Charter of the United Nations (Dealing with Assets) Regulations 2008

Controlled asset (reg 4) is the overarching term that captures both a freezable asset under the Act and a controlled asset under any of the Sanctions Regulations. This is a critical distinction: an asset may be “controlled” under one regime but not another, or both. The Sanctions Regulations each contain their own definition of “controlled asset”, often tied to specific UN Security Council resolutions. Because the Dealing with Assets Regulations incorporate all those definitions by reference, a single asset may be subject to multiple freeze obligations with different permissible‑dealing rules.

Designated person or entity (reg 4) similarly has two limbs: a proscribed person or entity under the Act (typically a person listed under Resolution 1373) and a designated person or entity as defined in any Sanctions Regulation. The Act defines “proscribed person or entity” via section 14, but the Regulations do not repeat that definition; they rely on the cross‑reference. The effect is that the list of designated persons is not contained in these Regulations but in the consolidated list maintained under regulation 40 and in the individual Sanctions Regulations.

Sanctions Regulations (reg 4) are itemised and currently include 16 separate instruments covering country‑specific regimes (e.g., Iran, North Korea, Sudan) and thematic regimes (ISIL and Al‑Qaida, the Taliban). Notably, the list includes “these Regulations” itself, meaning the Dealing with Assets Regulations also count as a Sanctions Regulation for the purposes of the definition. This self‑inclusion allows the permissible‑dealing provisions in regulation 5 to apply to dealings under these Regulations as well, though that is already covered by Part 3.

Permissible dealings are organised into categories in regulation 5 (for Sanctions Regulations) and regulation 30 (for the Act). The categories are similar but not identical. For regulation 5, there are five types: basic expense dealing (reg 5(3)), legally required dealing (reg 5(4)), contractual dealing (reg 5(5)), required payment dealing (reg 5(6)), and extraordinary expense dealing (reg 5(7)). For the Act, regulation 30 defines only basic expense, contractual, and extraordinary expense dealings. The “legally required” and “required payment” categories are absent from Part 3, meaning that for proscribed persons under the Act, there is no automatic exception for pre‑existing judgments or pre‑freeze contract payments; the Minister’s authorisation under regulation 31 is the only route.

Basic expense dealing (reg 5(3) and reg 30(1)) covers payments necessary for food, rent, mortgage, medicines, taxes, insurance premiums, public utility charges, reasonable professional fees, reimbursement of legal service expenses, and routine holding or maintenance fees. The list is non‑exhaustive and is illustrative of “basic expenses”. The dealing must be “necessary” - a standard that may be contestable.

Legally required dealing (reg 5(4)) is available only under Sanctions Regulations that adopt it. It requires a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment made before designation, and the dealing must not benefit the designated person. This exception prevents the freeze from interfering with pre‑existing legal obligations, but only if the benefit does not flow to the designated person.

Contractual dealing (reg 5(5) and reg 30(2)) allows payments of interest or earnings on frozen accounts, and payments required under pre‑freeze contracts. The note clarifies that if the account is frozen, the payment will also be frozen upon receipt.

Required payment dealing (reg 5(6)) is unique to the Sanctions Regulations. It allows a designated person to make a payment under a pre‑designation contract, provided the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a designated person. This allows the designated person to meet obligations to third parties.

Extraordinary expense dealing (reg 5(7) and reg 30(3)) is a residual category for any dealing necessary for extraordinary expenses. It does not define “extraordinary”, leaving discretion to the Minister when authorising.

Listing under Part 2 is mandatory for the Minister if the person or entity falls within Resolution 1373 paragraph 1(c). The Minister “must list” - no discretion. For assets, the Minister “may list”, providing limited discretion.

Advance notice (reg 21) permits the Department to alert persons in the asset‑holding business of a listing before it is gazetted. This creates a practical obligation to freeze assets immediately upon receipt of such notice, even though the public listing has not occurred.

Consolidated list (reg 40) is a single public document maintained by DFAT containing all currently designated persons, entities, and listed assets. This is the primary reference point for compliance.

AFP assistance (reg 41) is a voluntary service: a person holding an asset may request the AFP’s help to determine if it is owned or controlled by a designated person. The AFP must respond in writing with one of three assessments: likely controlled, unlikely controlled, or unknown. The AFP is not required to give legal advice, only a suspicion assessment.

