AFP Seizes NSW Home of Man Convicted in WA Cocaine Case

The $1.8 million family home of a Sydney man has been restrained and forfeited to the Commonwealth after he was imprisoned over his involvement in a 2022 plot to import 56kg of cocaine into Western Australia.

The AFP-led Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce (CACT) started an investigation into the finances of the man, now 57, after he was charged in July 2022 over his role in a plan to import and distribute cocaine sent from Switzerland hidden behind the rims of car wheels.

The man had purchased the home in the Sydney suburb of Canterbury in 2004, and owned it as a joint tenant with his partner. The couple and their son lived in the house.

The CACT investigation found that in May, 2023, while awaiting trial over the cocaine importation, the man transferred his interest in the property to his partner without receiving any money in return, despite the property having a valuation of about $1.8 million.

The investigation also identified that between July, 2017 and October, 2019 payments totalling about $178,000 were made towards servicing the property's mortgage, which tax records indicated were beyond what the couple's combined declared income would have enabled.

The man and his son, 29, were among five people later convicted over the cocaine importation, with the 57-year-old pleading guilty in 2024 and being sentenced in April 2025 to six years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years, for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of his son's offence.

AFP Commander Jason Kennedy said the CACT applied to the Courts to have the Canterbury property restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) on the basis the 57-year-old had committed a serious offence and the property, where he lived until he went to prison, had remained under his control despite being in his partner's name.

The District Court of Western Australia has made orders to restrain the property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).

As the man has been convicted of a serious offence, the property has been statutorily forfeited to the Commonwealth under section 92 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth).

Commander Kennedy said criminals were mistaken if they thought they could keep illicit wealth out of reach of authorities by putting assets in another person's name, or physically hiding cash or other items.

"This is another reminder that crime doesn't pay," Commander Kennedy said.

"We know that people feel the confiscation of assets is as bad, if not worse, as going to jail.

"Removing illegal wealth from criminals ensures they can't enjoy a life of luxury at the community's expense and prevents the bankrolling of further criminal activity.

"It is rewarding that funds forfeited through the CACT's work are redirected to the Commonwealth's Confiscated Assets Account (CAA), which benefits the community."

Funds in the CAA can be distributed by the Minister for Home Affairs to benefit the community through crime prevention measures, diversion programs or other law enforcement initiatives across Australia.

The Commonwealth's proceeds of crime laws provide expansive tools for the restraint of both proceeds and instruments of crime, as well as pecuniary penalty and unexplained wealth orders, based on a civil standard of proof. These laws operate separately to any criminal prosecution and can also operate when there is no related criminal investigation or prosecution.

The AFP-led CACT brings together the resources and expertise of the AFP, Australian Border Force, Australian Taxation Office, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and AUSTRAC. These agencies together trace, restrain, and ultimately confiscate criminal assets.

While the CACT litigates matters in the courts, restrained assets are managed on behalf of the Commonwealth by the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA).

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.