Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2026; Second Reading

Smith argued that organised crime relies on money laundering to sustain operations, and the bill would disrupt this by allowing AUSTRAC to restrict high-risk mechanisms. Smith noted the rapid growth of crypto ATMs from 23 six years ago to 2,000 today, creating untraceable pathways for illicit funds. Smith emphasised that the bill updated terrorism financing definitions to include state-sponsored terrorism, aligning with recent Criminal Code amendments. Smith stated the reforms were risk-based and would not penalise legitimate cryptocurrency investors.

Ambihaipahar highlighted the convergence of threats, including terrorism, organised crime, and foreign interference, citing the Adass Israel Synagogue attack and the Dural caravan incident as examples. Ambihaipahar argued that crypto ATMs provided an invisible pipeline for criminals, with 99 per cent of transactions involving cash deposits. Ambihaipahar stressed that the bill gave AUSTRAC the power to restrict high-risk mechanisms subject to public interest tests and parliamentary scrutiny. Ambihaipahar clarified that the legislation targeted criminal exploitation rather than legitimate cryptocurrency use.

Roberts argued that the bill protected the integrity of the financial system and supported honest businesses by preventing criminal undercutting. Roberts highlighted the new power for AUSTRAC to restrict high-risk products, noting that criminals adapt quickly and laws must keep pace. Roberts emphasised the importance of transitional rules and consultation processes to help small businesses and community organisations comply with new obligations. Roberts stated the reforms were necessary to detect and disrupt terrorism financing and money laundering effectively.

Moncrieff argued that national security threats were converging, with organised crime and state-sponsored terrorism sharing financial infrastructure. Moncrieff noted that Australia ranked third globally for crypto ATMs, which facilitated approximately $275 million in annual transactions, mostly cash deposits. Moncrieff explained that the bill updated the definition of terrorism financing to align with new offences for financing state sponsors of terrorism. Moncrieff stated the reforms provided regulatory certainty and closed gaps that allowed criminals to exploit the financial system.

Briskey described how scammers targeted seniors, coercing them to deposit cash into crypto ATMs under false pretences. Briskey noted that 85 per cent of high-value crypto ATM users were scam victims or money mules, with Australians aged 50 to 70 accounting for nearly three-quarters of the value. Briskey argued that the bill allowed AUSTRAC to act across entire sectors rather than targeting operators individually, which was too slow. Briskey emphasised that the legislation included safeguards, including consultation and parliamentary oversight, to ensure proportionate responses.

Sitou argued that money laundering was the financial engine of serious crime, inflicting as much as $60 billion of damage on the Australian community. Sitou highlighted the rapid increase in crypto ATMs, which made it difficult to trace stolen funds, particularly in scam cases. Sitou stated that the bill targeted risk rather than banning cryptocurrency, allowing AUSTRAC to restrict high-risk channels where significant harm was evident. Sitou emphasised that the reforms included safeguards and were necessary to keep pace with evolving criminal tactics.

lead

Stanley argued that the bill addresses the rapid evolution of financial technology, which facilitates money laundering through crypto ATMs. Stanley noted that Australia has a high number of these machines, with approximately 150,000 transactions annually totalling $250 million, mostly involving cash deposits. The legislation empowers the AUSTRAC CEO to impose sector-wide restrictions on high-risk products when existing powers are insufficient. Stanley emphasised that the measures target criminal exploitation rather than legitimate cryptocurrency investors. Stanley highlighted that the framework includes a mandatory consultation period and considers public interest factors before imposing restrictions.