Federal Court of Australia

Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 7) [2026] FCA 860

ORDERS

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.    The fourth respondent, Brisbane Poker Pty Ltd, contravened s 15(2A) of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) by providing a prohibited interactive gambling service that had an Australian-customer link between 8 October 2020 and 10 March 2021; and, pursuant to s 15(2B), committed a separate contravention of s 15(2A) in respect of each day in that period (totalling 154 contraventions).

2.    The first respondent, Rhys Edward Jones, contravened s 15(2A) of the Interactive Gambling Act by providing a prohibited interactive gambling service that had an Australian-customer link between 8 October 2020 and 10 March 2021; and, pursuant to s 15(2B), committed a separate contravention of s 15(2A) in respect of each day in that period (totalling 154 contraventions).

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

3.    Pursuant to s 64B of the Interactive Gambling Act and s 82 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth), Brisbane Poker Pty Ltd pay to the Commonwealth within 28 days of the date of this Order, a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $15 million in respect of the contraventions identified in Declaration 1 above.

4.    Pursuant to s 64B of the Interactive Gambling Act and s 82 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act, Rhys Edward Jones pay to the Commonwealth within 28 days of the date of this Order, a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $9 million in respect of the contraventions identified in Declaration 2 above.

5.    Rhys Edward Jones be restrained for a period of five years from the date of this Order from providing a prohibited interactive gambling service that has an Australian-customer link, or aiding or abetting, counselling or procuring or being knowingly concerned in, or party to, the provision of such a service.

6.    Rhys Edward Jones and Brisbane Poker Pty Ltd pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding as between party and party in the sum of $663,000.

7.    Order 11 made on 3 April 2024 and Order 1 made on 22 October 2024, being interim non-publication and non-disclosure orders, be set aside.

8.    Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), and on the ground that it is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice (within the meaning of s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act), for a period of 30 years from the date of this order, the Court orders that:

(a)    the documents comprising Exhibit MP-4 to the affidavit of Terence Michael Potter sworn 5 July 2023;

(b)    the documents comprising Exhibit MP-6 of the affidavit of Terence Michael Potter sworn 5 July 2023;

(c)    the documents comprising Exhibit LK-5 to the affidavit of Laurie Matthew Korpi affirmed 17 November 2023;

(d)    the documents comprising Exhibit MRG-4 to the affidavit of Matthew Richard Garey affirmed 22 November 2023;

(e)    the applicant’s aide memoire dated 8 August 2024, showing complaints to the applicant cross-referred to credits and debits in PPPFish bank accounts; and

(f)    the applicant’s aide memoire dated 8 August 2024, showing transfers from the second respondent to the third respondent’s account,

are not to be published or otherwise disclosed, and may only be accessed from the Court file by a party to these proceedings and their legal representatives.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RANGIAH J:

1    In this proceeding, the applicant, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA), alleged that the respondents provided “prohibited interactive gambling services” that had Australian-customer links in contravention of s 15(2A) of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) (the IGA).

2    The ACMA alleged, in summary, that the respondents provided services which facilitated members of the public purchasing poker chips and playing poker online while gambling using those chips.

3    In Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 6) [2025] FCA 1477 (the liability judgment), I determined that the ACMA had proven its allegations against the first respondent, Rhys Edward Jones, and the fourth respondent, Brisbane Poker Pty Ltd (Brisbane Poker).

4    The third respondent is Brenton Lee Buttigieg. Mr Buttigieg has admitted ancillary liability for Mr Jones’ and Brisbane Poker’s contraventions of s 15(2A) of the IGA by his promotion of services they offered.

5    These reasons deal with questions of relief and penalty against Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker. I have delivered a separate judgment concerning the issue of relief and penalty against Mr Buttigieg in Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 8) [2026] FCA 861.

6    On 24 March 2026, a hearing was listed to determine the remaining issues of relief and penalty. There were no appearances by Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker. I ordered that the hearing proceed in their absence pursuant to r 30.21(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules). After the hearing had been conducted, I reserved my judgment.

