The Regulations introduce and clarify several key concepts that are central to the operation of the Act in a cross-border context.

Corresponding law. A “corresponding law” is defined in section 4(1) of the Act as a law of the Commonwealth or another state or territory that is declared by the regulations to correspond to the Act. The Regulations declare nine specific interstate Acts as corresponding laws, listed in regulation 4. The effect is that orders made under those Acts can be registered and enforced in Tasmania as if they were domestic orders, and that the DPP can rely on them for certain purposes, such as applying for restraining orders or using forfeited funds. The list does not include any Commonwealth Act; the definition in the Act itself may already cover the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 without a regulation, or the omission may be deliberate to limit cross-border recognition to state and territory regimes alone.

Interstate forfeiture order. This is defined in section 4 of the Act as an order, declaration or other decision of a court that is made and in force under a corresponding law and that is declared by the regulations to be within that definition. Regulation 5 provides an exhaustive list of specific sections across all nine corresponding Acts that produce orders qualifying as interstate forfeiture orders. For example, from New South Wales, orders under sections 17F, 18, 33 and 34A of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 and sections 22, 22AA and 31A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 are included. Some entries are conditional: the ACT’s restraining order under section 30 only counts as a forfeiture order after the period provided by section 62 has elapsed, meaning it becomes a forfeiture order by effluxion of time if the owner does not successfully challenge it.

Interstate pecuniary penalty order. Similarly, regulation 6 lists the specific sections under each corresponding law that produce orders giving rise to a pecuniary penalty obligation. These include, for instance, South Australia’s Serious and Organised Crime (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2009 section 9, which is an unexplained wealth order. The inclusion of unexplained wealth orders within the definition of pecuniary penalty orders is significant because such orders do not require direct proof of a specific crime; they can be based on the person’s inability to account for their wealth. Tasmania’s Act will enforce these orders as pecuniary penalty orders, potentially exposing Tasmanian assets to claims from other states that operate under broader unexplained wealth regimes.

Interstate restraining order. Regulation 7 lists the specific sections that produce restraining orders. These are often provisional orders that freeze property pending further proceedings. The list includes some complex provisions, such as Victoria’s sections 36M, 36W, 40I, 40IA and 40W, which cover a variety of restraining order types including those in relation to serious drug offences, property used in connection with offences, and literary proceeds orders. The inclusion of these orders means that a Tasmanian court can register an interstate restraining order and give it effect in Tasmania, preventing the disposal of property located in Tasmania that is subject to an interstate freeze order.

Protected amount. Under section 191 of the Act, certain property is protected from restraint or forfeiture, including ordinary tools of trade used by a person to earn their income. The Act set the maximum value for such tools to be prescribed by regulation. Regulation 10 sets that amount at $4,350 per person for the 2024-25 financial year, with subsequent annual increases linked to the maximum total value under section 116(2)(c)(i) of the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act 1966. This creates a uniform national benchmark for the value of tools of trade that a person can keep despite confiscation proceedings. The amount is per person, not per business entity; a sole trader receives $4,350, but a company does not have a personal tools exemption unless the Act separately provides for companies, which it does not in the regulations.

Prescribed purpose. Section 79(5)(e) of the Act allows the DPP to apply forfeited property or its proceeds for a prescribed purpose. Regulation 9 sets out the list of prescribed purposes, which includes not only administrative costs like valuation and sale of forfeited property, but also the costs of investigating and prosecuting unlawful activities under the Act or a corresponding law. This means the DPP can use confiscated funds to pursue new investigations, not just to manage assets already forfeited. The “extraordinary costs” of forensic accounting in relation to potential applications under section 11 (which deals with forfeiture of tainted property associated with serious offences) are also covered.

Notice of application for return of or access to property. Section 46(7) of the Act requires that a person seeking the return of or access to restrained or forfeited property must give notice in a form prescribed by the regulations. Regulation 8 prescribes Form 1 in Schedule 1 as that notice. The notice must be served on the Commissioner of Police, the DPP, and any other person the court directs. The form itself is a graphic image in the regulations, but practitioners must adapt it to comply with the applicable rules of court. This imposes a procedural hurdle: the notice is not simply a blank form; it must be tailored to the court’s formatting and filing requirements.

