EXCLUSIVE Inside the flashy supercar life of trio allegedly behind $10million scheme to sell fake watches and Gucci bags - and the mistake that triggered their arrest
Officers from NSW Police executed search warrants at multiple properties on Wednesday, and arrested Ahmad Kase Siddiqi, 30, his brother Ahmad Jawade Siddiqi, 33, and their mate Shadi Skaf, 30.
The trio were charged with a number of offences including dealing with the proceeds of crime. They appeared in Parramatta Local Court on Thursday, and on Friday magistrate Emma Manea granted them bail on strict conditions.
During Wednesday's raids, police seized nine supercars valued at around $3million, including a purple Lamborghini, along with more than 500 counterfeit luxury items, $270,000 in cash, and a gel blaster firearm.
Investigators allege the group raked in $9.75million selling fake luxury goods, including designer clothing, watches, shoes and handbags, through social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat, and Facebook.
The men allegedly promoted their products by posting videos showcasing counterfeit items that appeared to be genuine, including Rolex watches, Louis Vuitton bags, and Van Cleef & Arpels jewellery.
The group is also accused of laundering millions of dollars in illegal profits through multiple bank accounts.
The TikTok account linked to the alleged brazen operation was still active and sharing content on the day the arrests were made.
According to one online bio, the group had been operating since 2015.
The purple Lamborghini Aventador was frequently featured in the group's videos and is believed to have been available to rent, alongside a fleet of other luxury cars.
The group also had a Lamborghini Huracan Performante and a McLaren 765, which were among vehicles that could be hired for weddings.
Over the past several years, Siddiqi also shared videos and photos to social media of himself inspecting and driving high-end cars and showing off apparently premium-brand watches.
Selling pirated or counterfeit goods is illegal because it violates copyright and trademark laws, the Australian Border Force warned.
'There can be a tendency to view these as harmless or victimless crimes, but this is misleading,' an ABF spokesperson said.
'Counterfeiting damages legitimate Australian industry by creating an unfair playing ground for businesses that do the right thing.'
The ABF explained counterfeit goods also include pharmaceutical and beauty products, and not just fake designer handbags, apparel and knock-off shoes.
'Counterfeit goods also pose serious health and safety risks,' the ABF said.
Funds from counterfeit smuggling could finance other criminality in our communities, including organised crime.
'Criminal operations may also involve the exploitation of vulnerable workers, including victims of modern slavery, to produce counterfeit goods.'
The ABF works with intellectual property brand owners and policy agencies such as IP Australia and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, state and territory regulators and international agencies to target counterfeit shipments.
Luxury items are the most commonly seized counterfeit goods, along with mobile phones and accessories, car parts, clothing, shoes, watches and toys.
The government body encourages the public to help protect Australia's border by reporting any suspicious border-related behaviour and trade activity through its dedicated service known as Border Watch.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Major update in Bruce Lehrmann's legal battle to have rape trial halted
Former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann has suffered a legal defeat in the first of multiple court battles attempting to halt a rape trial against him. Lehrmann's Sydney-based solicitor Zali Burrows on Friday took aim at Queensland Police after withdrawing a bid to prove officers had illegally recorded two conversations between Lehrmann and his previous legal team. Ms Burrows had also been seeking a court injunction to prevent Queensland Police from recording any future conversations with any of Lehrmann's legal representatives. Lehrmann, 30, appeared by phone on Friday when the matter was heard at Toowoomba District Court. Judge Benedict Power dismissed the application after the claims were withdrawn by Ms Burrows, who conceded her entire case would depend on proving officers had broken the law in Queensland. Outside court, Ms Burrows told reporters she would never again speak to a Queensland Police officer on the phone. 