Criminal Assets Confiscation Regulations 2021

The regulations give concrete meaning to several key statutory definitions and procedures under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005. The concept of an enforcement agency is central: only a prescribed enforcement agency can exercise certain powers under the Act. Regulation 4 prescribes South Australia Police, but notably does not include other bodies such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption or the Australian Federal Police unless they separately obtain standing under other provisions of the Act. The definition of financial institution in the Act is given workable content by regulation 5, which declares any institution that accepts money on deposit, by way of investment, or for safe custody to be a financial institution. This captures not only banks but also entities like building societies, credit unions, and safety deposit box operators. The reach is wide: a pawnbroker who accepts money for investment or deposit could conceivably be caught. Protected property under the Act is a statutory shield against forfeiture for basic household and personal items. Regulation 6 defines two categories: moveable contents of premises and personal effects. However, the exclusions list in regulation 6(2) is long and economically significant. Artwork, furniture over 100 years old, hydroponic equipment, jewellery (except wedding rings), cash, precious metals, motor vehicles (except wheelchairs), boats, trailers, caravans, firearms, stock-in-trade, business-use items, and unopened packaged liquor are all excluded from protection. This means that the state can seize and forfeit the family car, a small business’s inventory, or heirloom jewellery (other than a wedding ring) without triggering the protected property exemption. Personal effects are defined as items normally worn or carried on the person, but jewellery (other than wedding rings) is again excluded. The practical effect is that the protection is narrow, mainly covering ordinary clothing and non-valuable personal items. The concept of recognised Australian forfeiture, pecuniary penalty, and restraining orders (regulations 7, 8, 9) is critical for national cooperation. Each regulation lists orders from every Australian state and territory, including repealed acts (e.g., the Northern Territory’s Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act 1988) and the Commonwealth. This means a restraining order made in New South Wales under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 can be enforced in South Australia as if it were a local order, without separate proceedings. The regulations do not provide for recognition of foreign forfeiture orders generally, but they do take the unusual step in regulation 10 of declaring any foreign offence triable by the United States Military Commission as a serious offence. This imports a specific US military justice framework into South Australian confiscation law, which is an extraordinary extension of extraterritoriality. The concept of a freezing order notice prescribed by regulation 12 requires: the date and time of the order, account particulars, terms of the order, a statement that the order takes effect when the notice is given, and an explanation of section 21(1) of the Act (which deals with duration and extension). The prescribed rate in regulation 20 uses the average of the RBA cash rates over the relevant period minus 0.2 per cent, simple interest. This is a below-market rate in most interest rate environments, meaning that if the state seizes money and later must return it, the compensation paid is less than what the owner could have earned in a bank account. The relevant period runs from the date of seizure or forfeiture until the money is paid back or compensated. The concept of duplicates of telephone warrants (regulation 16) requires the duplicate warrant to specify the date and time of the application call and the time the duplicate and affidavit were forwarded to the magistrate. This is a procedural safeguard to ensure accountability in urgent warrant applications.