7    I do not propose to repeat the findings set out in the liability judgment concerning the contraventions of Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker. It is necessary to read both sets of reasons together.

8    I generally accept the ACMA’s submissions concerning relief and penalty against Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker. For the reasons that follow, I will order that Mr Jones pay a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $9 million and that Brisbane Poker pay a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $15 million in respect of their contraventions.

Declaratory relief

9    This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the FCA Act). The relevant principles were summarised by Abraham J in Tax Practitioners Board v Van Dyke [2024] FCA 899 at [84]:

The power to grant declaratory relief pursuant to s 21 of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) “is a very wide one” and the court is “limited only by its discretion”. Three requirements need to be satisfied before making declarations: (1) the question must be a real and not a hypothetical or theoretical one; (2) the applicant must have a real interest in raising it; and (3) there must be a proper contradictor. That a party has chosen not to oppose a grant of particular declaratory relief is not an impediment to such relief being granted by the Court. Other factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion include: (a) whether the declaration will have any utility; (b) whether the proceeding involves a matter of public interest; and (c) whether the circumstances call for the marking of the Court’s disapproval of the contravening conduct.

(Citations omitted.)

10    In the liability judgment, I held that Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker contravened s 15(2A) of the IGA by providing a prohibited interactive gambling service with an Australian-customer link between 8 October 2020 and 10 March 2021.

11    A grant of declaratory relief would signal the Court’s disapproval of the contravening conduct, vindicate the ACMA’s claim that Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker contravened s 15(2A) of the IGA, make clear to the public the unlawful nature of the conduct the subject of these proceedings and deter other persons from contravening s 15(2A): see Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2017) 254 FCR 68 at [93].

12    It is appropriate to make the declaration sought by the ACMA.

Pecuniary penalties

13    Section 15(2A) of the IGA provides:

(2A)    A person must not provide a prohibited interactive gambling service that has an Australian-customer link (see section 8).

Civil penalty: 7,500 penalty units.

14    Section 64B(1) of the IGA provides that s 15(2A) is enforceable under Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (Cth) (the Regulatory Powers Act), which creates a framework for the use of civil penalties to enforce civil penalty provisions.

15    Under s 82(3) of the Regulatory Powers Act, if the Court is satisfied that the person has contravened a civil penalty provision, the Court may order the person to pay to the Commonwealth such pecuniary penalty for the contravention as the Court determines to be appropriate.

16    In determining the appropriate pecuniary penalty, s 82(6) of the Regulatory Powers Act requires the Court to take into account all relevant matters, including:

(a)    the nature and extent of the contravention;

(b)    the nature and extent of any loss or damage suffered because of the contravention;

(c)    the circumstances in which the contravention took place; and

(d)    whether the person has previously been found by a court (including a court in a foreign country) to have engaged in any similar conduct.

17    Other relevant factors may include:

(e)    the deliberateness of the contravention and the period over which it extended;

(f)    whether the contravention arose out of the conduct of senior management or at a lower level;

(g)    whether the company has a corporate culture conducive to compliance with the Act, as evidenced by educational programs and disciplinary or other corrective measures in response to an acknowledged contravention; and

(h)    whether the company has shown a disposition to cooperate with the authorities responsible for the enforcement of the Act in relation to the contravention.

(See Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson (2022) 274 CLR 450 (Pattinson) at [18]-[19].)

18    The maximum penalty set by Parliament is also relevant because it is an expression of the legislature’s policy concerning the seriousness of the proscribed conduct. Ordinarily, however, there must be, “some reasonable relationship between the theoretical maximum and the final penalty imposed”: see Pattinson at [53]-[55], from Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Ltd (2016) 340 ALR 25 at [156].

