Financial Transaction Reports Act 1993

Cash dealer is not defined in the Act itself, but section 4(2) imports the meaning from the Commonwealth FTR Act unless a contrary intention appears. The FTR Act definition is broad: it includes banks, building societies, credit unions, insurance companies, securities dealers, currency exchange businesses, and other financial service providers. Reporting entity takes its meaning from the AMLCTF Act (same subsection), which extends to a wider range of businesses including gambling providers, bullion dealers, remittance services, and lawyers in certain circumstances. The Act uses both terms because it was originally drafted to refer only to cash dealers under the FTR Act, and when the Commonwealth shifted to the AMLCTF Act in 2006, Tasmania amended its Act in 2013 to include reporting entities under the new regime.

Designated authority (section 4) means the Commissioner of Police or a police officer carrying out an investigation arising from, or relating to matters referred to in, information communicated to the AUSTRAC CEO. This means the power to request further information under sections 6, 6A and 7A is not available to all police officers, only to those who are actively investigating a matter connected with the AUSTRAC communication. The definition is narrower than "any police officer" and should be checked carefully by compliance officers receiving a request.

AUSTRAC CEO is the chief executive officer of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the Commonwealth agency that collects and disseminates financial intelligence. State police request further information through the designated authority, but the cash dealer or reporting entity reports the information to the AUSTRAC CEO (not directly to police). Communication of suspect transaction reports under section 7(2) must be made to the AUSTRAC CEO. Police then access that information through AUSTRAC.

Protected information (section 4) means information obtained under this Act. This is the information subject to the secrecy obligations in section 10. It is distinct from information obtained under the Commonwealth Acts, which is subject to separate secrecy provisions.

Suspect transaction in the context of section 7 means a transaction to which a cash dealer is a party, where the cash dealer has reasonable grounds to suspect that information concerning the transaction may be relevant to a state offence investigation or to confiscation proceedings, and the transaction is not already required to be reported under Division 2 of Part II of the FTR Act (suspect transaction reports) or under Divisions 2, 3 or 4 of Part 3 of the AMLCTF Act (suspicious matter reports, threshold transaction reports, and international funds transfer instruction reports). The cash dealer must have a subjective suspicion grounded in objective reasonable grounds.

Court (section 4) includes any tribunal, authority or person having power to require the production of documents or the answering of questions. This broad definition affects how the secrecy provisions (section 10) operate: a police officer cannot be compelled to disclose protected information to a court unless it is necessary for enforcement of the laws of the State, Commonwealth, another State or territory.

The Act primarily imposes duties on two types of private sector entities: cash dealers (as defined in the FTR Act) and reporting entities (as defined in the AMLCTF Act), along with their officers, employees and agents. These entities must respond to requests for further information from designated authorities (sections 6, 6A, 7A) and, in the case of cash dealers, must independently report suspect transactions that are not already reportable under Commonwealth law (section 7). The compliance burden falls on banks, credit unions, building societies, insurance firms, securities dealers, currency exchanges, gambling providers, bullion dealers, remittance services, and other businesses that handle financial transactions in Tasmania. The Act does not limit the obligation by transaction size; unlike the Commonwealth threshold transaction report (A$10,000), the suspect transaction report under section 7 is triggered solely by suspicion, regardless of the amount.

The Act also affects the Commissioner of Police and police officers who are designated authorities. They gain a statutory power to request further information without needing a warrant or court order, provided the request relates to an investigation arising from information communicated to AUSTRAC. They are also subject to strict secrecy obligations under section 10. They cannot make records of or divulge protected information unless it is in the performance of duties relating to enforcement of laws of the State, Commonwealth, another State or territory. They cannot be compelled to produce protected information in court unless necessary for enforcement.

The Act indirectly affects persons under investigation for state offences and persons whose property may be subject to confiscation under the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993. The information gathered through the Act can be used to build a prosecution case or to trace proceeds of crime. Individuals have no right to be notified that a request for further information has been made about their transactions; the Act is silent on that point. Nor can a person object on the basis that the transaction was not reported to AUSTRAC or that the suspicion was unreasonably held, as the cash dealer's duty arises from its own suspicion.

The Crown in right of Tasmania is bound (section 5). This means that state government agencies that function as cash dealers or reporting entities (e.g. government-owned banks or insurance schemes) are subject to the Act.

