Australia has enacted a comprehensive statutory framework to criminalise financial misconduct and abuse. The primary statutes in this framework are the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code) and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

The Criminal Code is the primary federal statute criminalising financial crime offences.

• Fraud and deception offences are contained in Part 7.3 of the Criminal Code. Offences include obtaining property or a financial advantage by deception, and other fraudulent conduct including general dishonesty. These offences generally involve the use of deception or dishonesty to obtain a financial advantage. All the offences require a connection to the Commonwealth of Australia, that is, either the property obtained belongs to the Commonwealth or the advantage was obtained from the Commonwealth.
• Tax offences Serious tax fraud/evasion can be prosecuted under the general fraud provisions mentioned above (e.g., dishonesty obtaining a financial advantage by deception or causing loss to the Commonwealth). Related regulatory offences (failure to lodge returns, false or misleading statement to the ATO, failure to comply with notices) are primarily in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).
• Money laundering offences are covered in Part 10.2 of the Criminal Code. Money laundering is defined as the act of dealing with money or property which the person believes be the proceeds of crime or intends to become an instrument of crime. Property has a broad meaning and includes tangible and intangible property.
• Foreign bribery offences are set out in Division 70 of the Criminal Code, which criminalise the bribing of a foreign public official to obtain or retain business, or a business advantage. There is a separate strict liability offence of failing to “prevent foreign bribery” which applies only to body corporates.

The Corporations Act, which regulates corporations and other business entities in Australia, includes several financial crime provisions. For example, Part 7.10 of the Corporations Act covers market manipulation and insider trading offences.

• Market manipulation offences are prohibited by section 1041A of the Corporations Act. The Corporations Act defines market manipulation as conduct that has or is likely to have, the effect of creating or maintaining an ‘artificial price’ for trading in various financial products, including shares and futures.
• Insider trading offences are located in Division 3, Part 7.10, Chapter 5 of the Corporations Act. Insider trading is where a person possesses “insider information” applies for, acquires, or disposes of, certain financial products, or provides information to another person for this purpose. “Insider information” is information that is not generally available and, if it were available, a reasonable person would expect it to have a material effect on the price or value of financial products.

These statutes are supported by other federal legislation that regulates specific financial activities and conduct and criminalises specific financial crime offences, such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act), and the ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act).

At the state/territory level, each state and territory’s criminal legislation also addresses financial crime offences. For example, New South Wales’s (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) contains provisions criminalising money laundering and fraud.

The Criminal Code applies to corporations in the same way it applies to individuals.

As set out in Division 12, a body corporate may be found guilty of any offence if the physical element of an offence is committed by an employee, agent, or officer of a body corporate acting within the actual or apparent scope of his or her employment, or within his or her actual or apparent authority, the physical element must also be attributed to the body corporate (section 12.2). The fault element, being intention, knowledge, or recklessness, may be attributable to a company if the company expressly, tacitly, or impliedly authorises or permits the commission of the offence (section 12.3). This authorisation or permission can be established if, among other things, the corporation’s board of directors or high managerial agents intentionally or knowingly engaged in the relevant conduct, or there was a corporate culture that directed, encouraged, tolerated, or led to non-compliance with the relevant provision.

In terms of penalties, many offences set out specific penalty provisions for corporations. But in addition, section 4B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) enables a fine to be imposed for offences that otherwise only specify imprisonment as a penalty.

In Australia, the most commonly prosecuted offences personally applicable to company directors and officers are found under the Corporations Act.

Australia imposes specific statutory duties on directors and officers of corporations under Part 2D.1 of the Corporations Act. In some cases, violation of these duties can result in criminal penalties through corresponding criminal provisions. These include that a director:

• must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the corporation and for a proper purpose (section 181 and 184(1)).
• must not improperly use their position to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else; or cause detriment to the corporation (182 and 184(2)).
• must not improperly use the information to gain an advantage for themselves or someone else; or cause detriment to the corporation (183 and 184(3))

More broadly, a person who does an act that is under a provision of the Corporations Act or does not do an act that the person is required to do by a provision of the Corporations Act is guilty of a criminal offence (section 1311). This can result in prosecutions for directors and other officers for offences such as:

• Failing to keep correct financial records (section 286)
• Failure to lodge audited financial reports (section 319)
• Falsifying accounting records (section 1307)

The two primary entities in Australia tasked with investigating and prosecuting Commonwealth offences including financial crimes are the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). In addition, several of the specialised government regulatory agencies have specific and limited enforcement and prosecution powers.

AFP

The AFP is Australia’s national policing agency and is responsible for investigating federal offences under the Criminal Code. These include white-collar offences related to bribery, insider trading, money laundering, and fraud offences. The AFP has a wide range of investigative powers and will often assist other agencies in their investigations.