19    The determination of a civil penalty involves a process of, “intuitive or instinctive synthesis of all of the relevant factors”: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Employsure Pty Ltd (2023) 407 ALR 302 at [42]. The High Court has explained that, “civil penalties are imposed primarily, if not solely, for the purpose of deterrence”: Pattinson at [15]. Deterrence entails both, “specific deterrence of the contravener and, by his or her example, general deterrence of other would-be contraveners”: Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157 at [116].

20    In applying the process of instinctive synthesis, it is relevant to consider that an object of civil penalties is to, “attempt to put a price on contravention that is sufficiently high to deter repetition by the contravener and by others who might be tempted to contravene”: Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd (1991) ATPR 41-076 at 52,152 quoted in Pattinson at [15].

21    Importantly, a civil penalty, “must be fixed with a view to ensuring that the penalty is not such as to be regarded by [the] offender or others as an acceptable cost of doing business”: see Singtel Optus Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2012) 287 ALR 249 at [62]; Pattinson at [17]; and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 at 659 [66]. However, the penalty must strike, “a reasonable balance between deterrence and oppressive severity”: Pattinson at [41] and [46].

22    Concepts from criminal sentencing, such as totality, parity and course of conduct may also assist in determining what is an appropriate penalty: see Pattinson at [45].

Relevant factors in the present case

23    Section 15(2A) of the IGA provides for a civil penalty of 7,500 penalty units. At the time of the contraventions, one penalty unit was $222. For an individual, the maximum penalty for contravening s 15(2A) was $1,665,000 and for a body corporate, the maximum penalty was $8,325,000: see s 82(5)(a) of the Regulatory Powers Act.

24    Section 15(2B) of the IGA provides that, “[a] person who contravenes subsection (2A) commits a separate contravention of that provision in respect of each day during which the contravention occurs”. Accordingly, each of Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker committed a separate contravention of s 15(2A) in respect of each day they provided a prohibited interactive gambling service. This amounts to 154 contraventions of s 15(2A). The theoretical maximum penalties for Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker are therefore $256,410,000 and $1,282,050,000 respectively.

25    Section 85(1) of the Regulatory Powers Act provides that the Court, “may make a single civil penalty order against a person for multiple contraventions of a civil penalty provision if proceedings for the contraventions are founded on the same facts, or if the contraventions form… a series of contraventions of the same or a similar character”. It is appropriate to make a single civil penalty order in respect of the multiple contraventions committed by Mr Jones and a single penalty order in respect of Brisbane Poker’s contraventions.

26    Mr Jones is an individual while Brisbane Poker is a body corporate. Mr Jones is the sole director and shareholder of Brisbane Poker. Brisbane Poker’s sole purpose was apparently the provision of a prohibited interactive gambling service.

27    Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker have never previously been found by a Court to have engaged in any similar conduct.

28    Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker have not cooperated with the ACMA in respect of its investigation or these proceedings, which have been on foot for over four years. They have resisted at every point, including, for example, avoiding service, necessitating an application for substituted service: see Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones [2022] FCA 546. They also transferred customers from the PPPFish Service to the Shuffle Gaming Service on 7 January 2021 after being advised by the ACMA of its preliminary findings of contraventions under s 15(2A). They have also disputed that poker is a game of mixed chance and skill, requiring that expert evidence be adduced. They did not participate in the penalty hearing. They are not to be penalised for their lack of cooperation, but they are not entitled to any reduction of the penalty for remorse or cooperation.

29    Applying the course of conduct principle is inconsistent with Parliament’s decision to deliberately and expressly provide in s 15(2B) that there will be a separate contravention on each day that the service is provided: see Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 4) [2023] FCA 834 at [32] (ACMA v Jones No 4). Rather, the impact of s 15(2B) is to be accounted for through the totality principle which, “requires the Court to make a ‘final check’ of the penalties to be imposed on a wrongdoer, considered as a whole, to ensure that the total penalty does not exceed what is proper for the entire contravening conduct”: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Employsure Pty Ltd (2023) 407 ALR 302 at [52]; see also ACMA v Jones No 4 at [32].