The regulations have a broad operational reach, affecting several distinct groups. Law enforcement agencies, particularly South Australia Police as the sole prescribed enforcement agency (regulation 4), are directly affected because the regulations dictate how they must serve notices, apply for warrants, and execute freezing orders. The regulations limit the discretion of enforcement agencies by prescribing specific forms and service methods; for example, a freezing order notice that omits the required information under regulation 12 may be invalid, potentially exposing the state to liability for wrongful seizure. Financial institutions as declared by regulation 5 are affected because they must comply with freezing orders and other notices served on them. The broad definition captures not only banks but also investment firms, credit unions, and even businesses that accept money for safe custody, such as safety deposit box operators. Non-compliance with a freezing order is an offence under the Act, and the prescribed form provides the institution with clear instructions. Individuals who own property that could be subject to confiscation are affected by the definition of protected property in regulation 6. Because the list of excluded items is extensive, many people who are the subject of a confiscation order may find that their motor vehicles, business inventory, cash, precious metals, and jewellery (except wedding rings) are not protected and can be seized. This disproportionately affects people whose wealth is held in liquid or tradeable assets rather than fixed property. Persons who are subject to an examination order under the Act must receive a prescribed form of notice under regulation 15, which requires the name of the person, the court and date of the order, a statement requiring attendance, a warning that failure to attend is an offence, a contact person from the DPP’s office, the identity of the person whose affairs are being examined, and, if document production is required, a description of the documents. This imposes informational obligations on the DPP and procedural protections on the examinee. Corporation officers are affected by regulation 18, which allows service by leaving or posting documents at the registered address, or by fax or document exchange if the corporation has indicated that as an available means. This lowers the bar for effective service, potentially increasing compliance burdens on corporations that may not monitor those channels. Owners of property that is seized and later returned are affected by regulation 20, which sets the interest rate on returned money at 0.2 per cent below the average RBA cash rate. In a low-interest-rate environment, or if the cash rate is zero or negative, the rate could be zero or even negative (though the regulation does not explicitly cap it at zero; but simple interest at a negative rate would mean the owner gets back less than seized, which would be problematic). In a normal rate environment, the owner receives less than they could have earned if the money had been in a standard savings account, effectively penalising the innocent owner for the state’s mistaken or failed confiscation. The Magistrates Court and District Court are affected by regulation 11, which prescribes the required particulars for a certificate of a Magistrates Court order to be registered in the District Court. The certificate must include the matter number, date, parties, and amount payable. This standardises the registration process. Finally, people who have been subject to a telephone warrant will be affected by regulation 16, which requires the duplicate warrant to record the timing of the application and transmission. This is a safeguard for the person whose property is searched or seized, but it also imposes administrative costs on the applicant.

The regulations impose specific duties on various parties and confer a limited set of rights, mostly procedural in nature. Financial institutions served with a freezing order notice under regulation 12 have a duty to comply with the order from the moment the notice is given; the notice must specify that the order takes effect on that date and time. However, the institution also has a right to receive a notice that contains all prescribed particulars, including the date, time, account details, terms, and an explanation of section 21(1) of the Act. If the notice is deficient, the institution may arguably challenge the validity of the freezing order. An institution served with a notice extending a freezing order under regulation 13 has a duty to continue the freeze; the notice must annex a copy of the original freezing order and contain the date and time of the extension order and an explanation of section 21(6) (cessation). Similarly, a notice of cessation under regulation 14 must contain particulars of the order and state when it ceased, relieving the institution of the freeze from that time. Persons served with an examination notice under regulation 15 have a duty to attend at the specified time and place, and failure to attend is an offence under the Act. However, they have a right to receive a notice that includes the name of the person to whose affairs the examination relates, a contact person at the DPP’s office, and, if documents are required, a description of them. This allows the examinee to prepare and to know the scope of the examination. The regulation does not require the notice to state the purpose of the examination or to warn of the privilege against self-incrimination, though the Act may separately provide for those rights. Owners of property that qualifies as protected property under regulation 6 have a right to retain that property despite a confiscation order. But given the extensive exclusions, this right is narrow. For example, a wedding ring is protected, but other jewellery is not; personal effects are protected only if they are not jewellery (other than wedding rings). There is no separate right to claim protected property; the Act handles that. The regulations also give rights regarding service of documents. Under regulation 18, documents may be served by fax or document exchange only if the person has indicated that as an available means of service. This gives a person the right to control how they are served; they could refuse service by fax if they have not indicated availability. However, the alternative under the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 is broad and may override any objection. The prescribed rate in regulation 20 amounts to a duty on the state to pay interest when returning seized or forfeited money, but at a below-market rate. The owner has a right to receive that interest, but not to a market rate. The duty is calculated as simple interest at 0.2 per cent less than the average RBA cash rate over the relevant period. If the cash rate averages 1.0 per cent, the prescribed rate is 0.8 per cent simple. The regulation does not specify compounding, so the state likely calculates simple interest, which is less favourable to the owner. The certificate of the Magistrates Court under regulation 11 requires the DPP to include specific particulars, and the owner has the right to see those particulars to verify the order before registration. The duplicate warrant regulation (16) gives the person whose property is searched the right to receive a duplicate warrant that records the timing of the application and transmission, ensuring accountability for the urgency claimed. The ability to include additional information in prescribed forms (regulation 19) gives the issuing authority flexibility but does not create a right in the recipient; extra information could confuse or mislead, and there is no requirement that the extra information be accurate or relevant.

