified public narratives to shape the case. Courts need evidence, not atmosphere. If media reports, YouTube clips or recycled allegations helped support warrants, arrest grounds or prosecution strategy, Canadians need to know how that happened and who approved it.

• Did Project Severo have the controls expected in a major RCMP investigation?

The RCMP described Project Severo as a serious national security investigation. A public inquiry should ask whether it was managed like one, with a proper operational plan, a clear budget, experienced leadership, contemporaneous notes, defined objectives and meaningful supervision, all of which the court found were either lacking, unclear or non-existent. If a major national security case moved forward without those safeguards, Canadians need to know whether Project Severo was a disciplined investigation or a case driven by assumptions looking for proof.

• Did the Crown cross the line from legal adviser to investigator?

A public inquiry should examine the role of the federal Crown in Project Severo. Prosecutors are supposed to provide independent judgment, not become part of the investigative machinery. The inquiry should ask whether Crown involvement went beyond legal advice and into direction of the police file. If that happened, one of the key safeguards against wrongful prosecution may have been weakened from the start.

• Did Project Severo repeat the failures seen in the Wanping Zheng case?

Project Severo should be examined beside the earlier Wanping Zheng prosecution, another China-linked national security case that ended in acquittal and was also handled by federal prosecutor Marc Cigana. The parallels demand scrutiny. Both cases carried serious allegations. Both were framed with national security overtones. Both ended in court defeats. A public inquiry should ask whether the same pattern appeared in both: prosecutorial overreach, weak evidentiary judgment, untested assumptions and the conversion of questionable conduct into alleged criminal activity.

• Who is accountable for the wreckage?

The final picture is stark: an unlawful arrest, an invalid search, a prosecution promoted as a major national security response, a key proffer allegedly not disclosed, important witnesses left off the stand and a final ruling that found the Crown had failed to prove the core allegation. Canadians need more than closed-door reviews. They need evidence under oath, documents on the record and answers from the people who built, approved and carried Project Severo forward.

Foreign interference is real. China’s pressure campaigns are real. But real threats do not excuse weak cases. They demand stronger evidence, sharper judgment and stricter safeguards.

This public inquiry is not about finding someone to blame for the sake of blame. It is about finding out what went wrong, who made the key decisions, which safeguards failed and how to make sure this does not happen again.

Fabian Dawson is a veteran Vancouver-based journalist who has been following this case for the last four years. During his tenure as a Postmedia deputy editor, he worked with both William Majcher and Kenneth Marsh on several media investigations. He is currently the media advisor to Mata Press Service, an independent news agency of the Post Group.

Key Dates In A Case That Collapsed

July 2016
A Vancouver Sun investigation profiles Hongwei “Kevin” Sun, the Chinese businessman who later becomes central to the RCMP’s Project Severo theory.

September 2021
The RCMP opens Project Severo through its Integrated National Security Enforcement Team, framing the file as a national security investigation tied to alleged Chinese foreign interference.

February 17, 2023
Investigators interview retired RCMP staff sergeant Kenneth “Kim” Marsh. Court records say Marsh discusses work connected to Kevin Sun and other Chinese asset-tracing matters.

June 8, 2023
A warrant is issued to search Marsh’s Vancouver residence.

June 14, 2023
RCMP officers execute the warrant at Marsh’s home. Materials seized during the search later form part of the grounds used in the Majcher investigation.

July 18, 2023
Former RCMP inspector William Majcher is arrested at Vancouver International Airport. The case is first launched in Longueuil, Quebec, before later moving to British Columbia, where the alleged conduct and key investigative steps are centred.

October 21, 2025
In R. v. Majcher, Justice Martha Devlin dismisses the Crown’s bid to introduce similar fact evidence. The ruling blocks prosecutors from relying on a broader international narrative, including emails tied to alleged work involving Chinese authorities and a U.S.-based target.

December 31, 2025
Justice Devlin rules the Marsh search warrant could not properly have been issued. She finds the information used to obtain it disclosed “nothing more than mere speculation, suspicion and guesswork,” and rules the search breached section 8 of the Charter.

March 26, 2026
Justice Devlin rules Majcher’s airport arrest was carried out without reasonable and probable grounds, breaching section 9 of the Charter. The court also records that the file had been described internally as “a bit premature” and “still ongoing” when the arrest decision was made.

May 13, 2026
Majcher is acquitted in B.C. Supreme Court after Justice Devlin finds the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the alleged acts.