SMR case study examples

New AML/CTF reforms guidance has now been released. Until the laws change on 31 March 2026, we’ll maintain our guidance on existing obligations on these pages. 

To understand your obligations from 31 March onwards, please refer to our reforms guidance.

These case study examples demonstrate the importance of effective suspicious matter reporting in criminal investigations.

Offender structures $2.5 million over five years to evade tax

Using cash from his retail business, the offender systematically structured deposits totalling over A$2.5 million in an attempt to avoid transaction reporting requirements and evade tax. The resulting investigation was triggered by an SMR submitted by a bank. Read more

Online transactions lead to convictions for child sex offences

Financial transaction and suspicious matter reporting from four reporting entities helped to uncover numerous funds transfers to high-risk jurisdictions. A referral from AUSTRAC helped law enforcement target registered sex offenders travelling overseas to commit offences against children. Read more

Suspicious funds transfers reveal million dollar drug syndicate

An SMR submitted to AUSTRAC was key to dismantling an international drug syndicate operating in Australia. Authorities used this information to identify people and financial transactions of interest and to establish links between syndicate members. Two offenders were convicted. Read more

AUSTRAC data helped capture international cybercriminal

AUSTRAC used SMRs from reporting entities to identify an offender who had multiple Australian bank accounts under a false name and who was moving large, unexplained amounts of cash domestically and overseas. The offender was found to be an international fugitive, wanted for cybercrime and fraud-related offences in the US. He was charged and convicted. Read more 

Welfare recipients found with $100,000 cash and cannabis

The SMRs passed to authorities by AUSTRAC prompted a police investigation into the unexplained wealth of a married couple, who had substantial assets inconsistent with their declared income. The investigation resulted in three arrests, disruption of illicit drug supply, and the seizure of A$100,000 in cash, and other assets. Read more 

This guidance sets out how we interpret the Act, along with associated Rules and regulations. Australian courts are ultimately responsible for interpreting these laws and determining if any provisions of these laws are contravened. 

The examples and scenarios in this guidance are meant to help explain our interpretation of these laws. They’re not exhaustive or meant to cover every possible scenario.

This guidance provides general information and isn't a substitute for legal advice. This guidance avoids legal language wherever possible and it might include generalisations about the application of the law. Some provisions of the law referred to have exceptions or important qualifications. In most cases your particular circumstances must be taken into account when determining how the law applies to you.

Last updated: 16 Oct 2025
Page ID: 640

Was this page helpful?

Was this page helpful?
Please note that feedback you provide here will be used only for the purpose of improving our website. If you have a specific question about your AML/CTF obligations, please contact us.