'All I can say is that it's another world in the state of Queensland,' she said. Ms Burrows' application was part of a wider bid to seek a permanent stay on proceedings, which, if granted, would halt a pending trial against Lehrmann on two counts of rape. Lehrmann, who is on bail, is accused of raping a woman twice during the morning of October 10, 2021, after they met at a strip club the previous night in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane. The former ministerial staffer to Liberal senator Linda Reynolds was charged in January 2023 and is yet to formally enter a plea. But his former solicitor had previously told a magistrate he intended to contest the charges. Ms Burrows on Friday agreed with Judge Power's contention that the officers might have followed proper procedure for keeping accurate notes during the early stages of an investigation. 'You need to establish as a matter of law that what (the investigating detective) did was unlawful,' Judge Power said. Ms Burrows said police would have an 'unfair tactical advantage' if they had a recording of any conversation where a lawyer accidentally disclosed legally confidential material. Judge Power said that would not be the fault of police and any of Lehrmann's solicitors could make a separate claim if there was confidential material. Crown prosecutor Caroline Marco was not required to argue in court against Ms Burrows except to agree with Judge Power's proposed order to dismiss. She told Judge Power the application to halt the trial could only be heard once all other applications were dealt with. Judge Power told the lawyers they needed to be in a position by July 31 to nominate a date for when the trial might begin. Ms Burrows told Judge Power that while Lehrmann's previous solicitor had indicated he would make an application for a judge-only trial, her client no longer had a position on whether any trial should be heard by a jury. The matter will return to court for an August 28 hearing concerning Ms Burrows' efforts to subpoena the Commissioner of Queensland Police for access to all materials involved in the case.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Bruce Lehrmann suffers legal defeat as he tries to halt rape trial in Toowoomba
Bruce Lehrmann has suffered a legal defeat in the first of multiple court battles aimed at halting a rape trial against him. Lehrmann's Sydney-based solicitor Zali Burrows on Friday took aim at Queensland police after withdrawing a bid to prove officers had illegally recorded two conversations between Lehrmann and his previous legal team. Burrows had also been seeking a court injunction to prevent police recording any future conversations with any of Lehrmann's legal representatives. Lehrmann, 30, appeared by phone on Friday when the matter was heard at Toowoomba district court. Judge Benedict Power dismissed the application after the claims were withdrawn by Burrows, who conceded her entire case would depend on proving officers had broken the law in Queensland. Outside court, Burrows told reporters she would never again speak to a Queensland police officer on the phone. 'All I can say is that it's another world in the state of Queensland,' she said. Burrows' application was part of a wider bid to seek a permanent stay on proceedings which, if granted, would halt a pending trial against Lehrmann on two counts of rape. Lehrmann, who is on bail, is accused of raping a woman twice during the morning of 10 October, 2021 after they allegedly met at a strip club the previous night in Toowoomba, west of Brisbane. The former ministerial staffer to the Liberal senator Linda Reynolds was charged in January 2023 and is yet to formally enter a plea. But his former solicitor had previously told a magistrate he intended to contest the charges. Burrows on Friday agreed with the judge's contention that the officers might have followed proper procedure for keeping accurate notes during the early stages of an investigation. 'You need to establish as a matter of law that what (the investigating detective) did was unlawful,' Power said. Burrows said police would have an 'unfair tactical advantage' if they had a recording of any conversation where a lawyer accidentally disclosed legally confidential material. Power said that would not be the fault of police and any of Lehrmann's solicitors could make a separate claim if there was confidential material. The Crown prosecutor Caroline Marco was not required to argue in court against Burrows except to agree with Power's proposed order to dismiss. She told Power the application to halt the trial could only be heard once all other applications were dealt with. Power told the lawyers they needed to be in a position by 31 July to nominate a date for when the trial might begin. Burrows told Power that while Lehrmann's previous solicitor had indicated he would make an application for a judge-only trial, her client no longer had a position on whether any trial should be heard by a jury. The matter will return to court on 28 August for a hearing concerning Burrows' efforts to subpoena the commissioner of Queensland police for access to all materials involved in the case.
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- The Guardian
Australians lost $1bn through collapsed investment funds. What happened and how can workers keep their super safe?