CDPP

The CDPP is Australia’s federal prosecution service. It is responsible for initiating and prosecuting offences under Commonwealth law. The CDPP operates a Commercial, Financial, and Corruption Practice Group responsible for prosecuting serious financial and white-collar crimes including offences related to corporations, financial markets and services, large-scale tax fraud, criminal cartel behaviour, money laundering, as well as bribery and corruption involving Commonwealth and foreign officials.

Australian Taxation Office (ATO)

The ATO is the principal revenue collection agency of the Australian Government. It also plays an active role in investigating and enforcing white-collar crime offences relating to tax avoidance and fraud under the Tax Administration Act 1953 (Cth). Within the ATO, there are criminal investigators dedicated to investigating serious and complex tax fraud matters. The ATO will often refer instances of criminal wrongdoing to the AFP and the CDPP.

Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)

AUSTRAC is Australia’s financial intelligence unit and anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) regulator. It administers the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act) and Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1). AUSTRAC can initiate investigations in response to the identification of suspicious activities, however, it is not a prosecuting agency and so and will refer suspected criminal offences to the CDPP.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

The ACCC is an independent statutory authority responsible for fair trading, consumer protection, and competition by enforcing the Competition and Consumer Act 2011 (Cth). The ACCC investigates and gathers evidence in respect of conduct falling within its remit. While it can also initiate criminal proceedings, it will refer serious criminal offences to the CDPP for prosecution.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

The ASIC is Australia’s corporate, markets, financial services, and consumer credit regulator. ASIC is primarily responsible for administering the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). ASIC can initiate investigations into potential misconduct that relates to its areas of regulation. It can also initiate civil and criminal proceedings. If it obtains evidence to suggest a criminal offence has been committed, it can refer the matter to the CDPP or, if the offence is a minor regulatory offence, prosecute itself.

In Australia, financial crime matters can be heard by the commonwealth federal courts, state or territory’s local, district, and supreme courts. The court that will hear the case will depend on whether the offence is under Commonwealth law or State/Territory law, as well as the complexity and seriousness of the offence, and the pecuniary cost of the offence.

Financial crime cases may be determined by a judge alone or by a judge and jury, depending on the type of offence and the applicable jurisdiction. Summary offences are generally heard and determined by a magistrate or judge without a jury. Indictable offences are typically tried before a jury. However, for some state and territory indictable offences, an accused person may elect to be tried by judge alone. In contrast, Commonwealth indictable offences must be tried by jury in accordance with section 80 of the Australian Constitution.

In Australia, investigations are variously triggered by complaints, referrals, intelligence, audits, or suspicious activity reports.

The AFP will typically be involved in the most serious white collar crime investigations and has a wide range of powers under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (Cth). The AFP has the power to search properties and seize evidence, perform raids, conduct interviews, use technical surveillance, complete arrests, and the power to charge persons. Chapter 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) provides for information-gathering powers and processes in relation to proceeds of crime matters. These are powers relating to:

• examinations;
• production orders;
• notices to financial institutions;
• monitoring orders; and
• search and seizure powers.

However, many white-collar crime investigations will start out with the various regulatory agencies. They each have their own specific enforcement powers, to investigate potential wrongdoing within their specialised remit.

ATO

The ATO conducts audits to ensure that businesses and taxpayers are compliant with tax laws and has wide investigative powers. Once an audit has been commenced, the ATO will typically request the provision of information voluntarily. It also has the power to:

• issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents
• compel a person to attend a compulsory formal interview or produce documents
• access premises and inspect or copy documents and evidence found on the premises

ASIC

ASIC commences an investigation where it has reason to suspect a breach of the Corporations Act. ASIC has wide-ranging investigative powers, including:

• require the production or inspection of documents
• compel a person to attend compulsory examinations to give evidence or produce documents
• compel assistance to the investigation
• apply for a search warrant under section 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Crimes Act), which is granted where an authorised officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect there is or will be evidential material at the relevant premises.
• other surveillance powers.

ACCC

The ACCC has broad powers to investigate suspected breaches of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 including:

• issue notices requiring the provision of information and documents
• compel a person to attend compulsory examinations to give evidence or produce documents
• to obtain search and seizure warrants

AUSTRAC

In 2025, AUSTRAC acquired a range of new investigative powers, allowing it to now do the following:

• request information
• issue a notice compelling production of information and/or documents
• authorise a person to share information with AUSTRAC, without violating other privacy or confidentiality laws
• compel a person to attend compulsory examinations to give evidence or produce documents

Each of the above listed agencies have the power to conduct interviews.