The regulations themselves do not create new penalties; penalties for non-compliance with the Act are found in the primary legislation. However, the regulations reinforce those penalties by specifying the forms and procedures that must be followed for enforcement actions. For example, regulation 15(d) requires an examination notice to include a statement that failure to attend is an offence under the Act. The Act prescribes a penalty for non-attendance, which may include imprisonment or a fine. The regulations do not state the penalty amount, but referencing it in the notice puts the recipient on notice. Similarly, a financial institution that fails to comply with a freezing order after being served with a prescribed notice under regulation 12 could face contempt or statutory penalties under the Act. The broad declaration of recognised Australian orders (regulations 7, 8, 9) means that a person who is subject to a forfeiture order from another state can be directly enforced against in South Australia without the need for a fresh application or hearing. This significantly expands enforcement reach and reduces procedural hurdles for the state, while exposing persons to enforcement actions that may have been obtained under different procedural rules or standards of proof in the originating jurisdiction. The regulation does not provide for any review of the foreign order’s compatibility with South Australian standards; it is automatic recognition. Regulation 10, declaring US Military Commission offences as serious offences, means that conduct that would not be a crime under South Australian law (or even Australian law) can nevertheless trigger asset confiscation under the Act if it is a foreign offence triable by the US Military Commission. This is an extraordinary enforcement power: the state can freeze and forfeit assets linked to offences such as terrorism charges tried by a military tribunal, even if those offences are not recognised under Australian criminal law. The enforcement of such orders might be challenged on constitutional or human rights grounds, but the regulations provide for it. The prescribed service methods under regulation 18 facilitate enforcement by providing multiple low-cost options for serving documents. Service by posting to a corporation’s registered address is deemed effective even if the document is not actually read. Service by fax or document exchange, if the recipient has indicated availability, reduces the risk of avoidance. Service under the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 is broad and may include electronic service. Lowering the bar for effective service increases the likelihood that a freezing order or examination notice is deemed served, and non-compliance then attracts penalties. The prescribed rate under regulation 20 affects enforcement costs: if the state initially seizes money but later must return it, it pays interest at a below-market rate, reducing the financial disincentive for aggressive or mistaken seizures. However, if the rate is negative (e.g., if the RBA cash rate averages 0.1 per cent, the prescribed rate is negative 0.1 per cent), the state would effectively be entitled to deduct money from the returned amount. The regulation does not address this scenario, but in practice the state may not apply a negative rate. The rate is simple interest, which is less costly for the state than compound interest. The enforcement of examination notices is supported by the detailed requirements in regulation 15; if the notice does not contain all required information, the person may have a defence to a charge of failing to attend. For example, if the notice omits the contact person’s name and telephone number, the person might argue they could not reasonably comply. However, regulation 19 allows additional information, so the notice could still be valid if it contains extra information but not all required? That would be a drafting issue; the regulation prescribes what must be contained, but extra info is allowed. So a notice that omits a required element but includes other material is still deficient. The certificate of Magistrates Court under regulation 11 is a prerequisite for enforcement of the order in the District Court; without the prescribed particulars, the certificate may not be registrable, delaying enforcement.