Nature and extent of the contraventions and the circumstances in which they took place

30    I will not go over the manner in which Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker provided the prohibited interactive gambling service except to the extent necessary to explain my consideration of the appropriate penalty.

31    Similarly to the Redraw Poker Service considered by Thomas J in ACMA v Jones No 4, the PPPFish and Shuffle Gaming Services were “sophisticated” and “broad” in their possible impact by offering players the ability to easily join and play poker online for valuable poker chips from computers, phones and other devices. The process was, “unregulated and there were no controls and no way in which problem compulsive gamblers were assisted”: ACMA v Jones No 4 at [48].

32    In the liability judgment, I found that Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker each provided the prohibited interactive gambling services. Mr Jones personally held one of the bank accounts used to facilitate the purchasing and cashing out of chips and was the sole contact and sole signatory for the six bank accounts held by Brisbane Poker. He was the sole director and shareholder of Brisbane Poker. In circumstances where Mr Jones effectively carried out the provision of the PPPFish Service by Brisbane Poker, Mr Jones can be taken to have also provided the PPPFish Service.

33    The contravening conduct resulted in significant gain for Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker, whether assessed in terms of revenue or profit: see viagogo AG v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2022] FCAFC 87 at [162].

34    The supplementary report of Michael Potter dated 16 January 2026 assesses the account transactions of PPPFish Bank Accounts in the period of the contravening conduct (between 8 October 2020 and 10 March 2021) and shows that there were 29,762 deposits into the PPPFish Bank Accounts, totalling $7,290,296. The supplementary report also shows that $7,110,736.62 was deposited into the six bank accounts held by Brisbane Poker, with the remaining $179,559.01 deposited into the CBA account held by Mr Jones. After payments to players cashing out chips and payments to the operator of the PPPoker App, Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker appear to have made a profit of $4,236,831.

35    In the period of the contravening conduct between 8 October 2020 and 10 March 2021, $1,056,048 was withdrawn in cash from Brisbane Poker’s bank accounts over the course of 658 transactions. Brisbane Poker’s bank accounts transferred $81,700 to Mr Jones and a further $123,600 was internally transferred from Mr Jones’ PPPFish CBA bank account to another internal CBA account. An additional $1,046,200 was transferred from Brisbane Poker’s bank accounts to a cryptocurrency exchange provider over 180 transactions.

36    Consistently with the approach taken by Thomas J, given the ACMA’s inability to obtain information regarding chip purchases using Bitcoin, an inference can be drawn that these figures understate the actual amount of money received by Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker with respect to their contravening conduct.

Deliberateness

37    When regard is had to the sophistication of the PPPFish and Shuffle Gaming Services, Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker’s contraventions of s 15(2A) of the IGA were plainly deliberate.

38    After being advised by the ACMA on 18 December 2020 of the prohibitions under the IGA and the ACMA’s preliminary findings of contraventions under s 15(2A), Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker closed down the PPPFish Service on 6 January 2021 and migrated customers’ accounts and chips to the new Shuffle Gaming Service on 7 January 2021. This conduct fortifies the conclusion that the conduct was deliberate. Further, Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker, despite requesting an extension of time to respond to the ACMA, ultimately chose not to provide information and continued to provide the service.

39    Similarly, Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker continued to provide the service and have Mr Buttigieg promote the service, notwithstanding the operators of the PPPoker App posting notices advising users that, “real dollar gambling is unlawful in the Australian Jurisdiction”, after also being contacted by the ACMA.

Nature and extent of any loss or damage suffered because of the contravention

40    The ACMA submits that regard must be had to Parliament’s broader concerns in enacting s 15(2A) of the IGA to combat the growing problem of online gambling in Australia and to the heightened risk factors associated with online gambling: see Explanatory Memorandum to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 (Cth); ACMA v Jones No 4 at [16]-[19].

41    The consequences of the contravening conduct include the, “general detriment and damage suffered by the community due to the general impact of exposing Australians to unregulated and illegal interactive gambling”: ACMA v Jones No 4 at [56].

