Is this really about stopping fraud?

MONEY LAUNDERING REFORMS

Australia has ushered in one of the most significant overhauls of its ‘anti-money laundering’ regime in decades, with new laws coming into force on 1 July 2026 that extend existing regulatory obligations well beyond the banking sector.

The reforms expand Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Framework to cover a broad range of professional service providers, including lawyers, accountants, conveyancers, trust and company service providers, and real estate businesses.

[PHOTO – https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/criminal-justice/Pages/overview-of-the-amlctf-amendment-act.aspx]

The changes are designed to close “long-identified gaps in Australia’s financial crime defences” by bringing so-called ‘gatekeeper professions’ in the scope of regulation.

Until now, Australia’s AML regime primarily applied to banks, financial institutions, casinos, and some digital currency providers.

However, businesses that provide designated services under the expanded regime will now be required to comply with a range of obligations overseen by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), the country’s financial intelligence agency.

These obligations include enrolling with AUSTRAC, conducting ‘customer due diligence’, verifying client identities, assessing money laundering and ‘terrorism financing’ risks, maintaining internal compliance programmes, monitoring transactions, reporting ‘suspicious matters’, and retaining prescribed records.

Yes, a real estate agent will now be required to verify if you are potentially doing ‘shady business’ with your money, monitoring your financial situation and identity closely.

For many firms, particularly smaller legal and accounting practices that have not previously been subject to financial crime regulation, the reforms represent a substantial shift in day-to-day operations for compliance systems, staff training, and client onboarding procedures.

The changes are also likely to be noticeable for consumers and businesses engaging professional advisers.

Clients purchasing property, establishing companies or trusts, or undertaking other significant financial transactions may be asked to provide additional identification documents, explain the source of their funds or wealth, and more.

The reforms have been several years in the making and respond to longstanding criticism that Australia had failed to regulate sectors considered vulnerable to money laundering.

International bodies, including the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), have repeatedly highlighted Australia’s exclusion of legal, accounting, and real estate professionals from its AML framework – leaving us out of step with many comparable jurisdictions.

By extending the regime to these professions, the Australian government says it aims to improve its ability to ‘detect organised crime’, tax evasion, ‘corruption’, and ‘terrorism’.

But is this really all the reforms are intended for?

Or is there a deeper picture to what is going on here?

With one of the requirements being enrolment with AUSTRAC, individuals are likely to need a Digital ID – centralised through myID in practice – if acting on behalf of a business.

Many government online services now support or require myID for people acting on behalf of organisations.

Under the Digital ID Act 2024, using a Digital ID is generally voluntary, but there is an important exception where someone is accessing government services in a professional capacity on behalf of a business or organisation.

The business itself is not legally obliged by the AML reforms to adopt Digital ID.

However, the individual employee or authorised representative may need a myID to authenticate themselves when accessing AUSTRAC or related government services electronically, depending on how the organisation manages its government credentials.

It seems to me as if there has been a push in recent years to not only further camp down on the financial freedom of the individual, but to also put businesses in a stranglehold as a de-facto police squad responsible for monitoring their own clients.

If you want to run any business in Australia, the playing field continues to narrow in terms of professions not being targeted by heavy regulatory surveillance practices.

A key step to achieve as the government’s digital prisons are being set up all around us.

THE SCOPE OF CONTROL

For the past few years, one pillar of the Digital ID agenda has gone largely unnoticed.

This specific piece of the puzzle revolves around businesses in Australia.

For those who don’t know, company directors are now required to create a unique ‘identification number’ through myID that stays with them for life.

We have warned myGov would be the centralised hub for years on the website.

The reason? The government says it is to ‘crack down on illegal phoenixing’.

Director ID scheme has slowly taken over Australian businesses
RELATED FEATURE

The identification number, also known as ‘Director ID’, is a unique 15-digit identifier that existing company directors must have to avoid a civil penalty of up to $1.1 million.

When it was first released, more than 1 million people faced becoming ineligible to run companies as directors scrambled to meet the one month deadline for submission.

These ‘anti-money laundering’ changes, in my eyes, seem to funnel even more business owners towards digital identification and ‘cyber obligation’ practices.

They want to know who you are, and watch you.

They also now want you to watch your customers on behalf of them.

What a world we are heading towards, ladies and gentlemen.

Let’s not forget that authorities have been increasingly taking away rights, particularly in the online realm, under the pretext of ‘stopping crime’ for a while now.

This includes anti-encryption legislation, the Identify and Disrupt Bill, and much more.

Australia’s controversial online hacking legislation has passed
RELATED ARTICLE

In 2022, Victorian Police were granted new powers to seize cryptocurrency and digital assets from ‘criminals’, as well as compel platforms to hand over information about suspects.

Organised crime reforms in Victoria allow police to seize digital assets
RELATED ARTICLE

Is all of this really designed to solely ‘crack down on criminals’?

Are the government wanting more surveillance as a means to ‘protect us’?

I don’t believe so, and only a fool would.

This is about ensuring their deceptive systems exist indefinitely in the digital realm – inescapable by anyone who wishes to participate in functioning societies of the future.

What are your thoughts on these changes?

Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comment section below!