NEWS: Drug bust that stung the taxpayer for $84,000 - smh.com.au

The cash was given to an informer - in his own words "a successful informer, don't forget" - to buy just over half a kilogram of heroin from Danny Sum Mok, a leader of the 14K triad in Sydney and Canberra.

But here the script goes awry. The National Crime Authority got their man, Mok - but not the money.

In a case before the NSW Supreme Court, the state Crime Commission failed in its application for the return of the $84,000, which it said was paid to Mok, because the judge was not convinced that he had received it.

Justice Sully found the crime commission was unable to make its case for the return of the $84,000. But it could seize proceeds of Mok's criminal activities over six years.

Click to expand...

Full story - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/1055010929993.html

Fair trade? $84k worth of the tax payers dollar for a heroin trafficker?

Nice contrast Apollo - I wonder how much they'd report a pound of H was worth if it was siezed in a bust? I bet the 'calculated street value' would be a damn sight more than AU$84,000... hehehe. Somehow they've fucked up that court case though, I mean really, if they're going to go to all the hassle of setting up a buy, the least they could do is make sure there's evidence that the money has changed hands to the right person. I wonder what the implications of that are for his charges and his defence case?

BigTrancer

I read that in the newspaper. What idiots!

Good points BT

I posted this in a hurry this morning, and forgot to mention... This is an example of entrapment, is it not? Because it sounds like entrapment to me, but I know jack shit about the legal system.

I am of the understanding that Australia has no implicit entrapment laws

^^ So am I. But I've spoken to one hell of a lot of people who seem to think otherwise. I was hoping this could be proof to them that even if entrapment does in fact exist, it doesn't matter for shit...

No entrapment laws in NSW at least. AFAIK. If there was then how do you explain the number of arrests from undercover police dressed as protitutes in the Cross and so forth?

AFAIK: There's a big difference between busting you red-handed and entrapment. An policeman busting you in the act of committing a crime, such as soliciting an illegal sex worker, attempting to buy/sell drugs, or anything else is not entrapment, because you were committing the crime anyway. The police haven't enticed or forced you to do something you weren't going to do.

A person is 'entrapped' when they are induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that they had no previous intent to commit; and the (USA) law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment (in USA law) when a person is ready and willing to break the law and the police merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a policeman to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that policeman or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

In the current case, using a non-police informant to make a buy from a dealer with police money would not be entrapping the dealer. They were only providing an opportunity to sell drugs. On the other hand, if they set up the deal undercover somehow (i.e., asking a small-time dealer for more than they can get ready access to, and then supplying money and busting them for a larger amount) and then busted the informant for trying to buy the heroin as well as the dealer, then that would be a case of entrapment.

I'm not sure it would make any difference though in Aus, in the end, because if they have enough evidence to make the case stick, then the court will probably not care under what circumstances you committed the crime. You would have to prove that you were coerced into committing a crime that you had NO intention of committing or reason to do so.

BigTrancer