Four years prior to conviction for money-laundering profits from cannabis dealing, Irene Raki gifted a Kawerau house to her son. The house was seized from son Te Ohorere as proceeds of crime; the High Court ruled that he was aware the house had been purchased by his mother from criminal profits and that his claim to have personally funded his mother’s purchase lacked credibility.
Raki came to own the house in Newall Street after bidding $39,000 at a 2015 mortgagee sale. Two years later, Raki and her extended family were under police surveillance as part of Operation Notus investigating members of the Kawerau Mongrel Mob. Raki’s spouse Frank Milosevic and son Slobodan were convicted and imprisoned in 2020 on charges of dealing in cannabis. Raki herself was convicted of money laundering and sentenced to two years six months’ imprisonment. Her other son Te Ohorere, charged with cultivating cannabis, was found not guilty.
Police claimed Newall Street and a Ford Ranger now both owned by Te Ohorere were ‘tainted,’ liable to confiscation as proceeds of crime. A criminal conviction is not necessary to have assets seized as proceeds of crime; knowledge that assets were purchased from proceeds of criminal activity is sufficient.
Police analysis of Te Ohorere’s bank records showed there was insufficient overt income available to support his family, let alone fund purchase of Newall Street or a Ford Ranger. Te Ohorere said his declared income was supplemented with cash transactions from legitimate businesses: trapping opossums for their skins and breeding puppies. Police inquiries of Bay of Plenty commercial fur traders found none had dealt with Te Ohorere and in any event none paid suppliers in cash; payments were made into bank accounts. Claims to have earned income as a puppy dealer foundered when police identified Te Ohorere had registered only one dog with the local council and had used local vet services to treat only one animal.
Justice Gordon ruled Te Ohorere’s claim to have legitimate but undeclared sources of cash was not plausible. His cash income was derived from Milosevic family cannabis operations, she said. Assets purchased with this cash were tainted and forfeit under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.
Commissioner of Police v. Milosevic – High Court (6.07.22)
22.119