Duty to provide further information (sections 6 and 6A). If a cash dealer has reported a matter under section 16(1) or (1A) of the FTR Act, a designated authority may request further information. The request must be for information that may be relevant to a state offence investigation or to enforcement of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993. The cash dealer must comply to the extent it has the information. Failure is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of 400 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment or both. The same duty applies to reporting entities that have reported under sections 41, 43 or 45 of the AMLCTF Act (section 6A), but here the request must be in writing and state a period and manner for compliance.

Duty to report suspect transactions (section 7). A cash dealer who is a party to a transaction and has reasonable grounds to suspect that information about the transaction may be relevant to a state offence or confiscation proceedings must prepare a report and communicate its contents to the AUSTRAC CEO as soon as practicable after forming the suspicion. This duty only applies if the transaction is not already required to be reported under Commonwealth law (suspect transaction reports under the FTR Act or suspicious matter, threshold transaction, or international funds transfer reports under the AMLCTF Act). The report must be in the form approved by the AUSTRAC CEO for AMLCTF Act section 41 purposes, contain the reportable details required by the AML/CTF Rules, state the grounds of suspicion, and be signed by the cash dealer.

Duty to provide further information about suspect transactions (section 7A). After a cash dealer has reported a suspect transaction under section 7(2), a designated authority may request further information. The same relevance criteria apply and the cash dealer must comply.

Duty not to make false or misleading statements (section 9). A person must not, in giving information under the Act, make a statement known to be false or misleading in a material particular, or omit something knowing the omission makes the statement misleading. This is a relatively high mens rea threshold (knowledge). The penalty is 1,000 penalty units or 5 years imprisonment or both, making it the most serious offence in the Act.

Secrecy obligations (section 10). Applies only to the Commissioner of Police and police officers. They must not record or divulge protected information unless doing so in the performance of duties relating to enforcement of laws of the State, Commonwealth, another State or territory. They are also not required to divulge protected information to a court unless necessary for enforcement.

Protection from civil liability (section 8). Cash dealers, reporting entities, and their officers, employees or agents are immune from any action, suit or proceeding for anything done that was required under the Act, or done in the mistaken belief that it was required. This covers both compliance and over-compliance in good faith. Additionally, for certain provisions (sections 16 of FTR Act, sections 41, 43, 45 of AMLCTF Act, and sections 6, 6A, 7, 7A of this Act), the entity or person is deemed, for the purposes of Part 6A of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993, never to have been in possession of the information. This is a deeming provision that prevents the information from being subject to production orders under that Part.

Legal professional privilege preserved (section 10A). The Act expressly does not affect the law of legal professional privilege. This means a cash dealer or reporting entity may not be required to provide information or documents that are subject to privilege. However, the provision is a saving clause, not an immunity; a court would still determine privilege claims.

The Act creates four criminal offences, each with distinct penalties.

First, failure to comply with a request for further information under sections 6, 6A or 7A, or failure to report a suspect transaction under section 7, each carries a maximum penalty of 400 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years or both. As at the current penalty unit value in Tasmania (currently A$215 per unit, subject to indexation), 400 penalty units equals A$86,000. The imprisonment term means that even a corporate officer making a deliberate decision not to comply can face time in prison.

Second, making a false or misleading statement in information given under the Act (section 9) carries 1,000 penalty units (A$215,000) or 5 years imprisonment or both. This is a standard commercial fraud penalty, and the mens rea of knowledge distinguishes it from strict liability offences. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the person knew the statement was false or misleading, or knew that the omission made it misleading.

Third, unauthorised recording or disclosure of protected information by a police officer (section 10(2)) carries 400 penalty units or 2 years imprisonment or both. This is a criminal sanction on state police for misuse of financial intelligence.

The Act does not create a separate offence for tipping off (warning a customer that a report has been made), but section 10 may interact with the Commonwealth tipping-off offences under the AMLCTF Act. The Tasmanian secrecy provision prohibits police from disclosing protected information, but it does not directly impose a duty of confidentiality on cash dealers or reporting entities beyond their Commonwealth obligations.

Enforcement is by prosecution, presumably by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Tasmania). The Act does not provide for civil penalties, infringement notices, or administrative remedies. A court may impose a fine, imprisonment, or both. There is no provision for corporate liability attribution beyond general criminal law principles. However, officers of corporations could be liable under ancillary provisions of the Tasmanian Criminal Code or common law if they authorised or permitted the offence.