The Regulations affect a range of actors within the Tasmanian legal system and beyond, with the most direct impact on those involved in cross-border criminal asset confiscation.

Persons subject to Tasmanian confiscation proceedings. Individuals or entities whose property is restrained or forfeited under the Act are the primary targets. If that person also has property located in another state covered by a corresponding law, the interstate orders recognised under these Regulations can be enforced in Tasmania. For example, a person with real estate in Hobart and a drug trafficking conviction in Victoria may find that a Victorian pecuniary penalty order under section 59 of the Confiscation Act 1997 is registered in Tasmania and enforced against their Tasmanian property. Conversely, Tasmanian orders can be recognised interstate under the corresponding law regimes of other states, but the Regulations only address inbound recognition into Tasmania. The person affected will have to deal with two jurisdictions’ procedural rules, and the Regulations do not streamline the process beyond recognition.

Small business owners and tradespeople using tools of trade. The protected amount of $4,350 per person for ordinary tools of trade directly affects individuals who rely on tools (tradespeople, artists, freelancers, farmers) to earn a living. If the value of their tools exceeds $4,350, the excess is not protected from restraint or forfeiture. The amount is per person, so a married couple running a business together each get $4,350, but a sole trader gets only one allowance. This cap is relatively low compared to the cost of many trade tools (e.g., a commercial vehicle, a high-end diagnostic computer, or specialised agricultural equipment could easily exceed $4,350). The indexation to the Bankruptcy Act provides some relief from inflation, but the base amount is not generous. The regulation does not protect tools of trade used by a company or partnership entity, unless the entity can claim the protection under some other provision of the Act.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The DPP gains significant benefits from the Regulations. Regulation 9 provides the DPP with a broad set of prescribed purposes for which forfeited funds may be used. This includes reimbursement of the DPP’s own costs and expenses, which could reduce the budgetary pressure on the DPP’s office and create a financial incentive to pursue confiscation. More notably, the DPP can use forfeited funds to investigate and prosecute unlawful activities under a corresponding law, not just under the Tasmanian Act. This expands the DPP’s operational scope to fund cross-border investigations, potentially drawing on forfeited assets from one case to fund new cases in another jurisdiction. The DPP also benefits from the recognition of interstate restraining orders, which can freeze property in Tasmania before a forfeiture order is obtained, making it harder for persons to dissipate assets. The DPP must comply with the form and service requirements in regulation 8 when seeking to oppose applications for return of property, but this is a procedural obligation that is typical.

The Public Trustee. The Public Trustee may be appointed to control or manage forfeited property under Part 3 or Part 9 of the Act. The Public Trustee can seek reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses from forfeited funds under regulation 9(c), but only if those costs are not otherwise reimbursed under the Act. This imposes a burden of proof on the Public Trustee to show that alternative reimbursement is not available, which could create administrative friction.

The Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner is a mandatory recipient of notices of application for return of or access to property under regulation 8(4). The Commissioner may also be involved in investigating unlawful activities that are funded under regulation 9(a)(ii). However, the Regulations do not grant the Commissioner any new investigative powers; they only authorise the funding of investigations.

Courts in Tasmania. The Supreme Court of Tasmania and other courts that hear matters under the Act will need to apply the Regulations when determining whether an interstate order can be registered, whether a notice of application has been properly served, and whether a claim for protected tools of trade is within the $4,350 cap. The courts must also ensure that notices are adapted to comply with local rules of court, which may differ from the default form.

Interstate authorities. The Regulations do not directly bind interstate authorities, but they affect how those authorities can have their orders enforced in Tasmania. For example, the New South Wales Crime Commission, which operates under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, can apply to register a restraining order under section 10A of that Act in Tasmania, now that regulation 7(c) declares such orders to be interstate restraining orders. Interstate DPPs and asset management offices also benefit from the DPP’s ability to fund investigations under corresponding laws, potentially leading to sharing of forfeited funds or cooperative enforcement. However, there is no explicit mechanism in the Regulations for such sharing.