42    The total number of people affected is substantial. Mr Potter’s supplementary report identified that 2,020 individuals were responsible for depositing the $7,290,296 into the PPPFish Bank Accounts and, of these individuals, only 750 received a payment from the PPPFish Bank Accounts. Mr Potter’s supplementary report also shows that the PPPFish Bank Accounts made 2,632 cash-out payments valued at $1,174,711.42. This amounts to a total loss to players of over $6 million.

43    The ACMA received a total of eleven complaints about the PPPFish and Shuffle Gaming Services, five of which were received during the period of the contravening conduct (between 8 October 2020 and 10 March 2021).

Parity

44    In ACMA v Jones No 4, Thomas J imposed a civil penalty of $5,000,000 on Diverse Link. While Diverse Link provided a similar prohibited interactive gambling service for a longer period, the total amount of deposits received by Diverse Link was lower.

45    In Australian Communications and Media Authority v Jones (No 8) [2026] FCA 861, I determined the appropriate penalty for Mr Buttigieg to be $240,000 which was greater than the penalty the parties had proposed. The nature of Mr Buttigieg’s liability and conduct – operating a private Facebook group used to refer customers, provide instructions and promote the PPPFish, Shuffle Gaming and Redraw Poker Services – was ancillary and of a different and much less sophisticated nature than that of Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker.

Consideration

46    The bank accounts held by Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker show that they received over $7.2 million during the period of contravening conduct. A penalty less than the amount received would not achieve the objects of specific or general deterrence which require the penalty to be imposed to significantly exceed the gain obtained by the contravening conduct.

47    The need for specific deterrence is particularly significant in light of Mr Jones’ decision to “phoenix” the PPPFish Service into the Shuffle Gaming Service after he was contacted by the ACMA. A significant penalty is also required to meet the need for general deterrence to deter potential contraveners, particularly offshore global entities, from providing prohibited interactive gambling services.

48    Taking the considerations I have discussed into account, the appropriate pecuniary penalties for Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker are $9 million and $15 million respectively. These penalties reflect the serious nature of the contravening conduct, the duration of the contravening conduct and the number of contraventions. Any lesser penalty for Mr Jones risks being regarded by him and other potential contraveners as an acceptable cost of doing business.

49    Circumstances where an individual respondent will ultimately bear the burden of the penalty imposed on the corporate respondent can give rise to concerns about double punishment: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd (No 2) (2002) 190 ALR 169 at [45]; Tax Practitioners Board v Hacker (No 3) [2020] FCA 1814 at [73]-[75]. However, the concern for double punishment may be given limited weight where an individual has chosen to avail themselves of the advantages of a corporate structure: see Fair Work Ombudsman v NSH North Pty Ltd trading as New Shanghai Charlestown [2017] FCA 1301 at [160].

50    No such concerns arise in the present case because Brisbane Poker has no assets and will be de-registered following the conclusion of these proceedings. As such, I have effectively disregarded the penalty to be imposed on Brisbane Poker when determining the appropriate penalty for Mr Jones. I am mindful of the High Court’s recognition in Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2018) 262 CLR 157 at [116] that, “if a penalty is devoid of sting or burden, it may not have much, if any, specific or general deterrent effect, and so it will be unlikely, or at least less likely, to achieve the specific and general deterrent effects that are the raison d’être of its imposition”.

51    Furthermore, the expected de-registration of Brisbane Poker means that general deterrence is the critical consideration: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Institute of Professional Education Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 5) (2021) 397 ALR 208 at [11]; see also Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v High Adventure Pty Limited (2006) ATPR 42-091; [2005] FCAFC 247 at [11]; ACMA v Jones No 4 at [84].

52    I have applied the totality principle and I am satisfied that the penalties assessed are appropriate.

53    I will order that Mr Jones pay a pecuniary penalty of $9 million and that Brisbane Poker pay a pecuniary penalty of $15 million.