The penalty amounts are set in penalty units, which are periodically adjusted. This means the real value of fines increases over time without further legislative amendment. Practitioners should confirm the current penalty unit value at the time of any offence.

Commonwealth FTR Act and AMLCTF Act. The Tasmanian Act is explicitly parasitic on the Commonwealth framework. Section 4(2) provides that expressions used in the FTR Act or AMLCTF Act have the same meanings in this Act unless a contrary intention appears. This incorporated by reference the entire definitional structure of those Acts. When a term is amended in the Commonwealth legislation, the definition in the Tasmanian Act automatically changes too (subject to any contrary intention in the Tasmanian Act). This is a dynamic incorporation, not a static snapshot. The Act also requires reports and requests to be made through the AUSTRAC CEO, who operates under Commonwealth law. The interaction creates a single pipeline for financial intelligence: information flows from cash dealers/reporting entities to AUSTRAC, and Tasmanian police can access and request further details through that pipeline.

Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993 (Tas). Several provisions of the Financial Transaction Reports Act are specifically designed to assist enforcement of the confiscation Act. Sections 6(2)(b), 6A(3)(b), 7(1)(b)(ii), and 7A(3)(b) all refer to information that "may be of assistance in the enforcement of the Crime (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1993". Section 8(2) provides a deeming provision for the purposes of Part 6A of the confiscation Act (which deals with production orders). The two Acts are closely linked - the reporting regime feeds directly into asset confiscation efforts.

Administrative Arrangements Act 1990 (Tas). Section 11 of the Act provides that until an order is made under the Administrative Arrangements Act, the administration of the Act is assigned to the Minister for Justice and the Department of Justice. This is a transitional provision that likely remains operative if no order has been made. The practical effect is that the Department of Justice (presumably through its police portfolio) oversees the Act.

Legal professional privilege. Section 10A provides that nothing in the Act affects the law relating to legal professional privilege. This is a savings clause that clarifies that the Act does not impliedly override privilege. A cash dealer or reporting entity that is a law firm or holds privileged documents may be able to resist a request under section 6A on grounds of privilege. The clause is "for the avoidance of doubt", so it would likely have been implied anyway.

State criminal law and evidence law. The Act does not replace or modify general criminal procedure or evidence law. It provides a specific information-gathering power that operates alongside search warrants, notices to produce, and summonses. However, the information obtained under the Act may be used as evidence, subject to the usual rules. Section 10(3) prevents a court from compelling disclosure of protected information unless necessary for enforcement of laws.

Privacy and secrecy laws. The secrecy provision (section 10) overrides general privacy obligations for police, but only within its terms. For cash dealers and reporting entities, the Act does not create a state-based secrecy duty; they remain subject to Commonwealth secrecy obligations under the AMLCTF Act and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). The protection from liability (section 8) does not exempt entities from civil liability for breaches of privacy, only for actions required under the Act.

The Act received royal assent in 1993 (Act No. 16 of 1993). Based on the source text, the only amendment recorded in the body of the Act is by No. 61 of 2013, applied 1 March 2014. That amendment significantly modernised the Act. It inserted the definition of "AMLCTF Act" and "designated authority", and amended the definition of protected information. It inserted new sections 6A (further information about reporting entity reports), 7A (further information about suspect transactions), and 10A (legal professional privilege savings). It amended section 6 to refer to the AUSTRAC CEO instead of the previous "Director" or other authority. It substituted section 7(1) and (2) to broaden the trigger (originally it only applied when a cash dealer was not required to report under Division 2 of Part II of the FTR Act; the amendment added the AMLCTF Act provisions). It also substituted section 8(2) to include the new sections and to refer to "entity" instead of "cash dealer". The amendment reflected the Commonwealth's shift from the FTR Act to the AMLCTF Act in 2006, meaning there was a seven-year gap between the Commonwealth change and the Tasmanian update. During that period, the Act would have applied only to cash dealers under the FTR Act, not to reporting entities under the AMLCTF Act.

The Act's commencement was dependent on proclamation (section 2). No proclamation date is given in the source text, but the amendment history shows it has been in force since at least 2014. The original commencement was likely in 1993 or 1994. The Act does not have a sunset clause.

