News release NSW bullion find

It seems like a very vague law. They simply need to suspect that it's illegal.

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 527C
Persons unlawfully in possession of property

527C Persons unlawfully in possession of property

(1) Any person who:

(a) has any thing in his or her custody,

(b) has any thing in the custody of another person,

(c) has any thing in or on premises, whether belonging to or occupied by himself or herself or not, or whether that thing is there for his or her own use or the use of another, or

(d) gives custody of any thing to a person who is not lawfully entitled to possession of the thing,

which thing may be reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained, is liable on conviction before the Local Court:

(a) if the thing is a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle part, or a vessel or a vessel part, to imprisonment for 1 year, or to a fine of 10 penalty units, or both, or

(b) in the case of any other thing, to imprisonment for 6 months, or to a fine of 5 penalty units, or both.

(1A) A prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) involving the giving of custody of a motor vehicle to a person who is not lawfully entitled to possession of the motor vehicle may be commenced at any time within 2 years after the date of commission of the offence.

(2) It is a sufficient defence to a prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) if the defendant satisfies the court that he or she had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the thing referred to in the charge was stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained.
Click to expand...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s527c.html

Reasonable Suspicion
(a) A reasonable suspicion involves less than a reasonable belief but more than a
possibility. There must be something which would create in the mind of a reasonable person an
apprehension or fear of one of the state of affairs covered by s.357E. A reason to suspect that a
fact exists is more than a reason to consider or look into the possibility of its existence.

(b) Reasonable suspicion is not arbitrary. Some factual basis for the suspicion must be shown. A
suspicion may be based on hearsay material or materials which may be inadmissible in evidence. The
materials must have some probative value.

(c) What is important is the information in the mind of the police officer stopping the person or
the vehicle or making the arrest at the time he did so. Having ascertained that information the
question is whether that information afforded reasonable grounds for the suspicion which the police
officer formed. In answering that question regard must be had to the source of the information and
its content, seen in the light of the whole of the surrounding circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
First time poster long time lurker, saw this clipping and had to post:

Silver bullion seized in train drug blitz

POLICE have seized 5kg of silver bullion worth $6000 from a man during a drug blitz targeting Sydney and Hunter Valley train lines and they're looking for its owner.

Officers from the Newcastle Police Transport Command stopped and searched a 34-year-old man at Broadmeadow Railway Station about 11:20am on Thursday, July 25.

He was found to be carrying three 1kg silver bars, two 1kg large silver coins, and 75 silver coins worth an estimated $6000, police say.

Officers allege the man could not prove he owned the silver.

He was issued a court attendance notice for goods in custody and is due to appear in Newcastle Local Court in October.

Subsequent inquiries have not found the bullion's owner and police are appealing for anyone with information about who may own it, or where it was originally kept, to call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
 
Uh huh,

And I can't prove I own my dog or a lot of the gold nuggets I found either.

Nor can I prove the rings I have worn for 40 years are mine.

Can I expect the coppers to seize them as well?


Hmmm,

I hope they feed the dog what she likes - she is very fussy.


Have a great day all


Gazza
 
Hi, just heard on Ray Hadley. Police stopped a man with 5 kilos or so of silver bullion and he could not prove ownership. Anyone who has lost silver might want to contact Newcastle Police station.
 
Three threads merged.

Not enough info to form an opinion - and no published details of any claim by the person stopped that the silver was theirs to begin with - could have been a person known to police rather than just a random search. Does sound a bit like the civil forfeiture racket in the US though - cops confiscating anything of value.

I had a gold necklace I just sold on here for $4750 - does that mean anyone wearing gold jewellery needs to be able to prove they own it on the spot to avoid risking seizure?

Note for stackers though travelling with metal - carry some proof of ownership, even if it's a printed sales thread from this forum if you're on your way to/from a F2F.
 
On the off-chance this is a Silver Stackers member, please contact me if there's a chance that there's evidence in a sales thread or PM that may assist if the goods were in transit as a result of a F2F transaction.

Police could just set up shop outside any of the vaults in major cities if they're going to start busting people for walking around with gold or silver without receipts.

"Papers please".
 
How are you suppose to show paperwork for detected nuggets? The stream of tp behind the gumtree with last nights lasagne on it?
 
Caput Lupinum said:
How are you suppose to show paperwork for detected nuggets? The stream of tp behind the gumtree with last nights lasagne on it?
Click to expand...

A receipt for your detector? An email from your mate about the detecting trip?

Asset forfeiture will eventually become more prevalent like the US.
 
Reasonable Suspicion
(a) A reasonable suspicion involves less than a reasonable belief but more than a
possibility. There must be something which would create in the mind of a reasonable person an
apprehension or fear of one of the state of affairs covered by s.357E. A reason to suspect that a
fact exists is more than a reason to consider or look into the possibility of its existence.
(b) Reasonable suspicion is not arbitrary. Some factual basis for the suspicion must be shown. A
suspicion may be based on hearsay material or materials which may be inadmissible in evidence. The
materials must have some probative value.
(c) What is important is the information in the mind of the police officer stopping the person or
the vehicle or making the arrest at the time he did so. Having ascertained that information the
question is whether that information afforded reasonable grounds for the suspicion which the police
officer formed. In answering that question regard must be had to the source of the information and
its content, seen in the light of the whole of the surrounding circumstances.
Click to expand...

The above only relates the act of arrest, not the prosecution of the suspected crime.

which thing may be reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained, is liable on conviction before the Local Court:
Click to expand...

The hearing first ascertains if the police acted lawfully in the arrest of the poi (person of interest). If they did then the hearing proceeds to find if the goods were in fact unlawfully obtained.

The mere fact that you can't produce receipts is not enough to convict. If the police had circumstantial evidence that the poi was involved in drug trafficking or the like then that is ground to arrest based on what he was carrying but not to convict. The prosecution would have to prove the goods were obtained illegally beyond reasonable doubt. That is the way the court system works.
 
Actually when it comes to a GIC charge (Goods in Custody) suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, it's one of the few charges that the onus is on the defence to prove their innocence rather than the prosecution proving the guilt. At least in NSW anyway.
 
Leviathan said:
POLICE have seized 5kg of silver bullion worth $6000 from a man during a drug blitz targeting Sydney and Hunter Valley train lines and they're looking for its owner.
Click to expand...

What is a drug blitz ?

Did drug agents just search random people traveling on trains ?


What's next ?
I reckon most women wearing a diamond engagement ring would not be able to provide proof of ownership.

Hey - nice iphone - can you prove you own it ? Nope - ok hand it over.
 
There's a video and photo of the loot on SMH.COM.AU

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/missing-y...-could-be-looking-for-you-20130828-2spyy.html

Hope it's not a SS member's stack?

lat-2028-20silver-20m-20130828135507836060-620x349.jpg
 
$6000?

Subtract $50 for the greasy finger marks the idiot cop just put on that kilo dragon.
 
Those maples look genuine with the mandatory milk spots.

It looks like a typical SS stack with the pamps/maples and dragons
 
Bullion Baron said:
"investigations revealed the man couldn't prove he owned them"

Maybe they were stolen, maybe not. I wonder what level of suspicion or evidence they need before confiscating someones metal on the grounds they can't prove they own them.
Click to expand...

I would say any evidence the police obtained to make the judgement that he did not legitimately own them came from his own confession. I would say if he just refused to answer all questions then there would not have been enough ground to seize it, always refuse to answer questions as nothing good can come from it, even if you are 100% in the right. Always get a Lawyer to answer questions on your behalf instead, even when you're 100% in the right, just don't risk any miscommunication, Law is a funny language, it's not English and it's not common sense.
 
I don't keep receipts for almost anything other than Tax deductible purchases like clothing or charity donations... let alone PM's. :/

The son of a co-worker at my last job got caught with drugs and the police seized his trade tools until he could provide evidence that they were not stolen. :(

it was a lesson to us all in what they can do.
 
tozak said:
Bullion Baron said:
"investigations revealed the man couldn't prove he owned them"

Maybe they were stolen, maybe not. I wonder what level of suspicion or evidence they need before confiscating someones metal on the grounds they can't prove they own them.
Click to expand...

I would say any evidence the police obtained to make the judgement that he did not legitimately own them came from his own confession. I would say if he just refused to answer all questions then there would not have been enough ground to seize it, always refuse to answer questions as nothing good can come from it, even if you are 100% in the right. Always get a Lawyer to answer questions on your behalf instead, even when you're 100% in the right just don't risk any miscommunication, Law is a funny language, it's not English and it's not common sense.
Click to expand...

Someone posted a video about not talking to cops.

They're always trying to get a confession from you. Whenever they stop you while driving they usually start off with "Do you know why I pulled you over?", "Do you know how fast you were going?", "Have you had anything to drink tonight?" ... etc. They're fishing for a confession or something additional to fine/charge you with.

In this case my guess is they knew the "person of interest" and that was probably their grounds for suspicion.

I've seen them searching people on the train and airport. They always seem to ask for consent i.e. "Do you have any illegal drugs on you?", then they ask "Do you mind if I take a look in your bag?". Naturally everyone says yes because they believe they have to. Yet if they have a sniffer dog, and he reacts, they don't seem to need permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top