Australia

Female drug lord boasted about her Snapchat dealer network and ‘schoolies deals’ with clients – only to discover they were undercover cops

  • Female drug boss bragged to investigators about her illegal operation
  • The young criminal did not receive a reduced sentence on appeal

A young female drug lord led a ‘sophisticated’ nnetwork of more than 1,000 Snapchat dealers and targeted teens with “school deals” while selling “wholesale quantities” of MDMA, cocaine, LSD and cannabis.

Samantha Jane Newman was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to a series of serious drug charges in the Brisbane Supreme Court earlier this year – and failed to appeal the severity of the sentence on Friday.

According to court documents obtained by the city’s Courier Mail newspaper, the Queensland drug lord ran the ring for about six months before she was arrested after boasting about her illegal activities to undercover officers.

As investigators gained Newman’s trust, the then 29-year-old bragged that about 70 percent of her 1,500 Snapchat friends worked for her as dealers and she changed jobs. between 113 grams and two kilos of MDMA per week.

She also revealed that she used clever advertising techniques to lure young customers and insisted that they send her photographic evidence that they could afford to pay for her medications before she agreed to a deal.

The documents revealed that the undercover officers, posing as customers, bought drugs from her five times before arresting her in February 2022.

Drug lord Samantha Jane Newman used a sophisticated network of Snapchat dealers and clever advertising, including 'schoolies deals', to sell commercial quantities of narcotics

Drug lord Samantha Jane Newman used a sophisticated network of Snapchat dealers and clever advertising, including ‘schoolies deals’, to sell commercial quantities of narcotics

“(Newman) advertised her products 54 times to Snapchat friends and delivered to law enforcement participants five times,” said the Court of Appeals ruling, obtained by the newspaper.

‘She advertised special offers, including ‘school deals’.

‘She also advertised in a way to generate sales, such as by advertising that if a customer purchased cannabis they would receive a “free MDMA limit.”

‘She asked and demanded that customers take a photo of themselves and their money or she would not agree to the drug transaction.

When the police finally raided her home, thThey found quantities of cocaine, MDMA, LSD tablets and cannabis in aluminum bags.

When Newman applied for permission to appeal her sentence, she argued that the length of her prison sentence was manifestly excessive and that it should be shortened by approximately two years.

Newman ran the ring for six months before bragging about her operation to undercover officers

Newman ran the ring for six months before bragging about her operation to undercover officers

But the three Court of Appeal judges who reviewed her case – Justice David Boddice, Justice Thomas Bradley and Justice Peter Flanagan – dismissed her plea on Friday.

In handing down their ruling, Judge David Boddice described Newman’s network as having “a degree of sophistication” with a design that resembled a “business model.”

“(Newman’s) trafficking operation had been going on for approximately six months, with a frequency of sales in the context of well-orchestrated advertising for that business,” he said.

‘The trading was carried on as a commercial enterprise, with the applicant being involved in all aspects of the business, including the supply of the goods.

‘It was intense and involved multiple dangerous drugs, which were routinely widely advertised via Snapchat, giving the applicant a wide customer base.

The drug lord has failed to reduce the severity of her sentence at the Supreme Court

The drug lord has failed to reduce the severity of her sentence at the Supreme Court

“Although the applicant (Newman) had a number of mitigating factors, the judge carefully considered those mitigating factors while determining what was an appropriate sentence.

‘The judge rightly found that, despite these mitigating factors, the seriousness of the applicant’s offense meant that indictment and deterrence were likely.

‘The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

‘It was neither unreasonable nor unjust. I order that the application to appeal the judgment is dismissed.”

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button