Federal Court of Australia

Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre v Princeton Securities (NSW) Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 687

ORDERS

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. By failing to give the AUSTRAC CEO a report relating to Princeton’s compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (Act), the regulations and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1) (Rules) within the lodgment period of 1 January 2024 to 1 April 2024 for the reporting period of 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023, Princeton contravened s 47(2) of the Act.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2. Princeton pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $45,000 pursuant to s 175(1) of the Act.

3. Princeton pay the applicant’s costs in the amount of $5,000.

4. In the event the pecuniary penalty is not paid, the applicant has leave to relist the proceeding for the entry of judgment.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript)

LEE J:

A    INTRODUCTION

1 The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) commenced proceedings against Princeton Securities (NSW) Pty Ltd (Princeton) seeking a declaration that, by failing to give the CEO of AUSTRAC a report relating to Princeton’s compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) (Act) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Instrument 2007 (No. 1), Princeton contravened s 47(2) of the Act. The CEO of AUSTRAC also seeks an order that Princeton pay a pecuniary penalty to the Commonwealth pursuant to s 175(1) of the Act.

2 The parties have sensibly, in my view, prepared joint submissions explaining why they have agreed that the appropriate remedial response to Princeton’s failure to provide the required report should be that Princeton pay a pecuniary penalty in the amount of $45,000 and agreed costs in the amount of $5,000.

3 There is little utility in rehearsing the joint submissions, save as to record the facts concerning Princeton’s failure to provide the report, which are as follows:

14.    Princeton failed to give the AUSTRAC CEO an AML/CTF Compliance Report within the lodgment period of 1 January 2024 to 1 April 2024 (Lodgment Period) for the reporting period of 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 (Reporting Period), and thereby contravened s 47(2) of the Act.

15.    The factual matters that support the finding of Princeton’s contravention of s 47(2) of the Act are set out in the [Statement of Agreed Facts and Admissions]. Those matters can be summarised as follows.

16.    On 5 August 2014:

(a)    Princeton applied for enrolment on the Reporting Entities Roll in accordance with sub-sections 51B(1) and 51E(1) of the Act by submitting an AUSTRAC Business Profile Form (ABPF) which declared that it had begun providing designated services on 1 March 2014; and

(b)    in accordance with section 51D of the Act, the AUSTRAC CEO entered Princeton’s name and enrolment details on the Reporting Entities Roll.

17.    On 6 August 2014, Princeton submitted an updated ABPF correcting a typographical error in its business name.

18.    Princeton provided the AUSTRAC CEO with AML/CTF Compliance Reports for the years ending 31 December 2014, 31 December 2015, 31 December 2016, 31 December 2018, 31 December 2019, 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2021. No AML/CTF Compliance Report was provided by Princeton for the year ending 31 December 2017 because AUSTRAC temporarily suspended the requirement to do so. Princeton accepts that AUSTRAC relied on the AML/CTF Compliance Reports it provided in the above years.

19.    At no point from 6 August 2014 to the end of the Relevant Period did Princeton notify the AUSTRAC CEO in accordance with the requirements of section 51F of the Act that it had ceased providing designated services.

20.    There was no other basis on which Princeton was excused from giving the AUSTRAC CEO an AML/CTF Compliance Report within the Lodgment Period.

21.    As a result of the matters referred to at paragraphs 16 to 20 above, on 2 April 2024 (being the day after the last day of the Lodgment Period) Princeton admits that it contravened section 47(2) of the Act by failing to give an AML/CTF Compliance Report to the AUSTRAC CEO during the Lodgment Period (Contravention).

B.4 Infringement Notice

22.    On 3 September 2024, an AUSTRAC authorised officer issued Princeton with an infringement notice related to the Contravention (Infringement Notice) by sending a copy of the notice to Princeton’s registered address. The Infringement Notice required payment of $18,780 by no later than 9 October 2024.

23.    Princeton did not pay the Infringement Notice by 9 October 2024 and the Infringement Notice has not been withdrawn.