While the AFP may conduct voluntary interviews, each of the other regulatory agencies have the power to conduct compulsory interview under the following legislative provisions:

• ATO can conduct compulsory formal interviews under section 353-10 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)
• ASIC can conduct compulsory examination under section 19 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth)
• ACCC can conduct compulsory examination under section 155 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
• AUSTRAC can conduct compulsory examinations under Section 172A of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth)

In Australia, the rights afforded to individuals interviewed in connection with financial crime or white-collar investigations depend significantly on whether the process is voluntary or compulsory (mandated by statute), and on the investigating agency involved.

As stated above, as primarily regulatory agencies, ASIC, the ACCC, the ATO, and AUSTRAC all have the power to conduct “compulsory examinations”. The significance of such interviews is that they override the common law right against self-incrimination. Individuals must attend and answer questions regardless of whether the answer may incriminate them.

However, information obtained in this manner is generally not admissible in evidence against that person in subsequent criminal proceedings or proceedings for the imposition of a civil penalty (other than for perjury or making a false statement).

These agencies may also conduct non-compulsory examinations or voluntary interviews. In such cases, interviewees retain the common law right to silence and may decline to participate or answer questions. Anything said in a voluntary interview may be used in evidence against the interviewee.

AFP interviews, being primarily for the purpose of investigating a criminal matter, cannot override the right against self-incrimination.

There is no overall common law right to be represented by a lawyer during an interview legal representation, however at the Commonwealth level, under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (section 23G), an arrested person must be notified of their right to communicate with a lawyer and the investigating official must allow the lawyer to attend questioning.

Generally, lawyers are permitted to attend compulsory examinations, however their ability to intervene is limited as there is no right to silence. Further, this right is not absolute. For example, section 23 of the ASIC Act permits lawyers to attend examinations, however the examiner may also limit the attendance of a lawyer under section 22(1).

Most interviews are recorded, and the interviewee will be provided with a transcript. For example, section 24 of the ASIC Act provides for the provision of transcripts.

Australian law provides for the extraterritorial application of criminal jurisdiction at the federal level. “Standard geographical jurisdiction” applies when either the conduct or the result of the offence took place wholly or partially in Australia (Division 14 of the Criminal Code). “Extended geographical jurisdiction” is set out under Division 15 of the Criminal Code and provides for four categories, which include:

• Category A: The person charged was either an Australian citizen or a body corporate incorporated under Australian law at the time of the offence.
• Category B: The person charged was an Australian resident at the time of the offence.
• Category C: Unrestricted extraterritoriality on the person charged – it applies whether or not the conduct or the result of the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs in Australia. However, a defence may be available depending on the law of the foreign country where the conduct occurs.
• Category D: Unrestricted extraterritoriality but with no foreign law defence.

In short, category C and D capture conduct where there is no connection between the alleged offence and Australia. This framework ensures that Australia can address serious financial crimes with an international dimension.

Extended geographical jurisdiction applies to several white-collar offences including money laundering, fraud, and offences involving the use of carriage services.

Some Criminal Code offences specifically target conduct committed extraterritorially, eg “bribery of foreign public officials” under Division 70.

Section 16.1 imposes a requirement for the Attorney-General’s consent before proceedings may be commenced in cases where the alleged conduct occurred wholly in a foreign country and the accused is neither Australian citizen nor an Australian body corporate.

Most state criminal offences, however, only provide for a limited extension of geographical jurisdiction, which requires a nexus between the state and the offence. The crime must be committed wholly or partly in the state, or the effects of the crime must be felt wholly or partly within the state.

Yes, Australian federal regulatory agencies routinely cooperate with foreign authorities to share intelligence and to investigate and prosecute white-collar crimes.

In addition to the agency-specific arrangements set out below, Australia has ratified numerous treaties which facilitate the exchange of information and evidence between countries for financial crime investigations and prosecutions. Examples of such treaties include the Australia-United States Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaty (bilateral treaty) and the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Budapest Convention (multilateral treaty).

AFP

The AFP coordinates Australia’s engagement with foreign law enforcement agencies. As the primary point of contact for international law enforcement cooperation, it facilitates the exchange of intelligence, supports joint investigations, and manages international assistance requests. Australia’s participation in international policing organisations, including INTERPOL and Europol, is coordinated through the AFP. The AFP also has international posts in over 40 countries to facilitate this collaboration with the foreign law enforcement community.

ASIC

ASIC is a signatory to the International Organization of Securities Commission’s (IOSCO) Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding, IOSCO Enhanced Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information and IOSCO Administrative Arrangement as well as numerous Memorandums of Understanding and other international agreements.

These documents outline between the signing parties with regard to mutual assistance and the relationship the exchange of information for the purpose of enforcing and regulating the respective laws and regulations of the signing authorities.