Thousands of Australians recently lost more than $1bn in retirement savings after the collapse of funds linked to their superannuation platforms, sparking warnings from the corporate regulator about risky investment schemes. While only a small share of the population has been affected, some investors have seen their entire super balances wiped. Here is how the collapses happened, and what Australian workers can do to avoid a similar situation. Over the past year or so, more than 12,000 Australians have been exposed to three major collapsed or frozen investment schemes: First Guardian, Shield Master Fund and Australian Fiduciaries. The failures have so far led to collective losses of up to $1.2bn. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) blocked investment in Shield in February 2024 and froze the assets of First Guardian in February 2025 after its managers blocked most investors from accessing their funds in May the previous year. The corporate regulator is also investigating concerns about Australian Fiduciaries including alleged inadequate management of conflicts of interest. First Guardian, which held $505m for about 6,000 investors, described its investments as focused on shares, property, private equity and fixed income, according to federal court-appointed liquidators. The liquidators found the company had put nearly $70m into businesses connected to its directors while more than $240m was invested offshore. One director also allegedly bought a Lamborghini with nearly $550,000 of company money. Investors have been warned they will probably only get a portion of an outstanding $446m back, and not until 2027 at the earliest, after liquidators said they expected to conclude directors breached their duties, the value of investments may have been overstated and funds may not have been properly recorded. The fund's May 2024 balance sheet indicated it had grown that to $525m but more than half of that was in question and investors were not likely to recover their entire investment, receivers for Shield reported in November 2024. They found managers had overstated the value of investments in a real estate fund and nearly $7m had been spent on a former director's personal expenses. Some investments would not be recovered for more than two years, the receivers said in December. In these cases, investors switched to superannuation products that would let them invest in First Guardian or in Shield with financial advisers' help, after being cold-called by salespeople, Asic says. The corporate regulator has put the spotlight on salespeople pressuring customers to invest in specific products. Red flags for consumers include cold calling and high-pressure sales tactics, or offers of prizes, free superannuation health checks, or free consolidation of lost super, according to Asic's deputy chair, Sarah Court. 'These calls don't have the hallmarks of a typical scam. The caller will seemingly have your best interests at heart, and they say they want to help you find a better super product or locate lost super for free,' she says. 'If you are unsure or are feeling pressured, just hang up.' Customers and financial advisers reached the products through superannuation platforms, including one operated by an arm of Macquarie Group, that temporarily chose to offer one or both products, Asic says. Super funds are highly regulated and they are discouraged from investing in schemes that are risky or opaque, according to Xavier O'Halloran, the chief executive of advocacy group Super Consumers Australia. Nearly 15 million among the 18 million accounts in Australia are in MySuper products, default super funds that employers offer workers, which did not invest in the collapsed schemes, he says. While all investment carries risk, MySuper products are diversified, and so not reliant on a single investment or asset class. Some Australians invest in less scrutinised schemes, especially through self-managed super funds. Asic recently warned it had growing concerns that peoplewere being encouraged by salespeople and cold-callers to switch from safe investments into complex and risky schemes. Phil Anderson, the general manager of policy, advocacy and standards at the Financial Advice Association Australia, encourages people to research their investments and check details with their financial advisers if they're worried they might be in an inappropriate investment. 'It is quite evident that there's failings in the system,' Anderson says. 'Don't be rushed into doing something. Challenge the adviser: Why is this the right thing for me? … What track record do these investment options have?' Investors can also spread their superannuation between different investment options within or across funds to limit the chance of a single collapse knocking out their entire savings, Anderson says. Customers can check what assets their super is invested in and how it is performing when superannuation funds release their annual statements for 2024-25 in coming months. People who have been told to swap from a MySuper product can also ask their adviser if their prospective fund has been checked by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Asic has encouraged those who have lost money in a collapse to make a complaint about their adviser to the sector's independent ombudsman, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If a customer has lost money but their advice firm has gone into liquidation or insolvency, they may be able to appeal to the sector's compensation scheme of last resort. However, not all of the losses may be recompensed. Last resort compensation payouts are capped at $150,000 per individual and would only cover any clients who accessed the products under the guidance of an adviser, meaning any customer who made the decision without advice would not be eligible. The compensator is expecting claims against advisers linked to the funds but has received no claims for Shield and only one for First Guardian, according to the scheme's chief executive, David Berry. That has made it impossible to determine how many investors will be eligible, how much they might be paid or when they might be compensated, he said. This shortfall has led to calls for increased regulation of the products responsible for the losses, known as managed investment schemes, but also for reform of the compensation scheme of last resort so it covers those who invested without advice. Guardian Australia attempted to reach representatives of the funds Shield, First Guardian and Australian Fiduciaries, including through the firms' liquidators or administrators where applicable. Financial advice firm Interprac and superannuation platform trustees Macquarie, Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth each declined to comment.
