Freedom of Information - Whether disclosure would unreasonably affect an organisation in respect of its lawful business affairs - Whether contrary to public interest to release conditionally exempt documents - (CTH) Freedom of Information Act 1982 ss 11A, 11B and 47G

1. Under s 55K of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act), I set aside the internal review decision of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) of 20 January 2021. I substitute my decision that:
   • the material listed in the following categories in the document at issue is not exempt under s 47G:
     • transaction type
     • currency
     • payer country, and
     • banking institution
   • the business information of 'AVZ'[1] in the following categories in the document at issue is not conditionally exempt under s 47G:
     • payee role and name
     • payee address
     • payee country, and
     • payee account number
   • the material listed in the following categories in the document at issue is conditionally exempt under s 47G and it would be contrary to the public interest to release it:
     • transaction date, and
     • report amount
   • all other material in the document at issue is irrelevant, including identifying information.[2]
2. Within 28 days of this decision:
   • AUSTRAC must provide the applicant with a copy of the documents, edited under s 22 of the FOI Act only to the extent necessary to delete material I have found to be exempt or irrelevant, and
   • AUSTRAC must advise whether it has fully implemented my decision or whether it will be seeking review of the decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal.

1. This decision discusses the application of s 47G to international funds transaction reports of AUSTRAC. It finds that there is a significant public interest in not undermining the confidentiality of sensitive financial information obtained by AUSTRAC compulsorily under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (the AML/CTF Act).

1. By way of brief background, and to provide context to this decision, the applicant submitted that on or about 3 August 2017 they were approached by a Senior Asset Manager who allegedly worked at the overseas registered company 'AVY' to invest funds. The applicant subsequently made payments totalling $52,352.66 to 'AVY'. As instructed by 'AVY' the payments were made to an account in the name of another business 'AVZ'.

1. In summary, the applicant applied to AUSTRAC for access to documents relating to international fund transfers, payments or deposits of funds to a specifically numbered bank account of 'AVZ' from Australian bank accounts for the period December 2016 to the date of the request (see Annexure A).
2. AUSTRAC could not locate any documents in scope of the request in discrete written form so it created a spreadsheet in accordance with s 17 of the FOI Act comprising relevant transaction reports.[3] This document is the subject of this Information Commissioner review (IC review).
3. AUSTRAC decided[4] to release information to the applicant relating to their transaction reports for the bank account in question.[5] In relation to the remaining parts of the document, AUSTRAC decided to exempt them in full under ss 47F and 47G on the grounds they contained personal information and business information of third-parties.
4. In their application of 16 February 2021 to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) for IC review, the applicant submitted they were now only seeking deidentified information.[6] In submissions to this IC review of 19 October 2022 the applicant specified that they were only seeking specific categories of information.
5. Having reviewed the applicant's submissions, I am satisfied that they have narrowed the scope of their request for access to only the following categories of material in the document at issue:
   • transaction date
   • transaction type
   • report amount
   • currency
   • payer country
   • payee role and name
   • payee address
   • payee country
   • payee account, and
   • banking institution.[7]
6. Accordingly, I am satisfied that only the above material is in scope of this IC review. The remainder of the material in the document at issue is irrelevant to the applicant's request and to this IC review.
7. The issue to be decided in this IC review is whether the material at issue that AUSTRAC claimed is conditionally exempt under s 47G of the FOI Act[8] is conditionally exempt, and if so, whether giving the applicant access to the conditionally exempt material at this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)).
8. In an IC review of an access refusal decision, the agency bears the onus of establishing that its decision is justified or that I should give a decision adverse to the applicant.[9]
9. In making my decision, I have had regard to the following:
   • AUSTRAC's decision and reasons for decision of 25 November 2020
   • AUSTRAC's internal review decision and reasons for decision of 20 January 2021
   • the document at issue
   • the FOI Act[10]
   • the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the FOI Act[11] to which agencies must have regard in performing a function or exercising a power under the FOI Act,[12] and
   • the parties' submissions.

