Bills Digest No. 57, 2017–18
PDF version [252KB]
Cat Barker
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section
6
December 2017
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Huang (2016)
Hart & Ors (2016)
Money laundering through real estate
and high value goods
Committee consideration
Senate Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs
Senate Standing Committee on the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Unexplained wealth
Proceeds and instruments of an
offence
Property and wealth partly derived or
realised from the commission of an offence
Date introduced: 18
October 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Justice
Commencement: The
day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at December 2017.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds
and Other Matters) Bill 2017 (the Bill) are to:
- amend
key terms and definitions in the Proceeds of Crime
Act 2002 (the PoC Act) relating to when property
becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence,
and when property or wealth has been lawfully acquired, and
- expand
the grounds on which orders relating to unexplained wealth can be made under
the PoC Act.
Background
The PoC Act provides the Commonwealth scheme to
trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime. There are several
mechanisms through which assets may be confiscated, including conviction-based
(criminal forfeiture), non-conviction based (civil forfeiture), and unexplained
wealth orders.
The Government has proposed the amendments in the Bill primarily
in response to two recent court decisions affecting the interpretation of the PoC
Act: Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Huang [2016]
WASC 5 (Huang) and Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v
Hart & Ors [2016] QCA 215 (Hart & Ors).[1]
Huang
(2016)
Section 94 of the PoC Act allows a person whose
property is subject to a restraining order and will be automatically forfeited
because the person has been convicted of a serious offence to which the
restraining order relates, to apply to the court to have property excluded from
forfeiture. The court must make an order excluding particular property from
forfeiture if it is satisfied of certain matters, including that ‘the applicant’s
interest in the property was lawfully acquired’.[2]
In Huang, the Court considered an application under section 94 of the PoC
Act to exclude certain property of Mr Ly. The Court considered that
the source of funds used by Mr Ly to repay the loan he took out in 2005 to
acquire a property was not relevant to whether that property was ‘lawfully
acquired’ (despite the possibility that those funds were not lawfully
acquired).[3]
In response to Huang, Parliament passed amendments
to the definition of lawfully acquired in the PoC Act that
were intended to ensure that ‘where illegitimate funds are used to discharge a
legitimately obtained security (such as a mortgage), property or wealth
obtained using this security is not considered “lawfully acquired”’.[4]
Hart &
Ors (2016)
In Hart & Ors, the Court considered, among
other matters, if the source of funds used for repairs and restoration of
assets, or to repay a mortgage acquired after a property was purchased, was
relevant to determining whether those assets had been derived from unlawful
activity. The majority held that the source of funds used for repairing or
restoring assets would not normally be relevant in determining whether the
assets were derived from unlawful activity.[5]
The Explanatory Memorandum contends that this outcome ‘may implicitly prevent’
the seizure of property where illicit funds have been used for payments on
mortgages taken out after an initial purchase or to pay for improvements to the
property.[6]
Money
laundering through real estate and high value goods
Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism
financing regulator and financial intelligence unit, the Australian Transaction
Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), published a strategic analysis brief on
money laundering through real estate in 2015. Included among the ten methods
outlined in that report are the use of loans and mortgages to layer and
integrate illicit funds into high value assets such as real estate, and the use
of illicit funds to pay for renovations and improvements that increase the
value of property (which may be legally owned), before selling it at a higher
price.[7]
The way that the PoC Act has been interpreted in the cases outlined
above could mean that assets acquired (either wholly or in part) through the
use of such methods are nonetheless taken to be lawfully acquired and therefore
not subject to confiscation. In his second reading speech for the Bill, the
Minister argued:
These amendments are necessary as recent developments in case
law have indicated that a person's interest in property is fixed at the moment
of initial acquisition, and that any subsequent payments on the property are
irrelevant to determining if the property is lawfully acquired or derived from
crime.
This is a loophole that could allow organised crime groups to
use a web of financial arrangements and asset protection structures to avoid
forfeiture of property. For example: criminals may be able to avoid the current
proceeds of crime regime by funnelling money into ongoing property maintenance
and restoration costs, mortgage repayments and improvements.