There are no other amendment annotations in the source. However, the penalty unit values are automatically updated under separate legislation. Practitioners should check for more recent amendment Acts (e.g., the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas) penalty unit updates). The source is current to 12 April 2026 according to the URL, but it may not include amendments made after that date.

The source text provided does not record any litigation history for this Act. No cases are cited in the legislation. The Act has likely been considered in Tasmanian criminal appeals, confiscation proceedings, and possibly in interlocutory matters concerning the validity of requests for further information, but specific decisions are not available from the source. Counsel should search the Tasmanian Law Reports, AustLII, and Commonwealth Law Reports for any references to the Act. Given that the Act is a state supplement to a Commonwealth regime, litigation may be sparse because most substantive issues (reporting obligations, suspicion tests, privilege) are litigated under the Commonwealth Acts, which have broader application. However, the Tasmanian Act's specific provisions on further information requests and the secrecy obligations on police could be tested. There may be applications for judicial review of a designated authority's request, or defence arguments that information was obtained in breach of section 10 and should be excluded. The protection from liability in section 8 may have been invoked to resist defamation or contract claims arising from reports. No such cases are known from the source.

1. Mistaken belief protection is limited. Section 8 protects an entity or person for anything done in the mistaken belief that it was required under the Act. But this only applies if the belief was genuine and the act was done under that belief. If a cash dealer reports a transaction that is clearly not required (e.g. the designated authority's request was invalid because it did not relate to an investigation arising from an AUSTRAC communication), the protection still applies if the cash dealer honestly believed it was required. However, the protection does not extend to acts done negligently or recklessly without any belief. The "required under this Act" phrasing may also exclude voluntary disclosures not connected to a specific request or reporting obligation. If a cash dealer reports a transaction that is not suspect and not requested, the Act does not require it, and the protection may not apply.

2. The suspect transaction duty applies only to cash dealers, not reporting entities. Section 7 refers only to "a cash dealer". Reporting entities are not covered by this section. This is a gap: if a business is a reporting entity under the AMLCTF Act but not a cash dealer under the FTR Act (e.g. a gambling provider), it does not have a duty under section 7 to report suspect transactions that are not already reportable under the Commonwealth regime. However, it may still have Commonwealth reporting obligations. The definition of cash dealer in the FTR Act may be narrower than reporting entity in the AMLCTF Act.

3. The further information request must relate to an investigation arising from or relating to matters in the AUSTRAC communication. The definition of "designated authority" includes a police officer carrying out an investigation "arising from, or relating to matters referred to in, information communicated to the AUSTRAC CEO". This means the police officer must be investigating something that originates from the AUSTRAC report. A request that is simply a fishing expedition not tied to that communication is ultra vires. However, the officer can argue that the request is "relating to matters referred to in" the communication, which is a broad connection.

4. No definition of "as soon as practicable" in section 7(2). The obligation to report a suspect transaction is immediate after forming the suspicion. There is no statutory period. A cash dealer that delays reporting for a week while verifying facts could be held to have breached the duty if the delay is not justified by the circumstances. This creates uncertainty and potential liability if a court later determines the delay was not "as soon as practicable".

5. The secrecy provision (section 10) does not apply to cash dealers or reporting entities. Only the Commissioner of Police and police officers are bound by it. This means that an employee of a bank who records or divulges protected information is not committing an offence under this Act (though they may breach Commonwealth secrecy provisions or the Privacy Act). Conversely, a police officer who discusses a suspect transaction report with a fellow officer not involved in the investigation may commit an offence.

6. Legal professional privilege may be claimed but not automatically recognised. Section 10A says the Act does not affect the law of legal professional privilege. But if a cash dealer or reporting entity receives a request for further information under section 6A and claims privilege over documents, the designated authority may still press the issue, and the entity may need to obtain a court ruling. The Act does not provide a mechanism for independent review of privilege claims; the entity may be forced to produce or risk prosecution for non-compliance. In practice, a cautious entity should obtain legal advice and, if necessary, seek declaratory relief.

7. Penalties are criminal, not civil. The Act creates criminal offences, not civil penalties. This means the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. However, it also means individuals can be imprisoned. A company cannot be imprisoned, but its directors could be personally liable if they were knowingly concerned in the offence. The maximum fine of $215,000 (1,000 penalty units for false statements) is significant but may be small relative to the cost of compliance for large financial institutions, creating a potential for rational non-compliance if the chance of detection is low.