1. The document is a spreadsheet which contains international funds transfer instructions (IFTI) reports[13] for payments that were made to 'AVZ' by third-party individuals and businesses during a specified timeframe.
2. A document will be conditionally exempt if it discloses information (business information) concerning a person in respect of his or her business or professional affairs or concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking, where the disclosure of the business information would, or could reasonably be expected to:
   • unreasonably affect the organisation adversely in respect of its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs (s 47G(1)(a)), or
   • prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth or an agency for the purpose of the administration of a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory or the administration of matters administered by an agency (s 47G(1)(b)).
3. Having reviewed AUSTRAC's submissions, I am satisfied that it is claiming the s 47G(1)(a) conditional exemption over the material at issue. Accordingly, I do not need to consider the s 47G(1)(b) conditional exemption in this IC review.
4. The FOI Guidelines explain that the operation of the business information conditional exemption depends on the effect of disclosure rather than the precise nature of the information itself.[14] Nevertheless, the information in question must have some relevance to a person in respect of their business or professional affairs or to the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking.[15]
5. The term 'business affairs' has been interpreted to mean 'the totality of the money-making affairs of an organisation or undertaking as distinct from its private or internal affairs'.[16] Accordingly, in this IC review, for the s 47G conditional exemption to apply, the documents must concern the money-making affairs of third-parties.
6. Having reviewed an unedited copy of the document, and the evidence before me, I am satisfied that material that AUSTRAC withheld under s 47G comprises details of transactions involving 'AVZ' and third-parties. I am therefore satisfied that this material concerns the money-making, and therefore business, affairs of 'AVZ' and these third-parties.

Disclosure of information concerning third-party individuals or businesses could reasonably be expected to unreasonably and adversely affect the lawful business, commercial or financial affairs of these individuals or businesses

1. Having reviewed an unedited copy of the document at issue, I am satisfied that it contains intertwined business information of 'AVZ' and third-parties.
2. I will separately consider whether disclosure could unreasonably affect the lawful business, commercial or financial affairs of 'AVZ' and the third-parties.

1. In relation to 'AVZ', the applicant provided evidence to the OAIC that they submit substantiates their claim that 'AVZ' has been struck off and dissolved and as such release of the information sought would not impact its business as it is no longer a trading entity.[17]
2. In 'ACI' and Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (Freedom of information) [2022] AICmr 75 ('ACI'), former Freedom of Information Commissioner Hardiman stated:

...Where a company is deregistered, it will cease to exist as a legal entity. Accordingly, where a company has ceased to exist upon deregistration, it is unclear how disclosure of the company's business information would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect its lawful business, commercial or financial affairs; there being no business, commercial or financial affairs to be affected [footnotes omitted].[18]

3. In 'ACI' Commissioner Hardiman found that the material relating to the named companies that have been deregistered is not conditionally exempt under s 47G.
4. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the reasoning in 'ACI' applies in this matter to the material relating exclusively to 'AVZ' which is found in the following categories:
   • payee role and name
   • payee address
   • payee country, and
   • payee account number.
5. I am satisfied that the above material is not conditionally exempt under s 47G.
6. I consider that any material in the categories at paragraph [25] that does not relate to 'AVZ' is outside the scope of the applicant's request, given the request specifically only sought information relating to payments made to 'AVZ'.

1. I turn now to consider whether disclosure of material in the remaining categories in scope of this IC review (transaction type, currency, payer country, transaction date, report amount and banking institution) could unreasonably affect the lawful business, commercial or financial affairs of the third-party individuals and businesses referred to in the document.
2. AUSTRAC's consultation with third-parties was an issue in this matter with the applicant, in summary, submitting that AUSTRAC was required to take steps to contact each of the relevant third-parties regarding the release of their information. In summary, AUSTRAC submitted:
   • it is not reasonable or achievable to invite third-parties to provide submissions,[19] and
   • there are 91 third-parties referred to in the document, consulting with each of them is both not practicable in the circumstances as well as being a substantial and unreasonable diversion of AUSTRAC's resources from its other operations.
3. In summary, the applicant submitted that AUSTRAC has an overarching obligation to protect the Australian public and that release of the individual pieces of information they were seeking in unredacted form could not be said to be identifiable, nor could they be used to identify an individual using methods such as a subpoena.
4. In summary, AUSTRAC submitted that:
   • the information in the document does not advance Government transparency. Conversely, AUSTRAC holds the information because it has been reported to it by reporting entities pursuant to obligations set out in the AML/CTF Act
   • the document is squarely in the category of business information collected under statutory authority, which the FOI guidelines note that the s 47G FOI Act exemption is more likely to protect
   • where AUSTRAC holds financial information relating to entities, such entities are reasonably entitled to expect that AUSTRAC will hold that information securely and not deal with it in a way that unreasonably compromises their business interests or financial affairs
   • the information in the document has limited potential to contribute to a matter of public importance or public debate, given that the document contains information limited to IFTI's relating to 'AVZ'
   • in response to the applicant's submission that they are only seeking de-identified material, the consequence of re-identification by reporting entities (say via subpoena or other activity revealing the raw IFTI information or bank records) may expose the third-parties to legal proceedings or other activities that they may not wish to be involved in, and
   • the passage of time has not affected the exemptions claimed over the document at issue.

1. As discussed in the FOI Guidelines, assessing if the impact is unreasonable requires me to balance the public and private interest factors.[20] The material at issue relates to private transactions involving named individuals and businesses that are not otherwise available in the public domain. Further, the information was not provided voluntarily to AUSTRAC by the named individuals or businesses.
2. Based on my examination of the document, I consider that material contained in the following categories is general in nature and not sensitive, therefore I am not persuaded that disclosure of this material would unreasonably affect the third-parties in the document adversely in respect of their lawful business, commercial or financial affairs:
   • transaction type
   • currency, and
   • payer country.
3. Accordingly, this material is not conditionally exempt under s 47G.
4. I turn now to consider the material in the final remaining categories in scope of this IC review (transaction date, report amount and banking institution).
5. Material in the category of 'banking institution' appears in the document due to the relevant entities' role in reporting the relevant transactions to AUSTRAC. In 'ACI', former Freedom of Information Commissioner Hardiman stated:

Based on my examination of the material at issue, I am satisfied that this information is anodyne in nature, particularly in the context where reports under the AML/CTF Act would routinely be made by the entities whose business information appear under these headings. I do not accept that disclosure of this information would unreasonably affect these entities adversely in respect of their lawful business, commercial or financial affairs. Accordingly, this information is not conditionally exempt under s 47G of the FOI Act.

6. I am satisfied that the reasoning in 'ACI' applies in this matter and accordingly this material is not conditionally exempt under s 47G.
7. With respect to the material in the categories of 'transaction date' and 'report amount':
   • I accept AUSTRAC's submissions regarding the impracticality of third-party consultation in this matter. I consider that there is a high likelihood that at least some of the third-parties would object to the release of their business related information, and
   • I also consider that release of this material in combination with the material relating to banking institutions (which I have found is not conditionally exempt) could potentially enable third-parties and their business information to be identified through other means which may expose them to legal proceedings or other activities that they may not wish to be involved in.
8. Given the above, I do not consider that there is a significant public interest in the disclosure of the material in question.
9. Having regard to the private commercial interests of the third-parties, I consider that disclosure of the material in the categories of 'transaction date' and 'report amount' would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect these third-parties adversely in respect of their lawful business, commercial or financial affairs.

1. The material relating to 'AVZ' in the categories 'payee role and name', 'payee address', 'payee country' and 'payee account number' is not conditionally exempt.
2. The material in the categories 'transaction type', 'currency', 'payer country' and 'banking institution' is not conditionally exempt.
3. The material in the categories 'transaction date' and 'report amount' is conditionally exempt.

Whether access would be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5))

1. Having found the material referred to at paragraph [43] to be conditionally exempt under s 47G of the FOI Act, I am required to consider whether it would be contrary to the public interest to give the applicant access to conditionally exempt material at this time. The requirements of the public interest test are set out at Annexure B. I have considered the relevant mandatory factors listed in s 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I have not considered the irrelevant factors as set out in s 11B(4) of the FOI Act. In considering the public interest, I have had regard to the parties' submissions.
2. In summary, the applicant submitted:
   • there are an ever-increasing number of Australian citizens falling victim to investment scams
   • the purpose of the request is to consider how many other individuals have transferred funds to 'AVZ' and have potentially been impacted in the same way as their client, and with a view to bringing it to their attention
   • in circumstances where there is evidently a group of individuals and entities to whom this would be of interest, we say that this is in the public interest to disclose the information as public interest considerations must have regard to whether something is in the interest of the public, rather than of interest to the public
   • this is particularly so in circumstances where there is an increasing number of investment scams,[21] and
   • production of the information promotes the objects of the FOI Act because it will contribute to the enforcement of the criminal law, and the administration of justice.
3. In summary, AUSTRAC submitted:
   • it is of the view that the applicant has not yet established evidence supporting a submission that release of each of the financial transactions requested would in fact contribute to the enforcement of criminal law and the proper administration of justice
   • the document does not reveal any kind of Government decision-making or other activity, or facilitate the applicant having insight into Government activities
   • AUSTRAC holds the information only because the AML/CTF Act requires reporting entities to submit such information to AUSTRAC
   • a factor against disclosure is that it could reasonably be expected to reveal the financial affairs of individuals and entities that have been connected to 'AVZ' through an IFTI, in circumstances they would consider these dealings to be confidential
   • it has corresponded with the applicant to raise awareness that there are a range of existing avenues where access to the information requested can be facilitated by AUSTRAC which may better assist with the applicant's concern to ensure effective enforcement of law and administration of justice[22]
   • its view is that exemption of documents pursuant to the FOI Act does not in itself prohibit or impact the concurrent established procedures the Australian government has in place to properly investigate crime or enforce law
   • exemption of documents pursuant to the FOI Act does not preclude particular government agencies fulfilling mutual agreements to share information outside of the FOI Act, including the type of information requested.[23]
4. I accept the applicant's submission that investment scams are an increasing problem. I also accept that disclosure of the conditionally exempt material would promote the objects of the FOI Act. I give this factor in favour of disclosure moderate weight.
5. Having regard to the nature of the material at issue, I consider the following factors against disclosure are relevant, being that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:
   • prejudice the protection of an individual's right to privacy as it relates to sensitive information
   • harm the business interests of an individual or group of individuals, and
   • damage the public's confidence in the administration of the AML/CTF regime for compulsory disclosure and collection of sensitive financial information ordinarily maintained in strict confidence.
6. The material at issue does not disclose government activity beyond the collection of information. Nor does it disclose, on the evidence before me, any unlawful or other activity of a kind giving rise to a strong public interest in disclosure. In addition, as submitted by AUSTRAC, it has established procedures in place outside the FOI regime for sharing information between relevant agencies to properly investigate crime or enforce law.
7. I give the above factors against disclosure significant weight. In particular, there is a significant public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive financial information obtained by AUSTRAC compulsorily under the AML/CTF Act.

1. On balance, I consider that the public interest factors against disclosure, which I have given significant weight, outweigh the factors favouring disclosure.
2. Accordingly, giving the applicant access to the material that I have found to be conditionally exempt under s 47G as set out at paragraph [43] would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

With respect to the following bank account:

Acc Name: 'AVZ'

Bank: [name redacted]

Acc No: [number redacted]

('AVZ' Bank Account)

Provision of Documents for the period December 2016 to present which document, evidence or refer to international fund transfers, payments, or deposits of funds by electronic means, or other means available, made to the 'AVZ' Bank Account from Australian Bank Accounts, including the sum total of funds paid, deposited, or transferred from Australian Bank Accounts to the 'AVZ' Bank Account.

"Documents" for the purpose of this request includes any paper or electronic record of information, whether in draft or in final form, including:

• bank statements; bank transfer deposit slips; bank records;

• correspondence including letters, emails, facsimiles, memorandums, whether internal or with any third party;

• file notes or other records of discussions, meetings, briefings, or telephone calls regarding the 'AVZ' Bank Account, whether internal or with third parties.

"Australian Bank Accounts" for the purpose of this request includes bank accounts held and located in each of the Australian States and Territories.

...