The existence of this loophole is contrary to the central
purpose of the Act, which is to undermine the profitability of criminal
enterprise.[8]
The Bill will build on the amendments to the PoC Act
passed in 2016 by amending key terms and definitions relating to when property
becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence, and when property or wealth
has been lawfully acquired. It will also expand the grounds on which orders
relating to unexplained wealth can be made to include instances where the whole
or any part of a person’s wealth was derived or realised, directly or
indirectly, from the commission of certain offences.
Committee
consideration
Senate
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report. A reporting date
had not been set at the time of publication of this digest, but the deadline
for submissions is 21 December 2017.[9]
Details of the inquiry are at the inquiry
homepage.
Senate
Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills
reported on the Bill on 15 November 2017.[10]
The Committee commented on item 14 of Schedule 1 to the Bill,
which will provide that the substantive amendments apply after commencement,
but to property and wealth acquired, derived or realised through certain means,
including the commission of an offence, before or after commencement. The
Explanatory Memorandum states that applying the amendments in this way is:
... necessary to ensure that relevant orders are not frustrated
by requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain evidence of, and prove, the
precise point in time at which certain property or wealth was derived,
acquired , or became tainted...
Such a requirement would be unnecessarily onerous and would
be contrary to the objects of the Act, as it will be practically impossible to
satisfy in complex cases of fraud or money laundering.[11]
The Committee noted the justification set out in the
Explanatory Memorandum, but remained concerned about retrospectivity of the amendments.
It reiterated its concern that provisions that apply retrospectively ‘challenge
a basic value of the rule of law’ and left the question on the appropriateness
of the application provisions in item 14 to the Senate as a whole.[12]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of publication of this Digest, there was no
public indication of the policy position of any non‑government parties
and independents on the Bill.
Position of
major interest groups
Major interest groups did not appear to have publicly
stated their positions on the Bill as at the date of this Digest.
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Bill will have
no financial impact.[13]
As the Bill is intended to narrow the circumstances in which property or wealth
is taken to be lawfully acquired for the purposes of the PoC Act, it may
result in amounts forfeited to the Commonwealth under the Act being higher than
would otherwise have been the case.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[14]
Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reported
on the Bill on 28 November 2017.[15]
The Committee restated its concerns about the PoC Act more broadly and
recommended that the Government undertake a detailed assessment of the PoC
Act to determine its compatibility with the right to a fair trial and the
right to a fair hearing.[16]
Turning to the amendments proposed in the Bill, the
Committee sought the Minister’s advice on:
- whether
the freezing, restraint or forfeiture powers that will be broadened by the
amendments to provisions affecting when property becomes proceeds or an
instrument of an offence may be characterised as criminal for the purposes of
international human rights law
- the
extent to which those amendments are compatible with criminal process
guarantees set out in articles 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- whether
the limitation on the right to privacy that will result from those amendments
(specifically, the right not to be subject to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with a person’s home) is proportionate to the objective of
ensuring that criminals are unable to restructure their affairs so as to avoid
the operation of the PoC Act and
- whether
the amendments relating to unexplained wealth are compatible with the right to
a fair trial and the right to a fair hearing, including:
- whether
they may be characterised as criminal for the purposes of international human
rights law and
- the
extent to which those amendments are compatible with criminal process
guarantees set out in articles 14 and 15 of the ICCPR.[17]
Key issues
and provisions
Unexplained
wealth
The unexplained wealth provisions in Part 2.6 of the PoC
Act, enacted in 2010, enable a court to issue an order unless the subject
of proceedings can establish, on the balance of probabilities, that his or her
wealth was lawfully acquired. An assessment is made of the difference between
the person’s total wealth and the amount shown to be derived lawfully, and the
subject of the order must pay that amount to the Commonwealth.[18]
The PoC Act provides for three types of orders relating
to unexplained wealth:
- unexplained