Forensic accountants. Regulation 9(d) allows the DPP to use forfeited funds to pay extraordinary costs for forensic accounting services in relation to possible applications under section 11 of the Act. This creates a market for forensic accountants who can charge fees that are reimburseable from forfeited assets. The provision may encourage more aggressive forensic accounting in confiscation cases, as the DPP knows the cost can be recovered from the seized assets rather than from the general budget.

The Regulations impose specific duties and confer limited rights on the actors involved.

Duty of a person applying for return of or access to property. Under section 46(7) of the Act, read with regulation 8, a person who applies for the return of or access to restrained or forfeited property must give notice in the form set out in Schedule 1. The notice must be served on the Commissioner of Police and the DPP, and on any other person the court directs. The duty is not merely to file the notice with the court; it must be served on these specific parties. Failure to serve the notice correctly could result in the court refusing to hear the application or dismissing it. The notice form itself is a graphic image in the regulations, so practitioners must replicate its content and adapt it to local court rules as required by regulation 8(3). This is a procedural trap: the form may need to be resized, reworded, or reformatted to match the court’s electronic filing system.

Right to protection of ordinary tools of trade. Section 191(2)(a) of the Act provides that ordinary tools of trade are protected from restraint or forfeiture up to a prescribed maximum value. Regulation 10 sets that maximum at $4,350 per person for the 2024-25 financial year, with annual indexing to the Bankruptcy Act. This is a right that a person can assert in proceedings to exclude property from a restraining order or to claim its return after forfeiture. However, the right is limited: it only protects “ordinary tools of trade”, not stock-in-trade, business premises, or vehicles used partly for commuting. The valuation must be at the time the protection is claimed, and the person bears the burden of proving the tools are ordinary and within the cap. The indexing mechanism is passive; a person cannot negotiate a higher amount if their tools are worth more.

Right of the DPP to use forfeited property. Under section 79 of the Act, the DPP may apply forfeited property or its proceeds for a purpose prescribed by the regulations. Regulation 9 gives the DPP a broad right to use those funds for valuation and sale, investigation and prosecution of unlawful activities, reimbursement of costs, and payment of forensic accounting expenses. This right is not discretionary in a negative sense; the DPP must choose to exercise it. The funds remain subject to the overarching provisions of the Act, which may require court approval for disbursements, but the Regulations do not impose any additional oversight. The right extends to spending on investigations under a corresponding law, which could involve interstate cooperation. This creates an incentive for the DPP to pursue confiscation cases that generate large forfeiture proceeds, because those proceeds can then fund further enforcement activities independently of annual budget allocations.

Right of the Public Trustee to reimbursement. The Public Trustee, when appointed to control or manage forfeited property under Parts 3 or 9 of the Act, can seek reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses that are not otherwise reimbursed under the Act. This right is qualified: it only applies to costs that are reasonable and not already covered under other provisions of the Act (e.g., if the Act already allows the Public Trustee to deduct its fees from the property, then regulation 9(c) does not apply). The Public Trustee must ensure that any claim for reimbursement is documented and justified as not otherwise reimbursed.

Duty of the DPP to comply with prescribed purposes. While the DPP has a right to use forfeited funds, it also has a duty not to use those funds for any purpose outside the list in regulation 9. The list is exhaustive; purposes such as paying informants, funding community programs, or covering the DPP’s general administrative overhead are not included. The DPP must maintain records demonstrating that expenditures fall within the prescribed categories. Misuse could expose the DPP to legal challenge by persons aggrieved by the forfeiture or by audit oversight.

No new right to notice for third parties. The Regulations do not create any new right for third parties (e.g., innocent owners of property that has been tainted by a criminal’s use) to receive notice of confiscation proceedings. The only notice requirement is for persons who already have standing to apply for return of or access to property under section 46 of the Act. Third parties such as mortgagees or lessors must rely on the Act’s general provisions to protect their interests, not on the Regulations.