Relevant provisions of the FOI Act, FOI Guidelines, and decisions

Section 11A(4) of the FOI Act states the agency or Minister is not required by this Act to give the person access to the document at a particular time if, at that time, the document is an exempt document.

The FOI Guidelines explain that the operation of s 47G of the FOI Act depends on the effect of disclosure, rather than the precise nature of the information itself.[24] Notwithstanding this, the information must have some relevance to a person in respect of their business or professional affairs or to the business, commercial and financial affairs of the organisation.[25]

The use of the term 'business or professional affairs' distinguishes an individual's personal or private affairs and an organisation's internal affairs. The term 'business affairs' has been interpreted to mean 'the totality of the money-making affairs of an organisation or undertaking as distinct from its private or internal affairs.[26]

In relation to the question of unreasonableness, the FOI Guidelines state:

The presence of 'unreasonably' in s 47G(1) implies a need to balance public and private interests. The public interest, or some aspect of it, will be one of the factors in determining whether the adverse effect of disclosure on a person in respect of his or her business affairs is unreasonable. A decision maker must balance the public and private interest factors to decide whether disclosure is unreasonable for the purposes of s 47G(1)(a), but this does not amount to the public interest test in s 11A(5) which follows later in the decision process.[27]

The test of reasonableness applies not to the claim of harm but to the objective assessment of the expected adverse effect. For example, the disclosure of information that a business' activities pose a threat to public safety, damage the natural environment, or that a service provider has made false claims for government money, may have a substantial adverse effect on that business but may not be unreasonable in the circumstances to disclose. Similarly, it would not be unreasonable to disclose information about a business that revealed serious criminality. These considerations require weighing the public interest against a private interest - preserving the profitability of a business. However at this stage it bears only on the threshold question of whether disclosure would be unreasonable.[28]

Section 11A(5)of the FOI Act states he agency or Minister must give the person access to the document if it is conditionally exempt at a particular time unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Section 11B(3) of the FOI Act sets out a non-exhaustive list of public interest factors favouring disclosure for consideration, those factors being where disclosure of the document would do any of the following:

(c) promote effective oversight of public expenditure

(d) allow a person access to their personal information.

Section 11B(4) of the FOI Act also lists the following irrelevant factors that must not be taken into consideration when deciding whether access would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest:

(a) access to the document could result in embarrassment to the Commonwealth Government, or cause a loss of confidence in the Commonwealth Government

(b) access to the document could result in any person misinterpreting or misunderstanding the document

(c) the author of the document was (or is) of high seniority in the agency to which the request for access to the document was made

(d) access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.

In addition to the factors set out at s 11B(3) of the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines set out a further non-exhaustive list of public interest factors in favour of disclosure, as well as public interest factors against disclosure.[29]

To conclude that, on balance, disclosure of a document would be contrary to the public interest is to conclude that the benefit to the public resulting from disclosure is outweighed by the benefit to the public of withholding the information. The decision maker must analyse, in each case, where on balance the public interest lies based on the particular facts at the time the decision is made.[30]

If a party to an IC review is unsatisfied with an IC review decision, they may apply under s 57A of the FOI Act to have the decision reviewed by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The ART provides independent merits review of administrative decisions and has power to set aside, vary, or affirm an IC review decision.

An application to the ART must be made within 28 days of the day on which the applicant is given the IC review decision (see s 18(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and rule 5(3) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Rules 2024). An application fee may be payable when lodging an application for review to the ART. Further information is available on the ART's website (www.art.gov.au) or by telephoning 1800 228 333.

Making a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman

If you believe you have been treated unfairly by the OAIC, you can make a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). The Ombudsman's services are free. The Ombudsman can investigate complaints about the administrative actions of Australian Government agencies to see if you have been treated unfairly.

If the Ombudsman finds your complaint is justified, the Ombudsman can recommend that the OAIC reconsider or change its action or decision or take any other action that the Ombudsman considers is appropriate. You can contact the Ombudsman's office for more information on 1300 362 072 or visit the Commonwealth Ombudsman's website at http://www.ombudsman.gov.au.

If you would like access to the information that we hold about you, please contact FOIDR@oaic.gov.au. More information is available on the Access our information page on our website.

[1] This is the name of the business referred to at the 'Account name' in the applicant's request as set out at Annexure A.

[2] The applicant submitted that they were only seeking information relating to transaction date, transaction type, report amount, currency, payer country, payee role and name, payee address, payee country, payee account number, and banking institution. They excluded identifying information from the scope of their request. Accordingly, I consider the remaining material in the document at issue to be out of scope.

[3] AUSTRAC submitted that the document it created comprises of international funds transfer instructions reports that are relevant to 'AVZ'. A legal obligation exists for IFTI reports to be reported to AUSTRAC by reporting entities in certain circumstances set out in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (AML/CTF Act).

[4] AUSTRAC made its original decision on 25 November 2020. The applicant sought internal review on 21 December 2020. AUSTRAC made an internal review decision on 20 January 2021 affirming its original decision.

[5] AUSTRAC extracted this information into a separate document which was provided to the applicant.

[6] In their application for IC review the applicant submitted they were only seeking: the name of the issuing bank; transaction date; state, city and suburb of the third-party; and, the dollar value of the remittance. The applicant submitted that they had informed AUSTRAC in the request for internal review of 21 December 2020 that they would be content to receive transaction details that had been deidentified under the Privacy Act 1988 so that the information was no longer about an identifiable individual or an individual who is reasonably identifiable. The applicant further submitted that AUSTRAC did not address the applicant's revised scope of their request in its internal review decision of 21 January 2021.

[7] The applicant submitted that they were not seeking access to the following categories of information: report number; payer name and role; payer address; details of the payment; and, payer account number. The applicant submitted they were aware of the types of information that the document at issue would contain relating to third-party individuals and entities because of the type of information they had received from AUSTRAC which had been released to them concerning their transactions with the 'AVZ' bank account in question.

[8] The applicant submitted to the Office of the Australian Commissioner (OAIC) that they were not seeking any identifying information. Accordingly, I have decided that s 47F is not an exemption claim I need to consider with respect to the document at issue and I can exclusively consider the s 47G exemption claim.

[10] Sections 11A, 11B and 47G set out in Annexure B.

[11] See, Office of the Australian Information Commissioner_, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under_ s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Guidelines).

[13] AUSTRAC submitted that IFTIs include information about who sent an international funds transfer instruction, who received the transfer, the value of the transfer, the reason for the transfer, the remitting institution and, other information. AUSTRAC submitted that a legal obligation exists for IFTI reports to be made to it by reporting entities in certain circumstances as set out in the AML/CTF Act.

[16] FOI Guidelines at [6,191]. See, Re Mangan and The Treasury [2005] AATA 898 citing Cockcroft and Attorney-General's Department and Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (party joined) (1985) 12 ALD 462.

[17] The applicant also provided evidence to the OAIC that they submitted substantiated their claim that 'AVY' has also been struck off and dissolved and as such release of information in relation to that entity would not impact its business as it is no longer a trading entity.

[19] AUSTRAC submitted this is on the basis that it does not possess contact details for these third-parties that are either confirmed as correct or up-to-date for the purposes of serving correspondence directly to the affected third-party concerned.

[21] The applicant referred to the June 2020 report released by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which indicated that investments scams were up 59.1% since 2018.

[22] AUSTRAC submitted that it works closely with State and Federal law enforcement agencies in relation to financial crime. Where a member of the community wishes to report financial crime or a scam, Scam Watch (https://www.scamwatch.gov.au) and local law enforcement are contact points for the purposes of reporting scams and/or financial crime.

[23] AUSTRAC submitted that in circumstances it is invited to participate in providing financial transaction reports to law enforcement agencies, and where it is lawful to do so, it is involved in such activities. This particular disclosure differs from FOI in that strict controls exist on the document provided. These protections differ from a release under the FOI Act, as a release under the Act does not guarantee security of the document released, which may unreasonably affect third parties.

[26] FOI Guidelines at [6.191] (footnotes omitted).

[27] FOI Guidelines at [6.184] (footnotes omitted).

[28] FOI Guidelines at [6.185] (footnotes omitted).

[29] FOI Guidelines at [6.229] - [6.233].

[30] FOI Guidelines at [6.238] (footnote omitted).