Harley Davidsons reverted to former motorcycles under controversial forfeiture laws

A pair of former methamphetamine-dealing bikies had their confiscated Harley Davidson motorcycles returned after they were jailed, according to court documents.

The former Hells Angels twins eventually lost $75,000 each after seeking leniency in criminal forfeiture laws, while authorities unfroze other assets, including motorcycles and leftover cash from house sales.

The court orders against Nuno and Bruno Da Silva were obtained by the ABC during an investigation into laws designed to deprive organized crime of their profits.

It was the brothers’ second foray into forfeiture: years before their prison terms, they made headlines by getting back $129,000 that police seized from a duffel bag under Bruno’s driver’s seat, which they successfully claimed were wedding gifts Nuno.

Since their release from prison, the twins have been photographed competing in poker tournaments at the Star’s Brisbane and Gold Coast casinos in 2022.

Star did not respond to questions but said customer monitoring processes are ongoing.

The Da Silvas ran a locksmith shop in Brisbane but pleaded guilty in 2015 to dealing methamphetamine.

Nuno received a seven-year sentence with the possibility of parole beginning in February 2016; Bruno was sentenced to nine years in prison with the possibility of parole beginning in October 2017.

“Comfortable” way of life

Prosecutors suspected that the Hells Angels supplied drugs to the brothers, who had officially resigned from the club, and sold them to street dealers.

In court, the prosecutor’s office claimed that the brothers used threats during debt collection.

“Junk, I’m going to put a bullet in your leg, I swear to my mother,” Bruno allegedly wrote to one customer.

After their arrest in October 2013, authorities seized assets, including proceeds from the sale of houses, motorcycles and even a skull ring.

Their lifestyle at sentencing was described as comfortable rather than luxurious.

Eight years later, each has lost $75,000, according to ABC.

That was more than 50 percent of the money left over from the sale of the house, but not the bikes.

Bruno claimed the motorcycle would be his “sole form of transportation” after release, and no “illegitimate sources” financed its $26,495 purchase.

He added that the confiscation of the proceeds from the sale of the house would leave him financially destitute.

Nuno told the court that he bought his Harley for $27,300 from legitimate sources, which in part included proceeds from a former locksmith who also pleaded guilty to supplying drugs.

Nuno noted that the prosecutor’s office did not disclose the financial benefit from the crime.

He kept their locksmith business – which often dealt in cash on call – very successful, although he also borrowed cash, but kept only sporadic loan records.

More than 150 thousand dollars were found in shopping bags

Last year the Crime and Corruption Commission pushed for reforms to confiscation laws, and new Attorney-General Deb Frecklington said last week she would consider any changes.

Experts have questioned whether such laws keep criminal Mr. Bigs out if some aspects are unfair, and have questioned regulators’ risk appetite for confiscation actions.

Other examples of discrepancies between the perception and reality of confiscation laws found by the ABC include the case of Ivan Tešić, who was jailed in 2019 for possession of 3.6 kilograms of methamphetamine.

Authorities initially pursued his assets, including three properties worth more than $800,000 and a 1969 Monaro.

In the end, Tesic lost $73,923 in unexplained wealth.

In another incident, investigators searched an apartment where a former cyclist and his partner lived and seized $158,000 in cash in plastic shopping bags, a Ruger handgun, sealed bags of methamphetamine, glass pipes, knuckle dusters and scales.

Five years later, the confiscation of the money was overturned after the man’s girlfriend said the cash was owed to her in compensation for slipping on an engagement in 2008.

The woman said that she was subjected to domestic violence, so in order to keep her money, she gave her husband envelopes with cash for safekeeping.

Although prosecutors called the story “incredible in its essence”, the court found that the woman was a reliable witness and testified that she was withdrawing cash.

The court also found any suggestion that the money came from drug dealing was “highly unlikely” after the man testified he was a heavy user of methamphetamine and no evidence was presented that he sold drugs.