ASIC is additionally a member of the International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators, which promotes global collaboration among independent audit regulators to enhance audit quality and combat reporting fraud. Where authorised, ASIC uses the Mutual Assistance in Business Regulation Act 1992 (Cth) to exercise compulsory powers to obtain documents, information, or testimony on behalf of foreign regulators.

ATO

The ATO engages in information sharing, intelligence gathering, investigations, and audits with other tax administrations through Australia’s bilateral tax treaties and the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. The ATO has established information exchange agreements and obtains data from jurisdictions that were previously known for financial secrecy.

Additionally, the ATO collaborates internationally with the Joint Chiefs of Global Tax Enforcement (known as the J5) to collect information, share intelligence, and conduct joint operations targeting cybercrime, cryptocurrency fraud, and facilitators of offshore tax crimes. The ATO also partners with other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) networks, such as the Joint International Taskforce and Joint Financial Task Force on Sharing Intelligence and Collaboration, to share information on tax avoidance and evasion.

ACCC

The ACCC is a signatory to the International Competition Network and the OECD’s Competition Committee, which enable information sharing and coordination on cross-border investigations. Under bilateral agreements such as the Australia-United States Mutual Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Agreement (1999), the ACCC exchanges evidence with counterparts like the U.S Department of Justice. The ACCC may also initiate or support requests for assistance through law enforcement agencies such as the AFP, particularly in criminal cartel matters.

AUSTRAC

AUSTRAC is a founding member of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), which facilitates the exchange of financial intelligence among member countries to combat money laundering and other financial crimes.

As set out above the AFP and the Australian regulatory authorities all exercise broad statutory powers to compel the production of documents and information. Despite the breadth of these powers, legal professional privilege (LPP) remains a fundamental common‑law right that protects certain confidential communications from compulsory disclosure to these agencies.

LPP applies to communications made for the dominant purpose of either obtaining or providing legal advice (advice privilege) or preparing for existing or reasonably anticipated litigation (litigation privilege). Advice privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client, including communications made through agents or intermediaries, where the dominant purpose is the giving or receiving of legal advice. Litigation privilege extends to confidential communications between a lawyer, client, and third parties where the dominant purpose is preparing for litigation that is either on foot or reasonably contemplated.

LPP belongs to the client, not the lawyer, and cannot be waived by a lawyer or third party without the client’s authority.

Where an Australian law enforcement agency, regulator, court, or tribunal issues a notice or order compelling the production of information or documents, compliance with that order will generally override privacy-related restrictions that might otherwise apply. Of note:

• Under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), it is a defence to a claim for serious invasion of privacy where the conduct was required or authorised by an Australian law or by a court or tribunal order. The statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy also does not apply to invasions of privacy by law enforcement or intelligence agencies acting in the performance of their functions.
• The Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), set out in Schedule 1 to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), generally require personal information to be used or disclosed only for the purpose for which it was collected. However, exceptions apply where the use or disclosure is required or authorised by an Australian law or a court or tribunal order, or where the entity reasonably believes the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary for enforcement-related activities conducted by, or on behalf of, an enforcement body.

Australia does not recognise a doctrine of successor criminal liability. When one company acquires or merges with another, the acquiring entity does not inherit the target’s criminal liability for offences committed before the transaction. Criminal responsibility remains with the legal person (the original corporation or the individuals involved) who committed the offence.

Specific arrangements for the transferring of liabilities can be ordered by the court under section 413 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), however it addresses civil liabilities rather than criminal liability.

In Australia, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) is responsible for prosecuting federal offences, including white‑collar and financial crime. The CDPP makes charging decisions in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, which sets out a structured two‑stage test. Both stages must be satisfied before a prosecution can proceed.

The first stage is the evidence test. Prosecutors must determine whether the available evidence establishes a reasonable prospect of conviction. This assessment goes beyond simply identifying whether an offence appears to have been committed. It requires a careful evaluation of the admissibility, reliability, credibility, and sufficiency of the evidence to determine if it meets the legal standard required for prosecution.

If the evidence test is satisfied, prosecutors move to the public interest test. Even where a reasonable prospect of conviction exists, the CDPP must consider whether pursuing a prosecution is in the public interest. This involves weighing a range of factors, including the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the degree of culpability of the accused, the harm caused to victims or the community, and the broader deterrent value of prosecution. Prosecutors also consider mitigating circumstances such as the age, health, or personal circumstances of the accused, the level of cooperation with investigators, whether the offending was isolated or systemic, and whether alternative regulatory or civil enforcement mechanisms may be more appropriate.

This two‑stage approach ensures that charging decisions are fair, consistent, and grounded in both legal merit and broader public interest.

