Current HUGE AFP Sting - 200 organised crime arrests

Remove this Banner Ad

Replay of presser involving AFP Commissioner & FBI Legal Attache US Embassy about to start on Fox ..

Here's the official transcript from this 8 June 2021 presser.
2/3 of the transcript is the Q&A with the media.

'JOURNALIST: What information was held back over the years because you didn't want to give away and show your hand?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: We did about approximately... we're still getting the stats. There was probably about 100 relevant arrests over the last couple of years in relation to this operation. Just they weren't necessarily attributed to the AFP and may have been state police arrests.'


So approx. 100 arrests from this Op (pre-going public on the sting) over the last couple of years. With some of those arrests being made by State Police.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This might have taken in Qantas employees. Nine reported up to 150 of them may have been implicated.
AFP Commissioner says it did.
'JOURNALIST: In Australia's ports and airports caught up in this operation, were communications with these people nabbed in this?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: Yes. So, I can't go into specifics because that's ongoing. But we've certainly established that serious and organised crime have been able to infiltrate that supply chain. And that's something we'll be working with the Border Force, Home Affairs and the ACIC on the wash-up as part of our intelligence and there probably, as I said, will be more arrests in relation to this.

PRIME MINISTER: Can I just add to that. And further to your earlier answer. There was a 2019 assessment done in December by the ACIC. It identified that 227 individuals holding an ASIC or MSIC, the security permit required to work in sensitive areas of airports and sea ports are recorded on the national criminal intelligence target list, including 167 outlawed motorcycle gang members and associates. That's why we need to change that law. And that's why I need it supported by the Parliament.
 
AFP provided the "technical capability" to decrypt messages - are they referring to the TOLA legislation?

They used the FBIs technology but I'm not right across it yet.
And it looks like they might have used the Aussies legal system because our law enforcement agency has legislated powers that some/all of our key allies don't have.
'JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, a couple of years ago, Australia passed in some circles considered a controversial legislation to do with accessing encrypted messaging apps. Is it the case that America has chosen us as a partner in this operation because of our, perhaps, legal capability, rather than our technical capability? In other words, were we able to do things that other countries were not able to legally able to do?

PRIME MINISTER: I'll leave it to the United States in their various media statements to say what they wish to say. What I know is that the Australian Federal Police and our state law enforcement forces are the best in the world. And that's why countries such as the United States choose to partner with us. And certainly, as a Government, we make no apologies for ensuring that our law enforcement authorities have the powers and authorities they need to stop criminal thugs and gangs.
 
Just to add to my last post.
AFP provided the "technical capability" to decrypt messages - are they referring to the TOLA legislation?
Yes. They claim to have used the TOLA for the first time in this operation.

Given that 3 years ago was just before the TOLA bill was introduced, that suggests that the TOLA bill might have been introduced to enable this sting Op.
'In September 2018, the Government introduced the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018 (the TOLA Bill)'

'The TOLA Bill contained measures aimed at facilitating lawful access to communications and data through two avenues – decryption of encrypted technologies and access to communications and data at points where they are not encrypted.'

'JOURNALIST: Commissioner, who actually set up this app? Was it set up by law enforcement? Or did they later gain access to it? And is it legal or ethical for law enforcement to be controlling an app which uses [inaudible]?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: First of all, it's legal. And we did use the TOLA passed in 2018 for the first time, that's that legislation that we have here in Australia, in combination with a legal authority from the FBI. So there were legal authorities used in relation to this app.'
 
Last edited:
AFP indicated there were 1600 local users of that app & that there are other encrypted devices still being used by criminals.
The 1600 users represent 5% of the Aus market, i.e 32,000 local users.
Here's the transcript on this from the 8 June 2021 presser.

'JOURNALIST: Commissioner, how many people in Australia were using this handset and app combination?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: So we identified around about 1,600 to 1,700, which is a decent figure. It's only 5 per cent, though, of the encrypted comms used in this country. And then about 9,000 globally.'
 
Here's the transcript on this from the 8 June 2021 presser.

'JOURNALIST: Commissioner, how many people in Australia were using this handset and app combination?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: So we identified around about 1,600 to 1,700, which is a decent figure. It's only 5 per cent, though, of the encrypted comms used in this country. And then about 9,000 globally.'
Cheers.
Perhaps you can link the Dept of Justice presser on the topic. I'm interested in AFPs contribution, didnt get the officers name.
 

Mob reporter on youtube

At the 24 second mark, this US reporter says "corrupt cops" when reeling up the different types of criminals caught up in this sting.

At the 8 June press conference, here's what AFP Commissioner had to say about corruption and this sting.

'JOURNALIST: Commissioner, did this uncover any corruption?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: When you say corruption?

JOURNALIST: Like police officers or other high-ranking individuals?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: We have been working with the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. So where we had intelligence in relation to that, we passed that on to them. That will be something again that down the track, we'll be able to come back to you on with what's occurred there. But, we have seen that trusted insider threat and we've identified some entities and some individuals.

JOURNALIST: Commissioner, is it fair to say that there were police officers or law enforcement officers who had downloaded this app or were using a handset, thinking that it was an encrypted app?

REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: To my knowledge, not law enforcement officers, no.'


A few naive questions that come to mind about the above.

Is Kershaw only talking about Australian based Police Officers or Australian based Law Enforcement Officers?

Is there any difference between a Police Officer and a Law Enforcement Officer in Australia, at either Federal or State Level?
Are all Police Officers, formally classified as Law Enforcement Officers?