wealth restraining orders (under Part 2.1, section 20A), which restrict a
person’s ability to dispose of or otherwise deal with property if certain
thresholds are met (see below)
- preliminary
unexplained wealth orders (Part 2.6, section 179B), which require a person to
attend court for the purpose of enabling the court to decide whether to make an
unexplained wealth order on the grounds that the person’s total wealth exceeds
the value of the person’s wealth that was lawfully acquired and
- unexplained
wealth orders (Part 2.6, section 179E), which require a person to pay the
amount determined by the court to be the difference between the person’s total
wealth and that which has been lawfully acquired, reduced by any amount
previously deducted for forfeiture or pecuniary penalties (section 179J).[19]
A court must make an unexplained wealth restraining order
if all of the criteria set out in paragraphs 20A(1)(c)–(g) are met. The
criterion at paragraph 20A(1)(g) is that there are reasonable grounds to
suspect that:
- the
person has committed an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a foreign
indictable offence or a State offence that has a federal aspect and/or
- the
whole or any part of the person’s wealth was derived from such an offence.[20]
Item 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill will
expand subparagraph 20A(g)(ii) so that the threshold will be met if there
are reasonable grounds to suspect that the whole or any part of the person’s
wealth was derived or realised, directly or indirectly, from an offence
against a law of the Commonwealth, a foreign indictable offence or a State
offence that has a federal aspect (emphasis added).
Items 4 and 5 will make equivalent
amendments relating to (final) unexplained wealth orders by amending subsections 179E(1),
(2) and (3).
Items 1 and 3 will make consequential
amendments to sections 5 (principal objects of the Act) and 179A (simplified
outline of Part 2.6) respectively.
These amendments align the requirements for unexplained
wealth orders more closely to those for other types of orders that may be made
under the PoC Act, which rely on the defined terms proceeds
and instrument of an offence.[21]
Subsection 329(1) of the PoC Act provides that property is proceeds
of an offence if it is wholly or partly derived or realised, whether directly
or indirectly, from the commission of an offence (whether within or outside
Australia).
Proceeds
and instruments of an offence
The concepts of proceeds
and instruments of offences are fundamental to the operation of
the PoC Act. The definition of proceeds is noted above. Subsection 329(2)
of the PoC Act provides that property is an instrument of
an offence if it is:
-
used in, or in connection with, the commission of an offence or
-
intended to be used in, or in connection with, the commission of
an offence
whether within or outside
Australia.
Section 330 of the PoC Act sets out when
property becomes, remains and ceases to be proceeds or an instrument. Item 6
of Schedule 1 will repeal and replace subsections 330(1) and (2),
which set out when property becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence. Revised
subsections 330(1) and (2) will provide as follows:
(1) Property becomes proceeds
of an offence if:
(a) the property is
wholly or partly derived or realised from a disposal or other dealing with
*proceeds of the offence; or
(b) the property is
wholly or partly acquired using proceeds of the offence; or
(c) an *encumbrance
or a security on, or a liability incurred to acquire, retain, maintain or make
*improvements to, the property is wholly or partly discharged using proceeds of
the offence; or
(d) the costs of
retaining, maintaining or making improvements to the property are wholly or
partly met using proceeds of the offence; or
(e) the
property is improved using proceeds of the offence;
including because of one or more previous applications of
this section.
(2) Property
becomes an instrument of an offence if:
(a) the property is
wholly or partly derived or realised from the disposal or other dealing with an
*instrument of the offence; or
(b) the property
is wholly or partly acquired using an instrument of the offence; or
(c) an *encumbrance
or a security on, or a liability incurred to acquire, retain, maintain or make
*improvements to, the property is wholly or partly discharged using an
instrument of the offence; or
(d) the costs of
retaining, maintaining or making improvements to the property are wholly or
partly met using an instrument of the offence; or
(e) the
property is improved using an instrument of the offence;
including because of one or more previous applications of
this section.[emphasis added][22]
The means by which property becomes proceeds or an
instrument outlined in proposed paragraphs 330(1)(a) and (b) and 330(2)(a)
and (b) replicate those currently in subsections 330(1) and (2). Those
outlined in proposed paragraphs 330(1)(c)–(e) and 330(2)(c)–(e) (italicised
above) will be new. These amendments will expand the range of circumstances in
which something is taken, under the PoC Act, to become proceeds or an
instrument of crime, thereby increasing the scope of property that could be
restrained and confiscated.