The prosecution carries the burden of proof and must prove criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant if they decide to argue a specific statutory defence whereby the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

In Australia, limitation periods for criminal matters depend on whether the offence is classified as indictable or summary under Commonwealth law. Generally, the statute of limitations does not apply for indictable criminal matters, which include financial-crime offences. However, a limitation period will apply to summary offences, which is 12 months from the date of the alleged conduct. Where limitation periods apply, the time cannot be stopped.

Australian regulators frequently use non‑criminal enforcement mechanisms to resolve financial‑crime matters without commencing prosecution. These mechanisms are designed to achieve compliance, remediation, and deterrence while avoiding the cost, delay, and severity of criminal proceedings. The most common tools are enforceable undertakings, infringement notices, civil penalty proceedings, and administrative sanctions. Australia does not currently have a Deferred Prosecution Agreement or Non‑Prosecution Agreement regime for corporate crime.

Elaborating on one such mechanism, ASIC and the ACCC accept enforceable undertakings in place of civil or criminal action for breaches of their respective statutes. Enforceable undertakings are an agreement between the parties, generally negotiated without the supervision of a court, but registered with the court. Under the agreement, the person or entity makes certain commitments to address deficiencies in their adherence to the law. For example, they might commit to fixing problems with their compliance systems. Breaching the agreement can lead to financial penalties or contempt of court charges.

Relevant factors include whether the person is likely to comply with the undertaking, the likely effect of the undertaking on the person’s future conduct, including whether the undertaking is likely to deter the person from engaging in misconduct in the future, whether the undertaking will deter others from engaging in similar conduct; and the public interest, including remediation outcomes such as compensation for affected consumers.

Plea bargaining is not officially recognised in Australia; however, the defence and prosecution can engage in charge negotiation or charge resolution, which is governed by the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. States also allow for charge negotiation, which in the case of NSW, is governed by Chapter 4 of the NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Prosecution Guidelines. These negotiations may result in a defendant pleading guilty to lesser or fewer charges, with the remaining charges being withdrawn.

There is no obligation to disclose misconduct to prosecuting authorities, however there can be several benefits in doing so. For example:

• A taxpayer may voluntarily disclose incorrect, or false and misleading information to the ATO. If this is done prior to the ATO commencing an audit, the taxpayer is entitled to an 80% discount on any potential penalty that might otherwise have applied.
• Under ASIC’s immunity policy, an individual who is willing to self-report certain misconduct to ASIC (violations of Part 7.10 of the Corporations) and wishes to cooperate with ASIC in relation to their investigations, can apply for immunity from ASIC from both civil penalty and criminal proceedings.
• The ACCC can grant civil immunity to the first individual or corporation that discloses cartel conduct and cooperates fully with the investigation. The applicant must enter into a cooperation agreement with the ACCC that outlines the cooperative steps that the applicant agrees to undertake.

The sentencing process in Australia at the Commonwealth level is informed by the principles set out in section 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), under which a court must take into account the listed matters, which include:

• the nature and circumstances of the offence
• any injury, loss, or damage resulting from the offence
• the degree to which the person has cooperated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence or of other offences
• if the person has pleaded guilty to the charge in respect of the offence, including the degree to which that fact and the timing of the plea resulted in any benefit to the community, or any victim of, or witness to, the offence
• the deterrent effect that any sentence or order under consideration may have
• the need to ensure that the person is adequately punished for the offence

At the federal level, unlike in some states, there is no specific discount that is applied in respect of cooperation or a guilty plea; however it is taken into account. Common law principles also inform the sentencing process. These principles emphasis factors similar to those now set out in the statute. However, there can be some differences, for delay by the prosecutor and proportionality are not factors listed in s16A(2) but may be relevant to sentencing.

Significant guidance has been issued by Australian government authorities on what makes effective compliance programs in the areas of law where such programs are expressly contemplated by legislation.

One notable example is corporate “failure to prevent foreign bribery” offences under section 70.5A of the Criminal Code. It is a defence to this provision if the corporation had in place “adequate procedures” designed to prevent foreign bribery by its associates. This “adequate procedures” requirement is essentially an anti-bribery “compliance programme” for foreign bribery offences. The Australian Attorney-General’s Department’s guidance provides the following six elements to assist companies in establishing these procedures:

1. fostering a control environment proportionate to the operational circumstances to prevent foreign bribery (e.g. bribery risk and nature of activities);
2. top-level management’s involvement in the development and responsibilities in implementing and promoting the compliance program;
3. risk assessments, including the mitigation measures of non-controlled associates (e.g. third-party service providers);
4. communication and training, including how to respond to solicitation;
5. reporting foreign bribery, including whistleblower protections; and
6. monitoring and reviewing regularly and when required (e.g. entering a new market, bribery or corruption incidents, etc).

Whether a corporation had “adequate procedures” in place is ultimately a question to be determined by a court. Nevertheless, the Attorney-General’s guidance is likely to be highly relevant in assessing the adequacy of a company’s anti-bribery compliance framework.

As another example, under Australia’s AML/CTF regime, reporting entities are required to develop, maintain, and comply with an AML/CTF compliance program that is tailored to their business. AUSTRAC has issued substantial guidance on such compliance programs, including on how to establish a governance frame, manage and mitigate risks, and what training to provide to personnel. While compliance with AUSTRAC’s guidance is not mandatory in itself, it provides a benchmark for assessing whether an entity has implemented an effective and risk-based AML/CTF compliance framework and is likely to be considered by prosecuting authorities, which may include a decision to be lenient or not prosecute.

The principal offences under the Criminal Code and the Corporations Act identified in Q1 attract significant criminal penalties. Individuals may face imprisonment, fines, or both, while corporations are subject to substantial financial penalties. The legislation typically prescribes maximum penalties, which are reserved for the most serious cases. The maximum penalties for the offences identified in Question 1 include:

• Obtaining property or a financial advantage by deception: up to 10 years’ imprisonment.
• Money laundering offences: up to 25 years’ imprisonment and/or 1,500 penalty units, depending on the value of the money and property in question.
• Bribery of a foreign public official: up to 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of 10,000 penalty units, or both.
• Failure to prevent foreign bribery: for corporations, the greater of:
  • 100,000 penalty units;
  • three times the value of the benefit obtained, directly or indirectly, from the conduct; or
  • 10% of the corporation’s annual turnover during the relevant period.
• Market manipulation: up to 15 years’ imprisonment for criminal liability and, for civil penalty proceedings, the greater of 5,000 penalty units or three times the benefit obtained and detriment avoided.
• Insider trading: up to 15 years’ imprisonment.

The severity of the ultimate penalty applied generally depends on the nature of the offending conduct and the offender’s level of knowledge, intention, or recklessness.

Where a Commonwealth offence does not specify a corporate fine, section 4B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) provides that a corporation may be fined up to five times the maximum monetary penalty that could be imposed on an individual convicted of the same offence. A penalty unit is currently AU$364 for offences committed on or after 1 July 2026.

In addition, the Corporations Act provides for both criminal liability and civil penalty consequences arising from the same underlying conduct. For example, insider trading under section 1043A may give rise to criminal prosecution, civil penalty proceedings, or both. Accordingly, individuals and corporations may face not only imprisonment and fines, but also substantial civil penalties, disqualification orders, compensation orders, and other regulatory sanctions.

A person found guilty of a crime can appeal their conviction and their sentence a superior court. There are different types of criminal appeals:

• A severity appeal or sentence appeal: appealing against the harshness of the sentence
• Conviction appeal: appealing against the finding of guilt
• All grounds appeal: appealing against both conviction and sentence severity

If the superior court determines that an error occurred, they can either make a new decision or order a new hearing.

For more serious matters there can be additional requirements to be met before an appeal can be made. For example, in NSW, if the matter was heard in the District or Supreme Courts, the appellant must first obtain the leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal prior to lodging the appeal. To win a conviction appeal, the person making the appeal must either show that their trial was seriously unfair or that the outcome is a miscarriage of justice. To win a sentence appeal they must show that the judge made an important mistake and that they were entitled to a lesser sentence. The prosecution cannot generally appeal an acquittal, they can only appeal if they believe the sentence was “manifestly inadequate”.

Australian authorities are very active in tackling financial crimes, with ASIC, AUSTRAC, and the ACCC regularly publishing updates on successful prosecutions and enforcement outcomes. In the 2025-26 financial year for example, ASIC secured a record AU$830 million in civil penalties, commenced more than 250 investigations, filed 32 new civil proceedings and 18 criminal prosecutions, and recorded 25 criminal convictions.

There has also been significant investment in financial crimes by the federal government, with major reforms legislation being implemented in the past few years year, and significant financial and policy investments. For example, in July 2023, the Australian Government provided AU$ 223.8 million to the ATO over four years to extend the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce (SFCT) and AUSTRAC through to 30 June 2027.

At the same time, the SFCT was merged with Australia’s Serious Organised Crime program. The SFCT website notes that the effect of these changes will “maximise the disruption of organised crime groups that seek to undermine the integrity of Australia’s public finances”. As of 30 June 2025, the SFCT’s work has resulted in 2,822 audits and reviews, 97 individuals being convicted and sentenced, over AU$ 3.39 billion in liabilities being raised, and the collection of more than AU$ 1.15 billion.