8. The Act does not require the designated authority to give reasons for a request. The request under section 6A must be in writing and state the period and manner for compliance, but it does not need to specify which investigation or the relevance grounds. The cash dealer or reporting entity may have no way to verify the validity of the request. If they refuse on grounds that the request does not appear to relate to an investigation, they risk prosecution. This incentivises rubber-stamping compliance rather than challenging potentially invalid requests.

For a cash dealer or reporting entity subject to the Act, compliance requires systematic integration with existing Commonwealth AML/CTF programs.

1. Identify reportable positions. Determine whether the entity is both a cash dealer under the FTR Act and a reporting entity under the AMLCTF Act. If it is only a cash dealer, the suspect transaction reporting duty under section 7 applies. If it is a reporting entity but not a cash dealer, section 7 does not apply, but sections 6A and 7A do.

2. Train staff on suspect transaction identification. Staff who handle transactions should be trained to identify red flags that may be relevant to state offences (e.g. tax evasion, drug trafficking, fraud) and to escalate matters promptly. The suspicion must be reasonable and grounded in objective facts. A subjective hunch is not enough. The entity should document the grounds of suspicion when they arise, as section 7(3)(c) requires the report to contain a statement of those grounds.

3. Establish a reporting procedure. When a suspicion is formed, the cash dealer must prepare a report and communicate its contents to the AUSTRAC CEO as soon as practicable. The report must use the form approved by the AUSTRAC CEO (the same as for an AMLCTF Act suspicious matter report) and comply with the AML/CTF Rules. The communication should be made by providing a copy of the report to AUSTRAC or in another approved way. The entity should also retain a copy of the report and the grounds for suspicion for its own records and for any subsequent requests.

4. Respond to designated authority requests. If a request for further information is received from the Commissioner of Police or an investigating police officer, the entity must respond within the period stated (if the request is made under section 6A, it must be in writing). For requests under sections 6 or 7A, the Act does not specify a time limit, but the duty to comply is immediate. The entity should verify that the request is from a designated authority (police officer investigating a matter arising from AUSTRAC information) and that the information requested is relevant to a state offence or confiscation. If there is doubt, seek legal advice. Do not ignore the request; failure to comply is an offence.

5. Manage false statement risk. Ensure that all information provided under the Act (whether in reports or in response to requests) is accurate and not misleading. Implement a verification process. If information is incomplete or uncertain, state that clearly rather than omitting qualifiers. Section 9 requires knowledge of falsity or misleading omission, but a pattern of reckless inaccuracies could support an inference of knowledge.

6. Secrecy and confidentiality. Although the Act does not impose a secrecy duty on cash dealers or reporting entities, entities should be aware that the information they provide to AUSTRAC is subject to Commonwealth secrecy provisions. Internally, restrict access to report information to staff who need it to comply. Do not disclose to the customer that a report has been made, as that may constitute tipping-off under the AMLCTF Act.

7. Record keeping. Retain records of all requests received, responses given, and the grounds for any suspicion reports. The Act does not specify a retention period, but the Commonwealth AML/CTF Rules generally require retention for seven years. Comply with the longer period.

8. Review and update policies. Since the Act incorporates definitions from the FTR Act and AMLCTF Act by reference, any amendment to those Commonwealth Acts automatically affects the Tasmanian Act. A change to the definition of "cash dealer" could expand or contract the reporting duty under section 7. Regularly review Commonwealth and state changes.

9. Seek independent legal advice on privilege. If a request under section 6A or 7A calls for documents or information that may be subject to legal professional privilege, do not automatically produce them. Claim privilege and, if the designated authority insists, seek declaratory relief from the court. Section 10A preserves privilege, but the Act does not provide a mechanism to delay compliance pending a determination. The entity may need to balance the risk of prosecution for non-compliance against the risk of waiving privilege.

10. Do not rely on section 8 protection for acts not required. The protection from liability is only for acts that were required under the Act or done in the mistaken belief they were required. If an entity goes beyond what the Act requires (e.g. publishing a customer's details), the protection does not apply. Stay within the bounds of the request or the reporting obligation.