…

(Footnotes omitted).

B    THE RELEVANT LAW

4 Of course, the mere fact that a penalty has been jointly proposed does not relieve the Court’s obligation to be satisfied it is appropriate. That said, it is consistent with principle and highly desirable in practice for the Court to accept the parties’ proposal and impose the proposed penalty. The Court asks whether their proposal can be accepted as fixing an appropriate amount and for that purpose the Court must satisfy itself that the submitted penalty is appropriate: Commonwealth v Director [2015] HCA 46; (2015) 258 CLR 482 (at 504 [48] per French CJ, Kiefel, Bell, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

5 There is a strong public interest in imposing jointly proposed pecuniary penalties. The sensible approach of agreeing on a proposed penalty, no doubt urged upon Princeton by highly experienced legal practitioners, saves the court considerable time and substantially facilitates the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions to facilitate the just resolution of disputes as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible: s 37M(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act).

6 For reasons which will become apparent, it is important to consider the principles applicable in circumstances where a contravener is part of a broader corporate structure. The court may take account of that structure in assessing the extent to which the penalty achieves deterrence: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HCF Life Insurance Company Pty Limited (Penalty) [2025] FCA 454 (at [94] per Jackman J).

7 While the financial resources of the other entities in the relevant group do not alone justify a higher penalty than might otherwise be imposed, those resources are relevant to considering the size of the penalty to achieve the objective of deterrence: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 330; (2015) 327 ALR 540 (at 560 [92] per Allsop CJ).

C    CONSIDERATION

8 Having been sufficiently persuaded of the accuracy of the parties’ agreement as to the facts and consequences, I am satisfied the jointly proposed penalty falls within the permissible range of appropriate penalties, bearing in mind that there is no single appropriate penalty: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2021] FCAFC 49; (2021) 284 FCR 24 (at 44–46 [124]–[131] per Wigney, Beach and O’Bryan JJ).

9 I recognise that the proposed penalty is likely the result of compromise on behalf of the regulator and reflects its considered estimation of the penalty necessary to achieve deterrence and the risks and expense of the litigation had it not been settled: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (at 45 [129] per Wigney, Beach and O’Bryan JJ). This case is an acute example, it seems to me, where the public policy consideration of predictability in outcome provides a compelling reason for the Court to accept the proposed penalty: Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (at 45–46 [131] per Wigney, Beach and O’Bryan JJ). A fortiori, where the respondent is represented by experienced counsel.

10 It is worth noting that the Princeton Group has undertaken to pay the agreed penalty on behalf of Princeton. In those circumstances, the parties jointly submitted that the Court should consider the financial position of the other entities within the Princeton Group, specifically Princeton Financial Services Pty Ltd (PFS), in determining the proposed penalty. PFS is one of the two trading entities in the Princeton Group providing designated services (the other being Princeton Securities Australasia Pty Ltd (PSA)), and is the only one of the two that makes a profit or loss.

11 The submissions identified that PFS made a profit of $192,523 in the 2025 financial year. In being satisfied that the jointly proposed penalty falls within the permissible range, I have taken into account that the proposed penalty represents slightly less than one quarter of that profit.

12 In reaching the above conclusions, I have had regard to what I consider to be “all relevant matters” in determining the appropriate penalty, as required by s 175(3) of the Act. The matters the subject of the mandatory considerations in s 175(3) have been thoroughly canvassed in the joint submissions.

D    CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

13 It is unnecessary for me to rehearse the principles informing the Court’s discretionary power to make declarations under s 21 of the FCA Act. It suffices to recognise the utility of declarations which set out the particular liability found and the basis for the penalties ordered: see, for example, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Axis International Management Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 852; (2009) 178 FCR 485 (at 491–496 [26]–[43] per Gilmour J); Rural Press Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] HCA 75; (2003) 216 CLR 53 (at 92 [95] per Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

14 For the reasons set out above, I will make the declaration and orders proposed by the parties.

Associate:

Dated:    1 June 2026