Over the past five years, the Australian Government has brought in significant reforms in the areas of corruption and bribery, as well as such as environment, social, and government regulation. At the same time, the key regulatory agencies continue to update their areas of priority each year, with two such examples including ASIC’s recent focus on corporate failure to lodge financial reports and AUSTRAC’s ongoing focus on the gambling and casino industry.

Corruption and bribery offences

The past few years have seen significant reforms in the area of bribery and corruption. Most significantly, on 1 July 2023, the new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) began operations. The NACC is an independent Commission that detects, investigates, and reports on serious or systemic corrupt conduct in the Commonwealth public sector. It can also refer matters to the CDPP for criminal prosecution. Prior to its establishment in 2023, there was no independent government authority investigating corruption and bribery at the Commonwealth level. As a result of its efforts, the NACC had 1,206 referrals in 2025.

In addition, on 8 September 2024 the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Foreign Bribery) Act 2023 (Cth) introduced the new corporate offence of “failure to prevent foreign bribery”. In line with the equivalent UK offence, the reach of the legislation is wide. The new offence makes companies liable for failing to prevent foreign bribery by an “associate”, which is broadly defined. It includes an employee, contractor, agent, subsidiary, or controlled entity of the corporation, or a person that otherwise performs services on behalf of the corporation. The Act also expanded the existing foreign bribery offences to capture a greater range of corporate conduct and increases the penalties for corporations found guilty of an offence.

From these developments, it’s clear that the federal government is placing high importance on tackling bribery and corruption. That said, as of December 2025, there has been no publicly confirmed enforcement action by Australian authorities for failure to prevent foreign bribery. Given the complexity of such investigations, this is perhaps unsurprising. Accordingly, the practical effect of these provisions remains to be seen.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG)

Australia has strengthened its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) regulatory framework in recent years through the introduction of mandatory climate-related financial reporting and increased regulatory action against greenwashing. A major development was the enactment of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024 (Cth), which introduced a mandatory climate reporting regime for large entities from 1 January 2025. Under the amendments to the Corporations Act, eligible entities are required to prepare annual sustainability reports containing climate-related financial disclosures, including information on climate risks and climate resilience assessments. The regime is supported by significant penalties for non-compliance, including substantial civil penalties for companies (50,000 penalty units, currently AU$16.5 million) and potential liability for directors (AU$1.65 million in penalties and up to two years’ imprisonment for failure to keep sustainability records).

Australian regulators have intensified enforcement against greenwashing, with both ASIC and the ACCC identifying misleading environmental and sustainability claims as enforcement priorities. ASIC has successfully pursued a number of high-profile cases, including penalties of A$12.9 million against Vanguard Investments Australia in September 2024, A$11.3 million against Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited in August 2024, and A$10.5 million against Active Super in March 2025 for misleading ESG-related representations.

Failure to lodge financial reports

In August 2025, ASIC announced a crackdown on what it described as high levels of non-compliance with financial report lodgement requirements, including the commencement of a surveillance program. This focus was reinforced in November 2025 when ASIC added financial reporting misconduct, including failures to lodge financial reports, to its 2026 enforcement priorities.

In December 2025, ASIC announced that, following its three months of surveillance activities, it had engaged with more than 200 companies regarding non-lodgement, after which 103 companies filed their reports and issued infringement notices to 12 large proprietary companies for allegedly failing to lodge audited FY2024 financial reports.

ASIC has continued to bring commenced enforcement into 2026. In March 2026, three companies within the Mecca group paid infringement notices totalling AU$594,000 for allegedly failing to lodge audited financial reports on time. Shortly thereafter, on 1 April 2026, ASIC announced that three public companies had been fined a combined AU$1.17 million by the Downing Centre Local Court for repeated failures to lodge financial reports and comply.

Casino and gambling industry

In 2019, AUSTRAC launched an industry-wide casino compliance campaign. Since then, AUSTRAC has brought a number of significant civil prosecutions against well-known gambling and casino businesses entities including obtaining a $450million penalty against Crown Casino in 2023, and a AU$67 million penalty against SkyCity Adelaide Pty Ltd in 2024, both for breaches of the AML/CTF Act. Similar proceedings brought against Entain Group Pty Ltd (Entain) trading as Ladbrokes, the Star Pty Limited, and Mount Pritchard and District Community Club Ltd remain ongoing.

Legislative developments

The most significant legislative reform in the past year has been the commencement of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024, which brings Australia in line with the international standards set out by Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Under this Act, on 1 July 2026 Australia’s AML/CTF regime was expanded to cover “Tranche 2” entities. Tranche 2 entities are non-financial businesses and professionals recognised as being at high risk of criminal exploitation in respect of the movement of criminal proceeds. These include:

• Real estate professionals
• Dealers in precious stones, metals, and products
• Lawyers
• Conveyancers

This has affected a significant number of entities, with over 90,000 Australian entities considered reporting entities for the first time.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024 has also brought in other reforms, including notably:

• lowering the customer due diligence exemption threshold for gambling service providers such as casinos and gaming machine operators. The exemption will be lowered to less than AU$5,000 from AU$10,000, which aligns it with the FATF threshold, which is US/EU$3,000 – roughly equivalent to AU$5,000; and
• amending the term “digital currency” as used presently in the AML/CTF Act to “virtual asset”, with a new expanded definition which aims to reflect and capture the constantly evolving nature of virtual assets.

Notable cases

Two notable cases in the last year have included Federal Court Judgments in ASIC v Bekier (Liability Judgment) [2026] FCA 196 and CDPP v Rodney John Forrest [2026] FCA 14.

CDPP v Rodney John Forrest [2026] FCA 14

On 23 January 2026, former investment manager Rodney Forrest was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for insider trading and procuring others to trade in Platinum Asset Management Limited shares to the value of $3 million. In August 2024, Mr Forrest unlawfully accessed the Regal Partners Chairman’s computer, photographed confidential takeover documents, traded on the inside information, procured others to trade, and leaked the takeover details to the media, earning over $300,000.

This matter was the first completed case for ASIC’s specialist insider‑trading team, which finalised the case within 16 months. The specialist team was established by ASIC in late September 2024 to accelerate criminal investigations and increase the number of matters referred to the CDPP. It was also one of the first matters to be referred to the Federal Court under its expanded criminal jurisdiction. The Federal Court’s jurisdiction was expanded in June 2024, with the passing of the Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Act 2024 which allowed it to hear a range of Commonwealth white collar criminal offences, including insider‑trading matters. Previously the Federal Court was limited to civil matters and cartel conduct.

ASIC v Bekier

On 5 March 2026, the Federal Court found that two former director executives (the CEO and General Counsel) of The Star Entertainment Group Ltd (Star) had breached their duty to act with due care and diligence under section 180 of the Corporations Act in relation to their handling of money laundering risks. Star is one of Australia’s major casino operators. The two executives were ordered pay a pecuniary penalty of AU$700,000 and AU$400,000 and were disqualified from managing corporations for six and seven years respectively. They were also ordered to pay 45% of ASIC’s costs.

The matter was significant in terms of scope, with charges brought against 13 executives in total. It has been referred to by some commentators as the “most significant corporate governance case of the last decade” because all the directors and legal counsels, an entire leadership chain, was tested simultaneously in one proceeding over their conduct. (Law Society Journal, 2026). The Court ultimately found that the two direct executives failed to escalate serious risks to the board, in breach of their section 180 duties, but dismissed the charges against the other executives. Nevertheless, the judgement provided valuable insight into how courts and regulators assess accountability within internal governance frameworks.

The judgment contained several observations on the role of boards and the need for genuine engagement and independent judgment on matters within their responsibility. These observations include the importance of critically engaging with and assessing information provided to the board, recognising that reliance on management cannot substitute for the board’s own consideration of matters that fall within its core responsibilities, and acknowledging that while AI-assisted tools may be helpful, they cannot replace the need to scrutinise and interrogate information before decisions are made.

See answer to question 28 below.

Key deficiencies in Australia’s financial crime legal framework have been significantly addressed in the last two to three years, bringing Australia up to national standards, namely:

• The extension of the AML/CFT regime to Tranche 2 entities
• The introduction of the failure to prevent foreign bribery offence
• Establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission

However, there remain some areas that require improvement. For example, Australia has not yet created a public beneficial owner register. While presently under the Corporations Act companies must maintain registers of their members, they are not required to keep a register of the individuals who ultimately control, or benefit from, the company. Since 2025 the Australian government has been working to address this, having prepared draft legislation and frameworks, and undertaking public consultation. Should this ultimately be implemented, it will be a significant step in addressing financial crime, including money laundering and tax evasion.

Another potential gap, or at least an area warranting further consideration, is Australia’s absence of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) scheme. Such schemes exist in the United States and the United Kingdom, to encourage corporate entities to self-report potential misconduct in exchange for non-convictions. Australia has previously considered but rejected a DPA scheme, with the Attorney-General expressing concern that the scheme could enable corporations to evade criminal responsibility. However, the determinative question is whether Australia can effectively utilise its existing tools to enforce its financial crime regime, without the need for DPAs. Whether the absence of a DPA regime represents a genuine enforcement gap therefore remains an open question.