And, will there be times, when the AFP Commissioner will not be party to every single Law Enforcement or Police Officer (State or Federal) that is the subject of investigations into corruption, from the moment a Law Enforcement or Police Officer (State or Federal) is deemed a suspect due to evidence that arises during an operation of some kind that the AFP is either running or involved in. Or does the AFP Commissioner or a committee he sits on have to be formally notified in writing of these cases of possible corruption?

As the Commissioner says, we might hear more about corruption evidence from this ANOM sting 'down the track'.
 
That the app operated for so long without being compromised suggests that corrupt LEOs are uncommon and those that are corrupt are, generally, low ranking personnel. Apologies to all the conspiracy theorists out there!
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Is there any difference between a Police Officer and a Law Enforcement Officer in Australia, at either Federal or State Level?
Are all Police Officers, formally classified as Law Enforcement Officers?
The Queen is the 'Fount of Justice' and all authority derives from the Crown. All officers of the Crown must (or are supposed to) swear an oath to the Crown. That technically isn't true as about 15 years ago the Victorian government removed this requirement for lawyers (registered legal practitioners) when Hulls was the Victorian A.G. Lawyers are officers of the Supreme Court so ALWAYS act in the interest of the Crown over their clients. You can only serve one master. Police in Victoria swear an oath to the Crown to "Uphold the Right" (funny how the cops have forgotten that!) Police MUST carry their badge when on duty as they derive their authority through the Crown, and the badge is evidence of that.

As an individual swears an oath of office they are granted powers based on their office, mostly defined by statute law. For example, in Victoria a police officer has different powers to that of a PSO. Even bureaucrats can have powers under statute (e.g. CHO). Each state, with the Federal government being its own state, operate in different jurisdictions. So it's a mish-mash of who is authorised to do what, and in what jurisdiction, and under what title. Different officers can be delegated powers so there's no quick answer what they can and cannot do. In all cases there must be evidence in the prescribed form of their (delegated) authority.

If you're looking for official titles of 'law enforcement officers' then it is best to read the relevant statute law, but they are all Officers of the Crown. I would suggest the term 'law enforcenment officer' is a lay term (not a legal one) to describe people who actively enforce statute law (e.g., cops, PSOs, immigration officials, AFP, inspectors of various varieties).
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #69
REECE KERSHAW, AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE COMMISSIONER: First of all, it's legal. And we did use the TOLA passed in 2018 for the first time, that's that legislation that we have here in Australia, in combination with a legal authority from the FBI. So there were legal authorities used in relation to this app.'

I have to ask what the FBI gave Australia legal authority for?


....... FBI agents were not allowed to download or read any messages sent from AN0M accounts in the United States because of privacy laws.

President of the NSW Council of Civil Liberties Pauline Wright said the US had "pretty strict protections around human rights and privacy" which Australia did not have.
"It seems to be the reason that Australia has been co-opted and used in this operation simply because we don't have those protections."

 
I have to ask what the FBI gave Australia legal authority for?
"The unsealed court document is an FBI agent's affidavit supporting an application for a warrant to access a US Gmail account and gives more details about the arrangements between the FBI and the AFP."


....... FBI agents were not allowed to download or read any messages sent from AN0M accounts in the United States because of privacy laws.

President of the NSW Council of Civil Liberties Pauline Wright said the US had "pretty strict protections around human rights and privacy" which Australia did not have.


""It illustrates that Australia is an outlier in terms of protections for human rights and civil liberties," she said."

So let's just not arrest these crims...
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #71
""It illustrates that Australia is an outlier in terms of protections for human rights and civil liberties," she said."

So let's just not arrest these crims...

About nobody cares to be sure, when this lot end up arrested and charged but at the same time human rights and civil liberties should also still be a thing.

Did you see this? Shocker.

 
About nobody cares to be sure, when this lot end up arrested and charged but at the same time human rights and civil liberties should also still be a thing.

Did you see this? Shocker.


I could understand if he was slapped with a restraining order by ordinary Police, but to have 'Counter Terrorism Officers' come to his house and arrest him is totally over the top !! I assume the CTO's became involved because a Politician was involved? The young man didn't appear threatening or aggressive, just upset- I've seen worse at the polling booth when some was given a 'How to Vote for Pauline Hansen' flyer.
Oh and by the way - a woman was keeping him 'at bay' !!
 
About nobody cares to be sure, when this lot end up arrested and charged but at the same time human rights and civil liberties should also still be a thing.

Did you see this? Shocker.


They sure should be a thing, when they're actually violated. I've seen nothing to say in this case they have been, at least by govt officials, but we can be sure they have been by the crims.

Yes I heard about that (video) case but don't know much about it. I wonder if there's more to the story? We didn't get to see much of what happened during the arrest though. Was it selective perhaps?
 
Much more comfortable having the laws that allow a judge to serve a warrant allowing police to read the encrypted emails of drug manufacturers and dealers.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #75
I could understand if he was slapped with a restraining order by ordinary Police, but to have 'Counter Terrorism Officers' come to his house and arrest him is totally over the top !! I assume the CTO's became involved because a Politician was involved? The young man didn't appear threatening or aggressive, just upset- I've seen worse at the polling booth when some was given a 'How to Vote for Pauline Hansen' flyer.
Oh and by the way - a woman was keeping him 'at bay' !!

If you watch the whole lot, it looks even worse. They nearly killed the dog. His mother actually thought they had killed the dog.

 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top