Injunctive relief

54    Section 64D(1)(a) of the IGA provides that s 15(2A) of the IGA is enforceable under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, which creates a framework for the use of injunctions for the enforcement of provisions: see s 117 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

55    Pursuant to s 121(1) of the Regulatory Powers Act, if a person has engaged in conduct in contravention of a provision enforceable under Part 7, a relevant court may, on application by an authorised person, grant an injunction, “restraining the person from engaging in the conduct”.

56    The ACMA seeks to restrain Mr Jones under s 121(1) of the Regulatory Powers Act from providing a prohibited interactive gambling service that has an Australian-customer link, or aiding or abetting, counselling or procuring or being knowingly concerned in, or party to, the provision of such a service, for a period of five years.

57    The orders have utility and will guard against any risk that Mr Jones will engage in contraventions of s 15(2A) of the IGA in the future. During the hearing, I indicated that I would have been minded to grant the injunction for longer than five years, but given that five years is what has been sought in the Originating Application, I cannot go beyond that without giving Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker, an opportunity to respond. It is appropriate to grant the injunctive relief that is proposed.

58    Given the expected de-registration of Brisbane Poker, there is no utility in the same relief being ordered in respect of Brisbane Poker.

Costs

59    The ACMA seeks an order that Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker pay the ACMA’s costs of the proceedings on an ordinary basis and that those costs be determined on a lump sum basis. The ACMA seeks a lump sum costs order in the sum of $663,290.08.

60    The Court may order a lump sum for costs pursuant to s 43(3)(d) of the FCA Act and r 40.02(b) of the Rules. The relevant principles for the award of a lump sum costs order were summarised by Feutrill J in Frigger v Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd (No 7) [2025] FCA 1639 at [6]:

(1)    As costs were awarded without any further description, the costs are to be as between party and party: r 40.01 of the Rules. The dictionary to the Rules defines those costs as ‘only the costs that have been fairly and reasonably incurred by the party in the conduct of the litigation’.

(2)    Determination of a lump-sum is not the result of a process of taxation or assessment of costs. The lump-sum can only be fixed broadly having regard to the information before the Court. That is, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the kind that would be appropriate to a taxation or formal costs assessment as to do so would defeat the purpose of making a lump-sum order.

(3)    Determination of the lump-sum involves estimation and not arithmetic. The sum of costs fixed should be proportionate to the nature, including the complexity, of the case.

(4)    The starting point for the determination is the charges rendered or estimated by the solicitors for the party entitled to costs. There may be an impressionistic discount of those costs in order to take into account the contingencies that would be relevant in any formal costs assessment. But, the approach taken to determining the lump-sum must be logical, fair and reasonable.

(5)    While it is the usual practice of the Court to apply a discount when determining a lump-sum, ‘that does not mean that the Court must apply a percentage discount to the sum sought by the successful party and the Court “must be astute not to cause an injustice to the successful party” by applying “an arbitrary ‘fail safe’ discount on the costs estimate submitted to the court”. Thus, if the court can be confident that there is little risk that the sum includes costs that might be disallowed on assessment, the case for a discount is seriously undermined.

(6)    In determining the lump-sum the Court is entitled to take into account the evidence that is before it, its own observations of the proceeding and the judge’s own experience. The Court may have regard to any applicable scale of costs which regulates the recoverable amount on party and party basis. Although scales may provide assistance and will usually be influential, the Court is not bound to apply strictly any applicable scale of costs.

(Citations omitted.)

61    The ACMA’s costs should not be required to be taxed in circumstances where Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker are no longer represented, are not responding to correspondence, and where recovery of the ACMA’s costs from Mr Jones is uncertain and from Brisbane Poker not possible. To require the ACMA to go to taxation would impose a significant additional cost burden.