Notification obligation (reg 42) arises when a person holding an asset forms an opinion that it is a controlled asset or that it is no longer a controlled asset. This is a positive obligation to disclose to the AFP, with reasons. The obligation does not apply if the asset or associated persons have been formally removed from the list.

Protection of information (reg 43) allows certain persons (including the Minister, DFAT officers, AFP employees, and persons holding controlled assets) to refuse to produce documents or disclose matters in court, unless necessary to comply with the Act or Regulations. This is a procedural shield, not a blanket secrecy provision.

Indemnity (reg 44) is limited to actions done in good faith and without negligence under regulations 41 or 42. It does not cover other actions under the Regulations or the Act. The broader indemnity in section 24 of the Act covers compliance or purported compliance with the Act.

The primary group affected is any person or entity that holds, deals in, or facilitates dealings in assets that could be controlled assets. This includes banks, credit unions, investment firms, superannuation trustees, lawyers holding client funds, real estate agents, accountants, and any business that handles money or property on behalf of others. The Regulations impose duties on such persons not only to avoid prohibited dealings but also to form opinions about the status of assets they hold (reg 42) and to notify the AFP. The duty applies whether or not the person has actual knowledge that the asset is controlled; it is triggered by the formation of an opinion.

Designated persons and entities are directly affected because their assets are frozen and most dealings are prohibited. However, the Regulations do provide avenues for them to access funds for basic expenses, legal fees, and other necessities, but only through Ministerial authorisation or, if the relevant Sanctions Regulation adopts them, through the permissible‑dealing categories. They also have the right to request the AFP’s help (reg 41) and to have their listing subject to the Minister’s satisfaction under reg 20.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs is given both mandatory and discretionary powers. Under reg 20(1), the Minister must list a person or entity if satisfied of the Resolution 1373 criteria. Under reg 20(2), the Minister may list assets. Under reg 31, the Minister may authorise dealings upon application. These decisions involve significant discretion and are not subject to a merits review mechanism in these Regulations.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade must maintain the consolidated list (reg 40) and may give advance notice of listings (reg 21). It also administers the application process for authorisations under Part 3.

The Australian Federal Police receives two direct roles: providing assistance to asset holders under reg 41, and receiving notifications under reg 42. The AFP must use its best endeavours, but the response is only an opinion, not a binding determination. The AFP is also the enforcement body for offences under the Act.

Persons who form notifiable opinions under reg 42 are obliged to inform the AFP. This could include employees or officers of financial institutions who, in the course of their work, suspect that an asset they hold might be controlled. The obligation is personal to the holder, and failure to notify is not itself penalised under these Regulations (penalties are in the Act), but the regulator may view non‑notification as a compliance failure.

Third parties with pre‑existing legal claims against designated persons are affected by the freeze. The legally required dealing exception (reg 5(4)) allows satisfaction of pre‑designation judgments, but only if the benefit does not go to the designated person. This may frustrate creditors who have judgments in their favour but cannot enforce them if the designated person would benefit indirectly.

Legal professionals are specifically mentioned in the basic expense definition: reimbursement of expenses associated with legal services is a permitted basic expense. Lawyers representing designated persons can seek payment for their work, but must obtain authorisation or ensure the relevant Sanctions Regulation adopts the exception.

The Commonwealth is protected by the indemnity in reg 44 for actions in good faith under regs 41 or 42, and also by the broader indemnity in section 24 of the Act. Persons acting under the Regulations are also protected.

Duty to list. Regulation 20(1) imposes a mandatory duty on the Minister: if satisfied a person is within paragraph 1(c) of Resolution 1373, the Minister must list them. This is non‑discretionary. The Minister may also list assets (reg 20(2)), but that is permissive.

Duty to notify of listings. Regulation 21 permits (but does not require) the Department to give advance notice to asset‑holders. There is no corresponding duty on the asset‑holder to act on such notice, but failure to freeze after receiving advance notice could expose the holder to liability if the asset later proves to be controlled. The duty to freeze arises under the Act upon listing, not upon notification, so advance notice is a practical early‑warning mechanism.

Duty to maintain a consolidated list. Regulation 40(1) obliges the Department to maintain a document setting out all designated persons, entities, and listed assets. This list must be made publicly available on the internet (reg 40(2)). This duty supports compliance by providing a single authoritative reference.

Duty to assist. Regulation 41(3) requires the AFP to use its best endeavours to help a person who requests assistance under reg 41(1). The AFP must respond in writing as soon as practicable (reg 41(4)) with one of three assessments: likely, unlikely, or unknown. This is not a guarantee of correctness; it is an opinion based on the information provided.

Duty to notify the AFP. Regulation 42 creates a self‑triggering obligation: if a person holding an asset forms an opinion that the asset is a controlled asset, or that it is no longer a controlled asset, they must inform the AFP as soon as practicable, providing details and reasons. The obligation is not dependent on certainty; it is triggered by the holder’s own opinion. There is an exception if the asset or associated designated persons have been removed from the list (reg 42(2)). This duty is burdensome because it requires continuous monitoring and judgment, and failure could be considered a compliance gap even if not a criminal offence.

Right to apply for authorisation. Regulation 31 gives a person who holds a freezable asset the right to apply for Ministerial authorisation to use or deal with it. The application must specify whether the dealing is a basic expense dealing, contractual dealing, or extraordinary expense dealing. The Minister may authorise if satisfied it is such a dealing. This is the only route to lift the freeze for assets of proscribed persons under the Act, since the permissible dealings in reg 5 are not available for the Act’s regime unless adopted by a Sanctions Regulation.

Right to request AFP assistance. Regulation 41(1) gives any person holding an asset they suspect might be controlled the right to request AFP help. The AFP must respond. This is a valuable tool for risk‑averse holders who want an official opinion before taking steps, though the AFP’s response is not binding on a court.

Right to protection from court disclosure. Regulation 43 allows specified persons (Minister, DFAT officers, AFP employees, asset holders, and their employees) to refuse to produce documents or divulge matters in court if they came into custody or notice in connection with actions under the Act or Regulations. This right is limited: it does not apply if disclosure is necessary to comply with the Act or Regulations. It also does not protect against administrative requests or subpoenas that are not from a “court”. The term “court” may be interpreted broadly but is not defined.

Right to indemnity. Regulation 44 provides that a person (including the Commonwealth) is not liable for anything done or omitted in good faith and without negligence under regulations 41 or 42. This is a defence to civil actions, but it does not cover criminal liability. It is narrower than the indemnity in section 24 of the Act, which covers actions done in compliance or purported compliance with the Act.

Rights of designated persons. Although not explicitly stated as rights, designated persons benefit from the permissible‑dealing provisions if adopted. They can apply for Ministerial authorisation for extraordinary expenses. Their assets are not forfeited; they are frozen. They can also be delisted if the Minister is no longer satisfied of the listing criteria, though the Regulations do not create a delisting procedure; that would be governed by the Act or the individual Sanctions Regulations.

The Dealing with Assets Regulations themselves do not create criminal offences or set penalty amounts. The primary enforcement teeth come from the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. Section 20 of the Act makes it an offence to use or deal with a freezable asset, or to allow a freezable asset to be used or dealt with, knowing it to be a freezable asset, punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine, or both. Section 21 creates an offence for engaging in conduct that would breach a sanctions regime under a Sanctions Regulation. These offences are strict liability in some aspects, though knowledge is an element for the higher penalties.

The Regulations support enforcement by providing the definitional structure and the administrative framework. If a person deals with a controlled asset outside the authorised dealings, the prosecutor will look to whether the dealing fell within one of the permissible categories. The burden may shift to the defendant to show that the dealing was authorised or fell within an exception.

Enforcement is carried out by the AFP, the Australian Border Force, and possibly the Australian Federal Police. The AFP’s role under regulation 41 is to assist asset holders, but it also has investigative powers under the Act. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade administers the listing and authorisation process, but does not enforce criminal penalties.

Civil penalties are also possible under the Act. Section 23 allows a court to make orders to freeze or forfeit assets, or to require payment of a pecuniary penalty. The Regulations do not add to those penalties, but they define which assets are subject to them.

Failure to notify the AFP under regulation 42 is not itself a criminal offence under the Regulations, but it could be evidence of non‑compliance with the Act, especially if the person later deals with the asset without authorisation. The notification obligation is administrative, and the AFP may refer non‑compliance to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions if it suggests a criminal intent.

The indemnity in regulation 44 does not apply to criminal proceedings; it only protects against civil liability. So a person who acts in good faith under regulations 41 or 42 is protected from being sued, but not from prosecution if they have otherwise breached the Act.

There is no private right of action under the Regulations. Enforcement is solely by the state. Persons affected by a freeze (e.g., creditors of a designated person) have limited recourse; they cannot sue to enforce a payment from a frozen asset unless the dealing falls within an exception and is authorised.

The Regulations operate as delegated legislation under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. That Act is the parent statute and contains the core definition of “freezable asset” (section 14), “proscribed person or entity” (section 14), and the offences and powers. The Regulations cannot override the Act but can supplement it by providing detail on listing grounds, permissible dealings, and administrative processes.

The Regulations specifically interact with the Sanctions Regulations listed in regulation 4. Each of those 16 instruments is a separate legislative instrument that implements particular UN Security Council resolutions. The Dealing with Assets Regulations provide common definitions and permissible‑dealing categories that may be adopted by each. The note in regulation 5(2) makes clear that the permissible‑dealing categories only apply to a Sanctions Regulation if that regulation adopts them. Therefore, the interaction is not automatic; compliance requires checking each sanctions regime to see whether it incorporates the categories.

The Regulations also interact with the Anti‑Money Laundering and Counter‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML/CTF Act). The note after regulation 41(5) explicitly states that these Regulations do not limit the obligation of a reporting entity under the AML/CTF Act to report suspicious transactions. This means that even if an asset holder notifies the AFP under regulation 42, they must still make a suspicious matter report to AUSTRAC if required. The two obligations are cumulative, not alternatives.

Similarly, the note references the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (now largely replaced by the AML/CTF Act), indicating that cash dealers’ reporting obligations are unaffected. The Regulations do not displace any reporting duties.

The protection of information in regulation 43 interacts with state and federal evidence laws. It allows a person to withhold documents from a court, but only if not necessary to comply with the Act or these Regulations. This could override a subpoena, but the court would have to determine whether disclosure is necessary for compliance. It is not a blanket immunity; it is a qualified evidentiary privilege.

The indemnity in regulation 44 interacts with the Commonwealth’s indemnity in section 24 of the Act. Section 24 provides an indemnity for anything done in compliance or purported compliance with the Act. Regulation 44 covers only regulations 41 and 42, and adds the additional requirement of good faith and no negligence. So a person acting under regulations 41 or 42 has a dual layer of protection: the section 24 indemnity for compliance with the Act, and the regulation 44 indemnity for compliance with those specific regulations. The regulation 44 indemnity may cover actions that are not technically “in compliance” with the Act but are in good faith under the regulations.

The Regulations also interact with the Privacy Act 1988. Disclosures to the AFP under regulations 41 or 42 may involve personal information; the Regulations do not contain a specific privacy authorisation, but the disclosure may be necessary for compliance with the freeze regime and therefore permitted under the Privacy Act’s exceptions.

For designated persons, the asset freeze interacts with state laws on property, contract, and banking. The freeze overrides contractual rights to withdraw funds. The legally required dealing exception in regulation 5(4) attempts to accommodate pre‑existing judicial orders, but only if the benefit does not go to the designated person. This may conflict with garnishee orders or bank set‑off rights.

The Regulations do not create a mechanism for appealing a listing or an authorisation refusal. Judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 may be available, but the Regulations themselves do not provide for merits review.

The current text of the Regulations does not include a formal amendment history in the provided source. However, the list of Sanctions Regulations in regulation 4 reveals that the instrument has been amended over time to add new sanctions regimes. The earliest instruments are from 2008 (the original year of this Regulation, plus the ISIL/Al‑Qaida, North Korea, DRC, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan regulations). Later additions include the Iran Regulation 2016, the South Sudan Regulation 2015, the Yemen Regulation 2014, the Central African Republic Regulation 2014, the Taliban Regulation 2013, the Libya Regulations 2011, the Mali Regulations 2018, and the most recent, the Haiti Regulations 2025. Each new Sanctions Regulation required an amendment to the definition in regulation 4 to include it.

Regulation 4 also includes “these Regulations” as a Sanctions Regulation, which appears to have been a self‑referential inclusion from the start.

The definition of “controlled asset” and “designated person or entity” has likely been expanded as new sanctions regimes were added. The permissible‑dealing categories in regulation 5 are likely to have been added or amended over time; the current text shows five categories, but earlier versions may have had fewer.

The structure of Part 3 (Authorised dealings) mirrors the structure of the Act’s section 22 application process, and that has remained consistent.

No other amendment history can be deduced from the source alone. Readers should consult the Federal Register of Legislation for a complete list of amending instruments.

The provided source does not refer to any case law. That is unsurprising for subordinate legislation that is not often directly litigated; most challenges would target the underlying Act or the individual Sanctions Regulations.

However, the Regulations have likely been considered in cases concerning the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. In particular, the definition of “controlled asset” and whether a particular dealing falls within a permissible category could be contested. The advance notice provision (reg 21) has not been judicially considered in the provided materials.

The notification obligation in regulation 42 could give rise to disputes about what triggers the duty: when does a person “form an opinion”? The standard is subjective, but a court may infer that a reasonable person in the circumstances would have formed an opinion, and failure to notify could be used as evidence of recklessness in a prosecution for dealing with a controlled asset.

The protection of information in regulation 43 could be tested in proceedings where a court orders production of documents; the person claiming the protection would need to show that the documents came into custody “in the course of, or because of” a relevant action under the Act or Regulations, and that disclosure is not necessary to comply.

The indemnity in regulation 44 has not been the subject of reported cases in the source, but it would be relevant if someone sued a bank for freezing assets in good faith reliance on the AFP’s assessment.

Practitioners should be aware that any litigation would likely involve the Regulations as part of a broader challenge to an asset freeze under the Act. The Regulations themselves are unlikely to be the sole subject of proceedings.

The most common pitfall is assuming that the permissible‑dealing categories in regulation 5 apply automatically. They do not. Regulation 5(2) states that they apply only if a set of Sanctions Regulations adopts them. Each Sanctions Regulation must be checked individually. For example, a payment for basic expenses might be allowed under one sanctions regime but prohibited under another.

A second trap is the relationship between Part 3 and Part 5 of the Act. Part 3 of these Regulations deals with authorised dealings for freezable assets of proscribed persons under the Act, not for designated persons under the Sanctions Regulations. There is no automatic cross‑application. The permissible‑dealing categories in regulation 5 are broader (including legally required and required payment dealings) than those in regulation 30 (which only has basic, contractual, and extraordinary). So an asset holder who mistakenly uses the Part 3 categories for a Sanctions Regulation asset could be in breach.

The threshold for the notification obligation in regulation 42 is low: “forms an opinion”. It does not require certainty, only an opinion. A person who suspects but does not form an opinion might argue they were not obliged to notify, but a court could infer that a reasonable person would have formed an opinion. The obligation is “as soon as practicable”, which means immediate notification is expected; delay could be treated as non‑compliance.

The exception in regulation 42(2) only applies if the asset has been removed from the list or all associated designated persons have been removed. A partial removal does not extinguish the obligation. If one of multiple designated persons associated with an asset is removed, the asset may still be controlled in relation to the others.

The indemnity in regulation 44 only covers acts done in good faith and without negligence under regulations 41 or 42. It does not cover actions under any other regulation or under the Act. A person who deals with an asset relying on the AFP’s “unlikely” assessment (reg 41(5)(b)) and later finds it was controlled is not automatically indemnified; the indemnity only covers the act of requesting assistance and receiving the response, not the subsequent dealing.

The protection of information in regulation 43 is qualified by “unless it is necessary to do so to comply with the Act or these Regulations”. This means a person cannot withhold documents if disclosure is required for compliance. For example, if the AFP requests information under regulation 41 or 42, the protection does not apply.

Advance notice of listing under regulation 21 can be given before Gazette publication. A person who receives such notice but fails to freeze the asset immediately could be liable for dealings after the notice, even though the listing is not yet official. The Regulations do not specify a time period for the advance notice to take effect, so the prudent approach is to freeze upon receipt.

The consolidated list under regulation 40 is maintained by DFAT and made public on the internet. However, it may not be updated in real time between listings. Relying on a stale list is dangerous.

The AFP assistance under regulation 41 is an opinion, not a determination. The AFP is not liable for a wrong opinion (subject to good faith and no negligence), and the person who relies on it and deals with the asset does so at their own risk.

Application for authorisation under regulation 31 must specify which kind of dealing (basic, contractual, or extraordinary). If the application does not match the category, the Minister cannot authorise it. A single dealing could potentially fall into more than one category, but the applicant must choose one.

Compliance with the Dealing with Assets Regulations requires a systematic approach that integrates with the broader asset‑freeze regime under the Act and each Sanctions Regulation.

Step 1: Identify whether you hold or may hold controlled assets. Any person in the business of holding, dealing in, or facilitating dealings in assets must screen their client base and asset inventory. The consolidated list maintained by DFAT under regulation 40 is the primary reference point, but it should be checked regularly, ideally by automated screening software against the official list. The list includes persons designated under both the Act and all Sanctions Regulations.

Step 2: Understand which Sanctions Regulations apply to you. If your business deals with assets connected to specific countries (e.g., Iran, North Korea, Central African Republic), you must read the relevant Sanctions Regulation to see whether it adopts the permissible‑dealing categories in regulation 5. Do not assume the regulation 5 categories are available; check the individual instrument.

Step 3: Immediately freeze any asset you suspect is controlled. The obligation to freeze arises under the Act (section 20) upon listing. If you receive advance notice under regulation 21, you should freeze immediately even before the Gazette publication. If you form an opinion that an asset is controlled (reg 42), you must freeze and notify the AFP.

Step 4: Notify the AFP under regulation 42. As soon as you form a notifiable opinion that an asset is or is no longer controlled, inform the AFP. Provide details of the asset, the owner/controller, and reasons for the opinion. Do this in writing and keep a record. If the asset or associated persons have been delisted, note the exception in reg 42(2).

Step 5: If you need to deal with a frozen asset, apply for Ministerial authorisation. For freezable assets under the Act (proscribed persons), you must use Part 3 of these Regulations: apply under section 22 of the Act, specifying whether the dealing is a basic expense, contractual, or extraordinary expense dealing. For assets under Sanctions Regulations, check first if the regulation adopts the permissible dealings. If it does, you may proceed with a basic expense, legally required, contractual, required payment, or extraordinary expense dealing without authorisation, provided the conditions are met. If the Sanctions Regulation does not adopt them, you may need to apply for a licence under that Regulation (many have their own licensing provisions).

Step 6: Document everything. Keep records of all decisions to freeze, all notifications to the AFP, all applications for authorisation, and all dealings that rely on permissible categories. The indemnity in regulation 44 requires good faith and no negligence, so contemporaneous documentation demonstrating reasonable inquiries is essential.

Step 7: Maintain ongoing screening. The consolidated list changes frequently. Subscribe to DFAT updates, and rescreen your client and asset databases on a regular basis. Implement automated alerts for new listings.

Step 8: Train staff on the notification obligation. The duty under reg 42 is triggered by a staff member forming an opinion. Ensure that employees who handle assets know what a controlled asset is and when to escalate. Develop internal procedures for opinion formation and notification.

Step 9: Use the AFP assistance mechanism when uncertain. If you have an asset that you suspect may be controlled but are not sure, request AFP help under reg 41. Provide as much information as possible. The AFP’s response will give you an opinion (likely, unlikely, unknown). If it says “unlikely”, you may decide to treat the asset as not controlled, but you do so at your own risk; the AFP opinion is not a safe harbour. Document the request and response.

Step 10: Do not rely on the protection of information as a blanket shield. The exception in reg 43 only applies to court proceedings, and only if disclosure is not necessary for compliance. If the AFP or DFAT requests information under the Act or these Regulations, you must provide it.

Step 11: Check state and territory laws. The asset freeze may conflict with garnishee orders, bankruptcy proceedings, or family law orders. Seek legal advice before complying with any court order that directs you to deal with a frozen asset.

Step 12: Ensure compliance with AML/CTF obligations separately. The note after reg 41 reminds you that reporting obligations under the AML/CTF Act are not displaced. If you suspect a transaction involves a controlled asset, you may need to file a suspicious matter report with AUSTRAC in addition to notifying the AFP.