New details revealed in murder case against Comanchero bikie Tarek Zahed

A court has lifted the lid on Tarek Zahed’s secret bid for bail, revealing new details of the case against him, including the alleged discovery of fingerprints at the scene.

Tarek Zahed (right) with his brother Omar Zahed.

Explosive new details of the alleged murder of Sydney underworld figure Yousef Assoum by Comanchero boss Tarek Zahed can be revealed for the first time after the NSW Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a blanket suppression on Zahed’s private bid for bail earlier this month.

While some elements of the case remain shrouded in secrecy, the Daily Telegraph can reveal police will allege they discovered the bikie enforcer’s fingerprints inside the vehicle where Mr Assoum was killed on December 11, 2014.

Police will allege Tarek and his brother Abdul met Mr Assoum in a street in Yagoona late that night, where they bound his wrists and ankles with cable ties and bundled him back into his Volkswagen Tourareg.

Once inside the vehicle, the two brothers allegedly stabbed Mr Assoum in the head and body, before shooting him in the right thigh with a .45 calibre handgun.

The court heard Mr Assoum, who was either seriously injured or even possibly dead by this stage, was then driven to Bankstown and dumped close to the entrance of the hospital.

He could not be revived.

Comanchero kingpin Tarek Zahed was arrested on August 28, 2022 and charged with the 2014 murder of Youssef Assoum. Picture: NSW Police via NCA NewsWire

Tarek was arrested in August last year and charged with murder and kidnapping.

Police will allege they discovered a bloody bullet containing Mr Assoum’s DNA and Tarek’s fingerprints inside the Volkswagen, which was found alight in the suburb of Georges Hall six days later.

Tarek was remanded in custody after his arrest and has twice sought bail in the NSW Local Court, both applications of which were considered behind closed doors, and ultimately refused.

A third bail bid, heard in the Supreme Court on February 2, also took place in complete privacy, with neither the public nor the media allowed access to the proceedings.

Comanchero boss Tarek Zahed. Supplied

The outcomes of the application was itself expected to remain a secret, however a carefully redacted version of the judgment was published by the court late on Tuesday afternoon.

It revealed Tarek’s primary reason for wanting bail centred on what his legal team claimed was the lack of appropriate medical care he was receiving in custody to treat injuries sustained when he was shot in the face during a failed assassination attempt outside an Auburn gym in May 2022.

The shooting claimed the life of his other brother Omar, however Tarek miraculously survived.

The court heard at the time of his arrest, Tarek required multiple surgeries, including having a prosthetic eye fitted.

KComancheros sergeant-at-arms Tarek Zahed (left) with Allan Meehan.

Tarek’s legal team relied on records from Justice Health to demonstrate he had not had a raft of medical procedures in custody that had been recommended by doctors prior to his arrest.

His lawyers also argued the case against their client was weak and would be subject to ongoing and unreasonable delay as a result.

However, Justice Helen Wilson dismissed the delay concerns and found the case against Tarek, based on the limited material she had available to her and taken at its highest, was capable of being established.

In relation to the argument on medical grounds, Justice Wilson found Tarek’s current care was adequate.

“Whilst the applicant’s health is clearly an issue of concern, at this stage there is no good reason to conclude that the treatment he has received and will receive is of a lesser standard than that available to the general public in the community,” she said.

“Such treatment may not be delivered on demand, or with the speed available to patients who – like the applicant – have substantial financial resources, but it is nevertheless adequate.”

Justice Wilson found that Tarek had not shown cause why his ongoing detention was not justified, noting his history of prior offending and the fact he was on a serious crime prevention order, which he had allegedly breached in the past.

“The court is not persuaded that, in the context of an allegation of kidnapping and murder committed against a background of significant gang violence, cause has been shown,” she said and refused the application.