The amendments are intended to address the issues that
arose in Huang and Hart & Ors by providing that property for
which some or all of the:
- loan
repayments (including for loans taken out after the initial purchase, such as a
second mortgage) or
- costs
of retaining, maintaining or making improvements
have been met from the proceeds or instruments of offences,
itself becomes proceeds or an instrument of crime, as does property which is
directly improved using proceeds or an instrument of an offence.
Item 13 will insert a definition of
improvements into section 338 of the PoC Act. Improvements
to property or wealth will include additions, alterations, repairs,
restoration, structuring, restructuring or any other change to the whole or
part of the property or wealth, whether or not the change actually results in
an increase to the value of the property or wealth. The Explanatory Memorandum
states that the definition is ‘designed to ensure a person cannot avoid
operation of the term ‘improvements’ because the alterations did not actually
increase the value of the property’.[23]
This would accord with Morrison JA’s dissenting judgment in Hart &
Ors, where he considered:
The question whether something has been derived from unlawful
activity does not depend on the value added. It may be that considerable
expenditure has been outlaid on property without actually adding to its value.
That would not mean that the property had not been derived from the
expenditure. Instead the question involves an examination of the contributions
to the property or interest as part of the tracing back exercise, to see where
or how the property or interest, as it stands at forfeiture, arose.[24]
The Explanatory Memorandum provides examples of what is
intended to be captured by the amended provisions, including an example of how
proceeds could be used directly to improve a property:
For example, where a person fraudulently obtains the
materials used to make a garage from the Commonwealth Government, these
materials will likely constitute ‘proceeds’ of crime under subsection
329(1). If the person subsequently uses the material to build a garage on their
property, the property will now also constitute the ‘proceeds’ of an
offence under paragraph 330(1)(e).[emphasis in original][25]
Item 11 will insert proposed subsections 330(7)
and (8) to clarify that paragraphs 330(1)(a)–(e) and (2)(a)–(e) do not
limit each other and that section 330 does not limit section 329 (in
which proceeds and instrument are defined).
Item 12 will repeal and replace
paragraph (c) of the definition of lawfully acquired in
section 336A of the PoC Act (inserted in 2016 to address the
issue that arose in Huang) so that property or wealth will be lawfully
acquired only if:
(a) the property or wealth was lawfully acquired; and
(b) the consideration given for the property or wealth was
lawfully acquired; and
(c) the property or wealth is not *proceeds or an
*instrument of an offence.
The repealed paragraph was intended to deal with
situations in which securities on, or liabilities incurred to acquire or
retain, property or wealth were discharged with illicit funds. The definition
as amended will instead draw on the definitions of proceeds and instrument in
section 329 and the guidance on when property becomes, remains and ceases
to be proceeds or an instrument in section 330 as amended by item 6.
Property
and wealth partly derived or realised from the commission of an offence
The Bill will expand definitions relating to when property
or wealth becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence, and narrow the scope
of what is taken to be lawfully acquired. As is currently the case, property
will be proceeds of an offence if it has been wholly or partly derived or
realised from the commission of an offence. Likewise, unexplained wealth orders
will be able to be made where the whole or part of a person’s wealth was derived
or realised from the commission of an offence.
However, this does not mean that where property or wealth has
been only partly derived or realised from the commission of an offence, all of
the property or wealth will be subject to restraint and confiscation. There are
differences between the provisions in the PoC Act that govern orders
relating to unexplained wealth and those that govern other types of orders.
However, in both cases, restraining orders may be made in relation to all or
specified property of a person, and there is scope for property to be excluded
from orders.[26]
[1]. Commissioner
of the Australian Federal Police v Huang (Huang) [2016]
WASC 5; Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Hart & Ors;
Flying Fighters Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia & Anor; Commonwealth of
Australia v Yak 3 Investments Pty Ltd & Ors (Hart & Ors)
(2016) 336 ALR 492, [2016]
QCA 215.