The regulations explicitly interact with several other South Australian, interstate, Commonwealth, and even foreign laws. The primary interaction is with the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 itself, which the regulations are made under. Every regulation is tied to a specific section of the Act. For example, regulation 4 prescribes an enforcement agency “for the purposes of the definition of enforcement agency in section 3(1) of the Act”. Regulation 5 does the same for financial institution. The regulations do not amend the Act; they give it operable content. Therefore, any amendment to the Act’s definitions may render these regulations obsolete or require amendment. The regulations interact with other state legislation through the recognition provisions. Regulation 7 recognises forfeiture orders under each state and territory’s criminal assets legislation, including repealed acts such as the Northern Territory’s Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act 1988. This means that orders made under those repealed acts are still enforceable in South Australia. Similarly, regulation 8 recognises pecuniary penalty orders, and regulation 9 recognises restraining orders from all jurisdictions. These provisions give effect to the principle of mutual recognition in proceeds of crime law, avoiding the need for separate registration under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) or the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth), though those acts may also apply. The regulations specifically adopt the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 for service of documents (regulation 18(b)(ii)), which are made under the Supreme Court Act 1935, the District Court Act 1991, and the Magistrates Court Act 1991. This means service methods available under those rules - such as electronic service if the court allows - are imported into the confiscation regime. Regulation 18 also allows service by fax or document exchange if the person has indicated that as an available means, which interacts with the common law on service and the Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (SA) to validate electronic service. The protected property definition in regulation 6 cross-references other statutes: “hydroponic equipment” is defined by reference to the Hydroponics Industry Control Act 2009; “packaged liquor” is defined by the Liquor Licensing Act 1997; and “motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1961. These cross-references mean that any amendment to those Acts could change the scope of protected property in the confiscation regime without direct amendment to the regulations. For example, if the Road Traffic Act expands the definition of motor vehicle, more vehicles become excluded from protected property. Regulation 10 interacts with US federal law: the Military Commissions Act 2006 of the United States, codified in Title 10 USC Section 948d. By declaring offences triable by the US Military Commission as serious offences, the regulations incorporate a body of foreign military law into South Australian confiscation law. This could create conflicts with the International Criminal Court Act 2002 (Cth) or the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (Cth), or with Australia’s obligations under the Rome Statute. There is no reciprocity: the US does not recognise South Australian forfeiture orders. The regulations also interact with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) and its 1987 predecessor - regulation 7(m) recognises forfeiture orders under the 1987 Act, which was repealed but still generates enforcement issues. Regulation 9(n) recognises Commonwealth restraining orders, meaning a Commonwealth DPP can enforce a restraining order in South Australia under the state’s procedures. The Certificate of Magistrates Court under regulation 11 interacts with the District Court’s enforcement jurisdiction; once registered, the order can be enforced as a judgment of the District Court. The prescribed rate in regulation 20 interacts with the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) if the interest payment is income for tax purposes, or with the Courts Administration Act 1993 (SA) for court-ordered interest. The rate is linked to the RBA cash rate, a monetary policy tool, meaning changes in monetary policy directly affect the compensation payable by the state.

The Criminal Assets Confiscation Regulations 2021 were made on 27 May 2021 and published in the South Australian Government Gazette on that date, commencing immediately under regulation 2. They revoked and replaced the Criminal Assets Confiscation Regulations 2006, which are listed in Schedule 1. The 2006 regulations had been in force for nearly 15 years; the 2021 regulations update cross-references, forms, and definitions to reflect changes in the Act and in other legislation since 2006. The Legislative history notes that further information is available from the Index of South Australian Statutes or www.legislation.sa.gov.au. The source document does not provide a detailed amendment history for the 2021 regulations themselves, likely because they are relatively new and have not been amended as of the provided publication date. The 2021 regulations are a complete substitution, not a series of amendments. The principal regulation is cited as 2021 No. 58, gazetted 27 May 2021. The regulations have not been subject to subsequent amending regulations in the provided text. However, the Act has been amended multiple times since 2005, and future amendments to the Act may require amendments to the regulations. For example, if the Act’s definition of “enforcement agency” is expanded, regulation 4 would need to be amended to include additional bodies. Similarly, if new interstate confiscation legislation is enacted or repealed, regulations 7, 8, and 9 would need updating. The regulations incorporate by reference the Uniform Civil Rules 2020, which replaced earlier court rules; if those rules are amended, the service provisions in regulation 18(b)(ii) will automatically incorporate the changes without regulatory amendment. The prescribed rate in regulation 20 is dynamic: it does not require amendment when the RBA cash rate changes because the rate is calculated by reference to the average cash rate over the relevant period. However, if the RBA ceases to use cash rates or changes its framework, the regulation would need amending. The regulations also rely on definitions in other Acts (hydroponic equipment, packaged liquor, motor vehicle) that may be amended independently. The revocation of the 2006 regulations and the making of the 2021 regulations were likely prompted by the need to align with the Uniform Civil Rules 2020, which commenced on 1 January 2021, and to update the list of recognised orders to include newer legislation such as the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) amendments and the application of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (which had replaced the 1987 Act). The 2006 regulations had not been amended after 2006 in the source, so the 2021 regulations represent a consolidation and refresh.

The regulations themselves are not a frequent subject of litigation; they are procedural. However, the source text does not cite any cases. The most likely area of litigation would be challenges to the validity of forms or service methods. For example, a financial institution served with a freezing order notice under regulation 12 might argue that the notice did not contain the prescribed information, rendering the freezing order ineffective. There have been cases under the Act at the appellate level in South Australia concerning the scope of protected property, but the regulations’ precise definitions may be tested. For instance, the definition of “moveable contents of premises” in regulation 6(2) excludes “furniture that is 100 years old or older”; this requires valuation and age determination, which could lead to disputes. A litigant might argue that a piece of furniture was not 100 years old and therefore was protected; or that it was, and therefore not protected. The exclusion of “jewellery (not including wedding rings)” could lead to litigation over what constitutes jewellery (e.g., a diamond-studded watch). The exclusion of “cash (including foreign currency)” is broad but may raise issues about what is considered cash (e.g., bearer bonds, stored value cards). Regulation 8’s list of recognised Australian pecuniary penalty orders includes orders under the repealed Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act 1988 (NT) - a litigant might argue that such an old order is no longer enforceable. The regulation explicitly includes it, but there may be limitation issues. Regulation 10’s inclusion of US Military Commission offences could be challenged on constitutional grounds, arguing that it breaches the separation of judicial power by incorporating a non-judicial tribunal’s decisions into state law, or that it offends the external affairs power or the rule of law. No case has been reported in the source, but such a challenge would be high-profile. Regulation 20’s prescribed rate for interest could be litigated if the state pays interest at a rate that the recipient argues does not comply with the regulation’s calculation method (e.g., disagreement over the average cash rate over the relevant period). The regulation does not define how the average is to be calculated (arithmetic mean, daily, monthly). The possibility of a negative rate might prompt a constitutional challenge if it results in the state taking money from returned funds, which could be seen as a further confiscation without legal authority. Service challenges under regulation 18 are common in civil and criminal proceedings. A person might argue that service by fax was not effective because they had not indicated fax as an available means, or that service by post to a registered address was not sufficient because the corporation was no longer at that address. The regulations adopt the Uniform Civil Rules 2020, which have their own litigation history on service. The duplication of warrant requirements under regulation 16 could be litigated if a person argues that a search warrant executed without a properly completed duplicate warrant was invalid, leading to exclusion of evidence. The prescribed form of examination notice under regulation 15 may be challenged if the notice fails to identify the person to whose affairs the examination relates, or if the contact person is not genuinely available. The regulations do not require the notice to include advice about legal representation or privilege, which might be challenged as a denial of procedural fairness.

Several provisions in the regulations contain traps for the unwary. First, the definition of financial institution in regulation 5 is extremely broad: any institution that carries on a business involving acceptance of money on deposit, by way of investment, or for safe custody. This goes beyond banks and credit unions to include stockbrokers, investment funds, and even pawnbrokers who accept money for investment. A business that holds customer funds in trust may inadvertently be caught. There is no carve-out for small businesses or for institutions that accept money only incidentally. The consequence is that such entities must be prepared to comply with freezing orders and other notices under the Act, with penalties for non-compliance. Second, the protected property exclusions in regulation 6 are extensive and potentially counterintuitive. Moveable contents of premises are protected only if they are not items such as artwork, furniture over 100 years old, hydroponic equipment, jewellery (except wedding rings), cash, precious metals, motor vehicles, boats, trailers, caravans, firearms, stock-in-trade, business-use items, or unopened packaged liquor. This effectively means that almost anything of significant value in a home or business is not protected. A person’s engagement ring (if not a wedding ring) is not protected; their coin collection in cash is not protected; their car is not protected; their business inventory is not protected. The only protected moveable contents are basically relatively low-value furniture under 100 years old, household items that are not listed, and wedding rings. Personal effects are similarly limited - items normally worn or carried, but excluding jewellery other than wedding rings. So a gold watch, diamond earrings, or a valuable brooch are all seizable. Third, the recognition of US Military Commission offences as serious offences (regulation 10) is a significant extension of state power. A person could have assets in South Australia connected to a foreign offence that is not an offence under Australian law, and those assets could be frozen or forfeited. This could affect dual nationals, persons with business ties to foreign entities, or persons who have been subjected to US military justice without the protections of Australian criminal procedure. The regulation does not require that the foreign offence would also be a serious offence under Australian law. Fourth, the prescribed rate of interest in regulation 20 is 0.2 per cent less than the average RBA cash rate, simple interest. In a low-rate environment, this could be zero or negative. For example, if the average cash rate over the relevant period is 0.1 per cent, the prescribed rate is minus 0.1 per cent. The regulation does not say what happens when the calculation yields a negative number; presumably the state would not charge the owner money, but the regulation does not prohibit it. Moreover, simple interest is used, not compound interest, which means the owner receives less than if the money had been invested. The relevant period starts at seizure or forfeiture, not at the date the money was taken into state control, which could lead to disputes over when that date is. Fifth, the service provisions in regulation 18 allow service by fax or document exchange only if the person has indicated that as an available means of service. But the fallback to the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 is broad and may allow service by email without the person’s consent, if the rules permit. A person who does not check their registered address email could be deemed served. Sixth, the forms prescribed in regulations 12 through 17 are prescriptive, but regulation 19 allows additional information to be included. This means that a notice may contain extra material that is inaccurate or irrelevant, potentially misleading the recipient. There is no requirement that the additional information be approved or accurate. Seventh, the recognition of interstate orders in regulations 7, 8, and 9 is automatic; there is no requirement for registration or notice to the person affected before enforcement. A person in South Australia could find their bank account frozen based on a restraining order from another state that they had no opportunity to contest. The person’s recourse is to challenge the order in the originating jurisdiction, not in South Australia. Eighth, the certificate of Magistrates Court under regulation 11 requires the amount to be paid, but does not require a breakdown of how that amount was calculated. This could lead to disputes over the correctness of the amount when enforcement is sought. Ninth, the duplicate warrant requirements in regulation 16 are purely procedural; failure to comply may not automatically invalidate the warrant, but could be used to challenge its validity. The time gaps between application, issuing, and forwarding could be used to argue that the warrant was obtained improperly. Tenth, the prescribed form of examination notice under regulation 15 requires a contact person nominated by the DPP. If the DPP fails to nominate a person or the nominated person is unavailable, the notice may be invalid. The notice does not need to state that the examinee may be accompanied by a lawyer, nor does it warn against self-incrimination, though the Act may protect against use of compelled evidence.

Compliance with the regulations requires attention to the specific requirements for each type of notice, order, or document. For financial institutions, the primary compliance obligation is to respond to a freezing order notice served under regulation 12. Upon receiving a notice that contains all prescribed particulars (date, time, account details, terms, statement of effect, and explanation of s 21(1)), the institution must immediately freeze the specified account. The institution should verify the notice includes all required information; if any is missing, it should consider seeking legal advice before freezing, though delay may risk contempt. The institution should also maintain records of the date and time of receipt, as that is when the order takes effect. If an extension notice under regulation 13 is received, it must annex a copy of the original freezing order and contain the date/time of the extension and an explanation of section 21(6). The institution should confirm the original order was previously served. If a cessation notice under regulation 14 is received, the institution must lift the freeze at the stated date and time. For service of documents, corporations should ensure they maintain an accurate registered address and monitor it for postal and personal delivery. If they wish to avoid service by fax or document exchange, they should not indicate those means as available; they should also consider whether the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 permit electronic service regardless, and if so, monitor an appropriate electronic address. Individuals served with an examination notice under regulation 15 must attend at the specified time and place. They should check that the notice contains: their name, the court and date of the examination order, a statement requiring attendance, a warning of the offence for non-attendance, a contact person at the DPP’s office, the identity of the person whose affairs are examined, and, if documents are required, a description of them. If any of these is missing, the person may have a ground to challenge the notice. They should also keep a copy of the notice and bring it to the examination. If they cannot attend, they should contact the DPP’s contact person immediately to seek an adjournment; failing to attend is an offence. Persons whose property has been seized or forfeited and is later to be returned should verify the interest calculation under regulation 20. They should obtain from the state the average RBA cash rate over the period from seizure to return, subtract 0.2 per cent, and confirm the simple interest amount. If the result is zero or negative, they should challenge the calculation. They should also confirm the relevant period start date (date of seizure or forfeiture) and end date (when money is paid back or compensation made). If the state uses a different period, they should object. Owners of property claimed to be protected should rely on regulation 6. They should compile evidence that the property falls within the protected categories: for moveable contents, that they are not artwork, not old furniture, not hydroponic equipment, not jewellery (except wedding rings), not cash, not precious metals, not a motor vehicle, not a boat, not a trailer, not a caravan, not a firearm, not stock-in-trade, not business-use items, and not unopened packaged liquor. For personal effects, that they are items normally worn or carried and not jewellery (other than wedding rings). A wedding ring is always protected; other jewellery is not. Persons seeking to assert protected property status should be prepared for litigation if the state disputes the classification. For enforcement agencies, compliance means using the prescribed forms for all notices. For a freezing order notice, the DPP must ensure the notice contains all items in regulation 12. For an extension, the notice must annex the original order and comply with regulation 13. For cessation, comply with regulation 14. For examination notices, comply with regulation 15. For duplicate warrants, comply with regulation 16. For certificates of Magistrates Court, ensure the certificate contains the particulars in regulation 11 before registration in the District Court. For service, use the methods in regulation 18, but note the limitation on fax/document exchange (only if the person has indicated availability). The Uniform Civil Rules 2020 service methods are also available. The DPP should maintain records of the method used. For interstate enforcement, the DPP should verify that the order falls within the lists in regulations 7, 8, or 9, and ensure the order is properly authenticated under the Act. For US Military Commission offence cases, the DPP must ensure the foreign offence is indeed triable by the US Military Commission and proceed under the Act accordingly; this may require coordination with federal authorities. For interest payments, the state must calculate the average RBA cash rate over the relevant period, subtract 0.2 per cent, apply simple interest, and pay the resulting amount. The state should document the daily or monthly cash rates used and the calculation method. Finally, any person affected by the regulations should seek legal advice, as the regulations interact with the broader Act, which contains powerful confiscation powers that can be exercised without a criminal conviction. The regulations themselves do not create rights of appeal or review, but non-compliance with the prescribed forms or procedures may provide grounds for challenging enforcement actions.