Summary

AUSTRAC information sparked an investigation into a married couple who had substantial assets inconsistent with their declared income. The investigation led to three arrests, disruption of illicit drug supply, and the seizure of A$100,000 in cash, and other assets.

What to look out for

  • Account activity inconsistent with customer’s established profile.
  • Customer and relative(s) attend the same branch and make structured cash deposits into their own accounts at the same time.
  • Customer is a signatory to a relative's account and makes large cash deposits to the account.
  • High-value cash deposits.
  • Regular or multiple deposits below the A$10,000 reporting threshold.
  • A third-party or relative appears nervous while making transactions.

The crime

A credit union submitted a suspicious matter report (SMR) to AUSTRAC about the financial activities of a married couple (offenders A and B) who appeared to have structured a transaction to avoid reporting requirements. The SMR outlined how:

  • the couple held a joint account with the reporting entity
  • Offender A telephoned the credit union to say she wanted to withdraw A$15,000 cash from her personal account
  • credit union employees told Offender A that the A$15,000 withdrawal would require a significant cash transaction report (SCTR) to be made
  • Offender A then visited a branch of the credit union and withdrew A$9800 on one day and A$5200 the following day.

AUSTRAC provided the SMR information to authorities for investigation. They found the offender’s account activity showed government welfare payments, a large number of transactions at a casino and large cheque deposits.

AUSTRAC then analysed additional credit union SMRs that showed:

  • Offender A was a signatory to an account held in a relative's name
  • Offender A periodically deposited cash into the relative's account, including four cash deposits totalling A$20,000 over one month, structured into amounts from A$2000 to A$9000
  • Offender A and the relative visited a branch of the credit union and they deposited A$9000 and A$6000 cash (respectively) into their personal accounts at different counters
  • credit union employees noticed the relative seemed nervous while making the deposits
  • the relative withdrew A$50,000 by cheque from his account to buy a motor vehicle.

These SMRs became part of a financial picture that indicated offenders A and B had substantial assets inconsistent with their declared income. Over six years they deposited A$1.37 million into their accounts and bought assets including a house, two motor vehicles and three motorcycles. Offender B also travelled overseas often, and AUSTRAC found that in the same year the credit union submitted the SMRs, Offender B reported he was carrying A$16,000 cash when he left Australia for the Philippines.

Offenders A and B had also accumulated debts of approximately A$70,000 each for welfare payments they were not entitled to.

The investigation revealed both offenders had obtained 15kg of cannabis and arranged for a courier (Offender C) to transport it interstate. Law enforcement officers found the cannabis concealed in a vehicle and arrested Offender C.

Authorities seized approximately A$75,000 cash, receipts for goods worth A$400,000 bought with cash, and documents that indicated offenders A and B were trafficking in cannabis. They were both arrested and charged with crimes relating to drug trafficking and dealing with the proceeds of crime.

Penalties

Offender A was sentenced to four years and 10 months in prison. Offender B proceedings before court were not finalised. Offender C received a suspended sentence of two years and nine months in prison.

Authorities seized and froze assets including a house, two motor vehicles, three motorcycles, approximately A$75,000 in cash and A$25,000 in a bank account.

How business reporting helped

The SMRs passed to authorities by AUSTRAC helped prompt law enforcement to investigate the unexplained wealth of offenders A and B.

AUSTRAC’s role

AUSTRAC’s data and analysis was key to constructing the financial picture of the couple’s unexplained wealth.

This guidance sets out how we interpret certain Australian legislation, 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.

Last updated: 25 Mar 2026

Was this page helpful?

Please note that feedback you provide here will be used only for the purpose of improving our website. If you have a specific question about your AML/CTF obligations, please contact us.