Right of interstate authorities to have orders recognised. The Regulations effectively confer a right on interstate authorities to have their orders (as listed) recognised in Tasmania without the need for a separate registration or court proceeding in Tasmania, though the Act likely still requires registration or enforcement steps. The Regulations simply declare that such orders are within the statutory definitions, thereby triggering the enforcement provisions of the Act. This is a passive right; the interstate authority must still take active steps in Tasmania to enforce its order.

The Regulations themselves do not create any new criminal offences or civil penalties. They are procedural and definitional in nature, prescribing forms, amounts, and lists of corresponding laws. Enforcement of the Act’s provisions - including contempt for breaching a restraining order, failure to comply with a production order, or disposal of forfeited property - remains under the Act’s penalty framework. However, the Regulations can indirectly affect enforcement in several ways.

Effect of non-compliance with prescribed notice requirements. If a person applying for return of or access to property under section 46 of the Act fails to give notice in accordance with Form 1 as required by regulation 8, or fails to serve that notice on the Commissioner and the DPP, the court may refuse to hear the application or may dismiss it. The regulation states that the notice “is to be” in the form and “is to be served” on those persons, implying a mandatory requirement. While the court has discretion, non-compliance could derail the application. This is a procedural enforcement mechanism: the court enforces compliance by making the right to apply conditional on proper notice.

Enforcement of prescribed purposes. There is no explicit penalty in the Regulations for the DPP using forfeited property for a purpose not listed in regulation 9. The Act itself, in section 79, likely provides that the DPP may apply forfeited property for a prescribed purpose; using it for an unprescribed purpose would be a breach of the Act, which could be challenged by a person with standing (e.g., the person whose property was forfeited). Such challenge could seek an order requiring the DPP to account for the funds or to restore equivalent value. The Regulations do not set up a complaints mechanism or audit requirement; enforcement relies on general public law remedies like judicial review or action for money had and received.

Consequences of breaching a registered interstate restraining order. If a person in Tasmania disposes of property that is subject to an interstate restraining order registered as an interstate restraining order under regulation 7, they may be in contempt of the Tasmanian court that registered the order. The penalty for contempt is not set by the Regulations but by the general law and the Act. The practical significance is that the detailed listing in regulation 7 ensures there is no doubt about which orders can be registered, reducing scope for defendants to argue that a particular order does not qualify.

Indexation and compliance with the protected amount. Regulation 10 sets the protected amount for tools of trade at $4,350 for the first financial year and thereafter links it to the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act amount. There is no penalty for exceeding that amount; the Act simply provides that property beyond the protected amount is not exempt from restraint or forfeiture. The person claiming the protection must prove that the tools are within the cap. The DPP or Commissioner may challenge a claim that tools are worth less than $4,350, and if the tools are later found to be worth more, the court can order forfeiture of the excess or the whole tool if it is indivisible. The valuation is a factual issue; the Regulations do not prescribe valuation methods.

Enforcement of interstate pecuniary penalty orders. If an interstate pecuniary penalty order is registered in Tasmania under the Act, the DPP can enforce it as if it were a judgment debt. The Regulations list the specific orders that qualify; if an interstate order is misdescribed or does not fall within the listed sections, it cannot be enforced under the Act. This could be used as a defence: a person could argue that the order was made under, say, section 61 of the Victorian Act, which is not listed in regulation 6, and therefore is not an interstate pecuniary penalty order. The Regulations thus create a bright-line rule that limits enforcement to those sections.

No new enforcement powers for the DPP. The Regulations do not grant the DPP any new investigative or enforcement powers. They only authorise expenditure from forfeited funds to cover the costs of existing powers. The DPP’s ability to investigate unlawful activities under a corresponding law (regulation 9(a)(ii)) does not create a new power of investigation; it only funds it. The DPP must already have the power to investigate under the Act or other legislation.

Criminal penalties for perjury or false statements. If a person provides false information in a notice under Form 1 or in a claim for protected tools, they may be liable for perjury or making a false statement under the Act or general criminal law. The Regulations do not specify any additional offence.

The Regulations are explicitly designed to interface with a web of state and territory confiscation laws, as well as the Commonwealth’s bankruptcy regime.