62    The sum of $663,290.08 sought by the ACMA is fair and reasonable because the rates charged by the ACMA’s legal representatives are reasonable and comfortably within the range provided for in the Federal Court’s Guide to Counsel’s Fees dated 28 June 2013; the sum claimed represents a discount on the ACMA’s actual costs; and the costs claimed do not include any recovery for the additional costs of preparing evidence and submissions in support of the ACMA’s application for costs. No further discount is appropriate.

Confidentiality

63    On 3 April 2024 and 22 October 2024, I made interim suppression orders in respect of particular exhibits to the affidavits of three of the ACMA’s witnesses and the ACMA’s aide memoire dated 8 August 2024.

64    The ACMA seeks that the orders of 3 April 2024 and 22 October 2024 be set aside and replaced with the following order:

Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act), and on the ground that it is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice (within the meaning of s 37AG(1)(a) of the Act), for a period of 30 years from the date of this order, the Court orders that:

a.    the documents comprising Exhibit MP-4 to the affidavit of Terence Michael Potter sworn 5 July 2023;

b.    the documents comprising Exhibit MP-6 of the affidavit of Terence Michael Potter sworn 5 July 2023;

c.    the documents comprising Exhibit LK-5 to the affidavit of Laurie Matthew Korpi affirmed 17 November 2023;

d.    the documents comprising Exhibit MRG-4 to the affidavit of Matthew Richard Garey affirmed 22 November 2023;

e.    the Applicant’s aide memoire dated 8 August 2024, showing complaints to the Applicant cross-referred to credits and debits in PPPFish bank accounts; and

f.    the Applicant’s aide memoire dated 8 August 2024, showing transfers from the Second Respondent to the Third Respondent’s account,

…

are not to be published or otherwise disclosed, and may only be accessed from the Court file by a party to these proceedings and their legal representatives.

65    Section 37AE of the FCA Act provides that when deciding whether to make a suppression or non-publication order, the Court must take into account that a primary objective of the administration of justice is to safeguard the public interest in open justice.

66    Section 37AF of the FCA Act provides that the Court may, by making a suppression order or non-publication order on grounds permitted by Part VAA, prohibit or restrict the publication or other disclosure of, relevantly, information that comprises evidence. The grounds set out in s 37AG include that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

67    Suppression or non-publication orders should only be made in exceptional circumstances: Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) (2020) 275 FCR 377 at [8]. In Hogan v Australian Crime Commission (2010) 240 CLR 651, it was observed at [30] that the word “necessary” is, in the context, a “strong word”.

68    The information that is proposed to be the subject of the suppression orders falls into two categories. First, there are bank statements which reveal the names of customers who transferred money into the bank accounts of Brisbane Poker. Second, there is material that reveals the names of customers who complained to the ACMA.

69    In respect of the first category, the named customers have not contravened the IGA. They should be regarded as victims of the contraventions. The principle of open justice must be balanced with factors that include protection of victims: Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Egan [2018] FCA 1320 at [4]; Pett v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 2) [2026] FCA 600 at [21].

70    In respect of the second category, in Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 252 CLR 38, French CJ observed at [68] that the open court principle may be qualified by public interest considerations such as the protection of sensitive information and the identities of vulnerable witnesses, including informants in criminal matters. The same position must apply to informants in respect of regulatory offences. There is an important public interest in encouraging informants to cooperate with regulators, whereas disclosure of the identities of informants may have the opposite effect: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Panthera Finance Pty Ltd (2020) 143 ACSR 486; [2020] FCA 340 at [11]-[15]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi Energia SRL (2011) 283 ALR 137 at [89]-[90] and [195].

71    I am satisfied that the orders proposed by the ACMA are necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. I will make the order that is proposed.

Conclusion

72    I will order that Mr Jones pay a pecuniary penalty of $9 million and that Brisbane Poker pay a pecuniary penalty of $15 million. I will also grant the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the ACMA.

73    I will order that Mr Jones and Brisbane Poker pay the ACMA’s costs of the proceedings as between party and party on a lump sum basis in the sum of $663,000.

Associate:    

Dated:    6 July 2026

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES