Summary
AUSTRAC helped disrupt an international people smuggling operation between Australia and Indonesia, resulting in the conviction of two Australians involved in organising the arrivals into Australia. AUSTRAC provided detailed information about the operation’s finances.
What to look out for
- Customers undertaking transactions that appear inconsistent with their profile and/or transaction history.
- Multiple electronic transfers from third parties.
- Multiple international funds transfers to a country of interest to authorities.
- Multiple low-value international value transfers.
- Unusually large volumes of cash deposits and withdrawals.
- Cash withdrawals made over multiple days.
The crime
Law enforcement established that a people smuggling syndicate was illegally transporting people from Indonesia to Australia by boat. They suspected two Australia-based associates were key players, involved in planning and facilitating the arrivals into Australia. The syndicate was allegedly charging people, mostly from Iraq and Iran, between A$4500 and A$10,000 each.
The Australia-based offenders were investigated and charged with people smuggling offences. Charges for one suspect also included importing and possessing a marketable quantity of methamphetamine.
Penalties
One offender was jailed for 11 years and the other for five years.
How business reporting helped
Regulated entities who submitted reports, including threshold transaction reports showing multiple large cash deposits and withdrawals, and data about international funds transfers (IFTIs) provided significant information to the investigation.
AUSTRAC’s role
AUSTRAC provided detailed analysis of the syndicate’s finances to the investigation.
Our information from financial transaction reports linked the suspects to Indonesia through IFTIs. Over five years one suspect sent 28 international funds transfers out of Australia, mostly to Indonesia, totalling A$42,000. The other suspect also transferred amounts from A$100 to A$5000 via remittance service providers some with payment descriptions of 'gift' or 'personal'.
Our analysis of threshold transaction reports (TTRs) showed the suspects receiving and withdrawing suspicious large cash amounts. Over 12 months one suspect made four cash withdrawals totalling more than A$57,000 at different bank branches on separate days. Over two months, the same suspect’s bank accounts received two cash deposits totalling more than A$37,000.
AUSTRAC’s data also recorded one suspect as an Indonesia-based 'ordering' customer, sending three IFTIs totalling more than A$7000 to Australia from Indonesia over 10 days. The ‘details of payment’ section of the IFTI report for these transactions was left blank. He also received six IFTIs in Indonesia totalling A$20,000 sent from Australia.
This guidance sets out how we interpret the Act, along with associated Rules and regulations. Australian courts are ultimately responsible for interpreting these laws and determining if any provisions of these laws are contravened.
The examples and scenarios in this guidance are meant to help explain our interpretation of these laws. They’re not exhaustive or meant to cover every possible scenario.
This guidance provides general information and isn't a substitute for legal advice. This guidance avoids legal language wherever possible and it might include generalisations about the application of the law. Some provisions of the law referred to have exceptions or important qualifications. In most cases your particular circumstances must be taken into account when determining how the law applies to you.