Corresponding laws of other states and territories. The primary interaction is with the nine interstate Acts listed in regulation 4. The Regulations declare these Acts to be corresponding laws, meaning that orders made under them can be registered and enforced in Tasmania under the Act. This mutual recognition framework is not reciprocal in the Regulations themselves; the interstate Acts must have their own provisions for recognising Tasmanian orders. The Regulations do not harmonise the different definitions or procedures across states, which remain distinct. For example, a restraining order under Victoria’s Confiscation Act 1997 may be registered in Tasmania, but the grounds for granting that order in Victoria (e.g., suspicion of serious drug offences) may differ from what Tasmania’s Act would require. The Regulations do not require the interstate order to meet Tasmanian standards for a domestic order; they simply allow recognition.

Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act 1966. Regulation 10(2)(b) ties the protected amount for tools of trade to the maximum total value prescribed under section 116(2)(c)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act. This means that if the Bankruptcy Act’s tool-of-trade exemption is amended or indexed, the Tasmanian amount automatically follows. This creates a dependence on Commonwealth policy and indexation decisions. If the Commonwealth freezes its exemption amount, the Tasmanian amount will also freeze. If the Commonwealth repeals section 116(2)(c)(i) and replaces it with a different provision, the regulation would become inoperative until amended. Practitioners must monitor the Bankruptcy Act each year to advise clients on the current protected amount.

Rules of court and procedural regulations. Regulation 8(3) requires that the Form 1 notice be adapted to comply with any requirements as to format or formal matters provided for by rules of court or regulations applicable in the court of application. This means that the Supreme Court Rules or Magistrates Court Rules in Tasmania, as well as any practice directions, may alter how the notice must be presented. The form in Schedule 1 is a default, but courts may require additional information, different font sizes, electronic filing formats, or coversheets. The DPP and applicants must check those rules before serving the notice.

The Act itself. The Regulations are subordinate to the Act and fill in gaps left by the Act. Key sections referenced include s4(1) (definition of corresponding law), s46(7) (notice of application for return of or access to property), s79(5)(e) (prescribed purposes for use of forfeited property), and s191(2)(a) and (3)(a) (protected amount for ordinary tools of trade). The Regulations cannot override the Act; if the Act is amended to change these references, the Regulations may become inoperative. For example, if the Act inserts a new definition of “corresponding law” that no longer requires a regulation, regulation 4 would be redundant.

No interaction with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth). Notably, the Regulations do not declare any Commonwealth law as a corresponding law. This means that a Commonwealth forfeiture order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 cannot be enforced in Tasmania under the Act merely because of these Regulations. The Commonwealth Act has its own enforcement mechanisms, and Tasmania may have a separate arrangement or a separate regulation under a different Act. Practitioners dealing with Commonwealth confiscation should not rely on these Regulations.

Potential interaction with the Criminal Code and other Tasmanian criminal law. The prescribed purposes in regulation 9(a)(ii) allow the DPP to use forfeited funds to investigate and prosecute an unlawful activity if that activity is the subject of proceedings under the Act or a corresponding law. The definition of “unlawful activity” is in the Act, but the Regulations do not modify it. These funds could be used to supplement police investigations under the Criminal Code or other Tasmanian criminal statutes, potentially overlapping with budgeted police resources. This interaction could create issues of accountability: are forfeited funds being used to conduct investigations that would otherwise be funded by general revenue, effectively privatising law enforcement in a limited way?

Interaction with the Public Trustee Act and Administration and Probate Act. The Public Trustee may be appointed under the Act to manage forfeited property, and regulation 9(c) allows reimbursement of its costs. This interacts with the Public Trustee’s general statutory fees and charges under other Acts, which may provide for separate reimbursement mechanisms. The regulation requires that costs be “not otherwise reimbursed under the Act”, so the Public Trustee must determine whether the Act’s provisions already allow deduction of fees from the property before it can claim against the forfeited fund.

The Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Regulations 2024 are new regulations that commenced on 21 November 2024, as stated in regulation 2. There is no amendment history because they have not been amended since their commencement. They replace any previous regulations under the Act only if those earlier regulations have been revoked or consolidated; the source material does not indicate prior regulations. The Regulations were notified in the Gazette on 20 November 2024, one day before commencement. They are administered by the Department of Justice.

The Regulations are made under the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993, which has been amended multiple times over the decades, but the Regulations themselves are a standalone instrument. As they are relatively new, practitioners should monitor the Tasmanian legislation register for any amending regulations that may update the list of corresponding laws or adjust the protected amount. For example, if South Australia amends its Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 by adding new forfeiture provisions not listed in regulation 5, those new provisions would not qualify as interstate forfeiture orders until the Regulations are amended to include them. Similarly, if a new state or territory passes a confiscation Act, it would need to be declared a corresponding law by amendment.

The indexing mechanism for the protected amount in regulation 10(2)(b) is passive and does not require a regulatory amendment each year; it automatically adjusts according to the Bankruptcy Act. However, if the Bankruptcy Act is amended to change the indexation reference, the regulations may need updating to maintain a clear link. As of the commencement date, the protected amount is fixed for the 2024-25 financial year. Subsequent years will see automatic increases if the Bankruptcy Act amount rises.

No transitional provisions appear in the Regulations. They apply to interstate orders made and in force from the date of commencement, but the source does not indicate whether orders made before 21 November 2024 are affected. The Act may contain its own transitional rules.

The source material does not contain any references to litigation history. The Regulations are less than one year old as at the date of the source (the URL suggests a viewing date of 12 April 2026, which would be after commencement, but the regulations were only made in 2024). No court decisions interpreting these specific regulations are cited. Given that the Regulations are procedural and definitional, litigation would likely arise only in the context of disputes about whether a particular interstate order falls within the listed sections, or whether the DPP has used forfeited funds for an unauthorised purpose. As of the current knowledge cutoff, no reported cases are available.

Practitioners should be aware that the listing of specific sections in regulations 5, 6 and 7 may lead to litigation about the precise scope of those sections. For example, regulation 7(d) for the Northern Territory includes a restraining order under section 44 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2002, but only if subsection (1)(b)(i), (ii) or (iii) or subsection (1)(c) applies. The Northern Territory courts may interpret those subsections differently than a Tasmanian court. A person resisting registration could argue that the interstate order was made under a different subsection not listed, and therefore does not qualify. There is no litigation history to guide how Tasmanian courts will resolve such interpretive issues.

Similarly, the prescribed purposes in regulation 9 could be litigated if the DPP uses funds for an activity that a person claims is outside the scope. For instance, could the DPP fund a prosecution that is not strictly “the subject of proceedings under the Act or a corresponding law”? Future cases may test the boundaries of that phrase.

The protected amount under regulation 10 is unlikely to generate complex litigation; valuation disputes will be factual. However, the indexing provision could raise questions if the Bankruptcy Act amount changes mid-year or if the provision is repealed.

Practitioners and affected persons should watch for several traps in these Regulations that may not be obvious from a casual reading.

The protected amount is per person, not per business. Regulation 10(2) sets the amount “per person”. A sole trader who owns $10,000 worth of tools can only protect $4,350. A company or partnership cannot claim the protection at all because it is not a “person” for the purposes of section 191 (though the Act may define person to include a body corporate; the Regulations do not clarify). If a small business is structured as a company, the tools owned by the company are not protected, even if the director uses them personally. The only way to get the full benefit is if multiple individuals each own separate tools, but frequently tools are business assets.

The indexing link to the Bankruptcy Act can cause confusion. The amount for FY2024-25 is $4,350. For later years, the amount is “the amount prescribed, under section 116(2)(c)(i) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 of the Commonwealth, as the maximum total value that applies under that section for the financial year.” This means the Tasmanian amount may not be published in Tasmanian regulations; practitioners must look up the Commonwealth bankruptcy exemption each year. If the Commonwealth changes its indexation or repeals that section, the Tasmanian amount becomes uncertain until the regulations are amended. Moreover, the Commonwealth amount is for tools of trade of a bankrupt, which may be calculated differently (e.g., it may set a single amount for all tools combined, not per tool). The Tasmanian regulation adopts that same amount without adjustment for inflation beyond the Commonwealth’s index.

The notice form must be adapted to local court rules - and the form is a graphic image. Regulation 8(2) states the notice must be in accordance with Form 1, but regulation 8(3) says it must be adapted to comply with any requirements as to format or formal matters provided for by rules of court. The form in Schedule 1 is an image, not a fillable text document. Practitioners cannot simply photocopy it; they must recreate its content in a format that the local court accepts. Different Tasmanian courts (Supreme Court, Magistrates Court) may have different rules about font size, margins, electronic filing, and required headers. If the notice is not properly adapted, the court may reject it. The form itself may also contain fields that are not self-explanatory (e.g., “Description of property” with limited space). This is a procedural minefield.

The definition of interstate restraining order includes conditional orders. For example, regulation 7(a) includes a restraining order under section 30 of the ACT’s Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 only “after the relevant period of time as provided for by section 62 of that Act has elapsed.” This means that an interim restraining order under section 30 that has not yet become final does not qualify as an interstate restraining order for Tasmanian purposes. A Tasmanian court asked to register an ACT restraining order must check whether the relevant period has elapsed. Similarly, regulation 7(d) for the Northern Territory includes a section 44 order only if specific subparagraphs apply. These conditions require the Tasmanian court to interpret the interstate Act’s provisions, which may be unfamiliar.

The DPP can use forfeited funds to investigate and prosecute unlawful activities under a corresponding law. Regulation 9(a)(ii) allows the DPP to use forfeited funds for “the investigation, and prosecution, of an unlawful activity, if the unlawful activity is the subject of proceedings under the Act or a corresponding law.” This is broad: the investigation need not be in Tasmania; it could be for a prosecution in, say, Queensland, as long as the unlawful activity is the subject of proceedings under a corresponding law (the Queensland Act). This creates a potential for the DPP to fund interstate enforcement, but the proceeds of the forfeiture may come from Tasmanian assets. The person who lost their property may see it used to fund investigations in other states against other people, which may seem unfair. There is no requirement that the expenditure benefit Tasmania directly.

The Public Trustee’s reimbursement is only for costs not otherwise reimbursed. Regulation 9(c) states “not otherwise reimbursed under the Act”. The Act may already have provisions for the Public Trustee’s fees (e.g., it may allow the Public Trustee to deduct fees from property under its control). The regulation only kicks in if those existing provisions do not cover the costs. This forces the Public Trustee to first exhaust other reimbursement mechanisms before claiming under the regulation. This could lead to disputes over whether certain costs are “otherwise reimbursed”.

No protection for tools of trade of employees who do not own the tools. The protected amount only applies to tools owned by the person claiming the protection. If an employee uses tools owned by their employer, the employee cannot claim the protection. The employer (if a company) may not qualify as a person. This means that expensive tools provided by the business to employees could be forfeited even though the employees rely on them to work. Those employees may have no recourse.

The list of interstate orders is exhaustive and may be incomplete. If an interstate court makes a forfeiture order under a section not listed in regulation 5, it cannot be enforced in Tasmania under the Act. This could happen if an interstate Act is amended to add new forfeiture sections that are not yet listed. For example, if New South Wales adds a new section 34B to its Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, that order would not be an interstate forfeiture order until the Tasmanian regulations are amended. The person subject to the order could resist registration by pointing out that the section is not listed.

Compliance with the Regulations depends on which role the reader occupies. The following practical steps apply to the main actors.

For a person whose property is restrained or forfeited and who wishes to apply for its return or access:

1. Identify the property you seek to recover or access. Ensure you have standing under the Act (e.g., you are the owner, a spouse, or a person with an interest).
2. Prepare a notice in the form set out in Form 1 of Schedule 1. Recreate the content of the form in a document that complies with the rules of the court where you will file the application (e.g., Supreme Court Rules or Magistrates Court Rules). The form must include the court details, description of property, grounds for the application, and any other information required by the form.
3. Serve the completed notice on the Commissioner of Police and the DPP. Also serve on any other person the court directs. Service should be in accordance with the court rules (personal service, post, or electronic as allowed).
4. File the application in the appropriate court, attaching evidence of service. Keep a copy of the notice and proof of service for your records.
5. If the tools of trade protection is relevant, compile evidence of the value of your ordinary tools of trade. Obtain receipts, valuations, or appraisals to show the total value is $4,350 or less per person for the 2024-25 financial year (or the current indexed amount for later years). If the value exceeds the cap, consider whether you can separate the tools into two groups (one for you and one for another person, if both own them) or whether you can argue that some tools are not “ordinary tools of trade” (e.g., high-value items that are not necessary for your trade).
6. Remember the protection is per person. If you share tools with a spouse or business partner, each can claim up to the cap for their own tools, but the tools must be separately owned.

For the DPP when registering an interstate order:

1. Check that the order was made under a section listed in the relevant regulation (regulation 5 for forfeiture, 6 for pecuniary penalty, 7 for restraining order). Verify that any conditional requirements are satisfied (e.g., the period for a final order has elapsed). Obtain a certified copy of the order and any evidence that the condition is met.
2. Apply to the Tasmanian court to have the order registered. You will need to serve notice on the person affected and possibly on the Commissioner and Public Trustee.
3. When using forfeited funds, ensure that expenditure falls within one of the categories in regulation 9. Maintain detailed records showing that the funds were used for valuation and sale of forfeited property, investigation/prosecution of an unlawful activity under the Act or a corresponding law, reimbursement of the DPP’s reasonable costs, reimbursement of the Public Trustee, or payment of extraordinary forensic accounting costs. Do not use the funds for general administrative overhead, community programs, or other purposes not listed.
4. When serving a notice under regulation 8 for an application for return of property, ensure it is in Form 1 and adapted to court rules, as described above. You may also need to serve internal notice on the Commissioner of Police.

For the Public Trustee managing forfeited property:

1. Keep detailed accounts of all costs and expenses incurred in controlling or managing property under Part 3 or 9 of the Act.
2. First check whether the Act itself provides for reimbursement of those costs (e.g., through deduction from the property). If so, claim under those provisions.
3. Only if those provisions do not cover the costs, seek reimbursement from the DPP under regulation 9(c). Provide evidence that the costs are reasonable and not otherwise reimbursed. Submit the claim in writing with supporting invoices or time records.

For a small business owner concerned about tools of trade:

1. Audit the value of your ordinary tools of trade. If the total exceeds the current protected amount ($4,350 per person for FY2024-25), consider whether you can reduce the risk by insuring them separately, keeping them off business premises, or structuring ownership across multiple individuals (e.g., spouse or partner). However, the protection only applies if the tools are owned by you personally.
2. If your business is a company, the company’s tools are not protected under this regulation. Consider transferring ownership of critical tools to yourself personally, but be aware of tax and legal implications (e.g., capital gains tax, stamp duty, risk of personal liability). This is a compliance strategy that may not be appropriate in all cases.
3. Note that the protected amount may increase each financial year. Monitor the Bankruptcy Act amount or the Tasmanian legislation register for updates. The DPP or your lawyer should be able to advise the current amount at the time of any restraint.

For interstate authorities seeking recognition of orders in Tasmania:

1. Confirm that the order you hold was made under a section listed in the relevant regulation. If not, you cannot rely on these Regulations; you may need to pursue enforcement through other mechanisms (e.g., common law or mutual assistance).
2. If the order qualifies, instruct legal representatives in Tasmania to apply for its registration. Provide them with a certified copy and evidence that any conditional requirements are met.
3. Be aware that the DPP in Tasmania may also seek to use forfeited funds from other cases to support investigations relating to your jurisdiction, under regulation 9(a)(ii). You may wish to coordinate with the Tasmanian DPP to share resources.

General compliance monitoring:

1. Keep a copy of the Regulations and any subsequent amending instruments. The DPP and Public Trustee should maintain internal guidelines about which expenditures are permitted.
2. Legal practitioners should ensure their office management systems flag the specific sections in each regulation when handling interstate orders, to avoid overlooking conditional requirements.
3. Review the Regulations annually, especially the list of interstate orders, as they may be updated if new state legislation commences.