[2]. Proceeds of Crime
Act 2002 (PoC Act), section 94 and paragraph 94(1)(f).
[3]. Huang,
[149]–[158].
[4]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Law Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other
Measures) Bill 2016, p. 4. See further C Barker, Law
Enforcement Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016,
Bills digest, 38, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2016,
pp. 8–10. Amendments to the PoC Act in Schedule 3 to the Law Enforcement
Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Act 2016
commenced on 1 December 2016.
[5]. Hart
& Ors; see in particular [833] and [1108] (Douglas and Lyons JJ) and
[667]–[679] (Morrison JA, dissenting).
[6]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill
2017, p. 2.
[7]. Australian
Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), Money
laundering through real estate, Strategic analysis brief, AUSTRAC,
2015, pp. 7, 10. See further ‘Case 28—Front company helped suspect profit
from major conflict of interest’ in AUSTRAC, Typologies
and case studies report 2009, AUSTRAC, Canberra, 2009, pp. 44–5.
The money laundering cycle typically used to conceal the source of illicit
funds involves three stages: placement, layering and integration: AUSTRAC, Money
laundering in Australia 2011, AUSTRAC, Canberra, 2011, p. 9.
[8]. M Keenan,
‘Second
reading speech: Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill
2017’, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 October 2017,
p. 11031.
[9]. Senate
Standing Committee for Selection of Bills, Report,
13, 2017, 16 November 2017.
[10]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee), Scrutiny
digest, 13, 2017, The Senate, 15 November 2017,
pp. 46–8.
[11]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill
2017, pp. 14–15.
[12]. Scrutiny
of Bills Committee, Scrutiny
digest, op. cit., p. 48.
[13]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017,
p. 3.
[14]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 4 of the
Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[15]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), Report,
12, 2017, 28 November 2017, pp. 34–42.
[16]. Ibid.,
pp. 35–38. The Committee suggested but did not formally recommend that
such an assessment be undertaken when it considered the Law Enforcement
Legislation Amendment (State Bodies and Other Measures) Bill 2016: PJCHR, Report,
1, 2017, 16 February 2017, pp. 41–44.
[17]. Ibid.,
pp. 35–42.
[18]. PoC Act,
Part 2.6
[19]. A
court may refuse to make a preliminary unexplained wealth order if it is satisfied
that there are not reasonable grounds to suspect that the person’s total wealth
exceeds by $100,000 or more the value of the person’s wealth that was lawfully
acquired (subsection 179B(4)). It may refuse to make an unexplained wealth
order on the same basis, or if it is satisfied that it is not in the public
interest to make the order (subsection 179E(6)).
[20]. Foreign
indictable offence and State offence that has a federal aspect
are defined in sections 337A and 338 of the PoC Act respectively.
Unexplained wealth laws do not generally require proof of a link to a specific
offence. However, due to the need for a connection with a constitutional head
of power, in practice, the Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime requires a
connection to be made to a specific offence or fairly specific type of offence
in order to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. See further C Barker, Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth and Other Measures) Bill 2014,
Bills digest, 57, 2013–14, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2014, pp. 4–5.
[21]. PoC
Act, sections 17, 18 and 19 (restraining orders in relation to people
convicted of or charged with indictable offences or suspected of committing
serious offences, and property suspected of being proceeds of certain offences)
and 47, 48 and 49 (forfeiture orders relating to conduct constituting serious
offences, convictions for indictable offences, and property suspected of being
proceeds of certain offences).
[22]. The
asterisks indicate terms that are defined in Chapter 6 of the PoC Act.
[23]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill
2017, p. 14.
[24]. Hart
& Ors, [670].
[25]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill
2017, p. 11. For other examples see pp. 11–12.
[26]. PoC
Act, Part 2.1 (restraining orders), Part 2.2 (forfeiture orders)
Part 2.3 (forfeiture on conviction of a serious offence) and Part 2.6
(unexplained wealth orders). See also, Explanatory
Memorandum, Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill
2017, pp. 7–8.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.