AUSTRALIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Dennis Miralis, Jack Dennis and Phillip Salakas, Nyman Gibson Miralis
involved – the greater of three times the value of the transaction or 10,000 penalty units. As at July 2026, 10,000 penalty units equalled AUD3.64 million. 2.2.3 Civil Enforcement Action There is no civil liability or enforcement for sanction contraventions. 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action In October 2025, a man was arrested and charged by the AFP following a referral from the ASO for allegedly remitting approximately AUD650,000 over a 12-month period to sanctioned Iranian banks in contravention of Australian sanction laws. This case was scheduled to be initially heard by the local court in October 2025. No further media coverage or reporting has occurred, so it is not known whether this case is still ongoing. The only other publicly known criminal enforcement action in Australia was brought against Chan Han Choi, which concluded in 2021. Mr Choi pleaded guilty to contravening both UNSC sanctions and Australian sanctions laws after he was accused of attempting to sell arms and related material to North Korea. He was sentenced to a period of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. 2.2.5 Mitigation The ASO adopts a co-operative approach to admin - istering and enforcing sanctions law, working with the public to prevent and address breaches of Australian sanctions law. Certain actions are beneficial to under - take to minimise risk and potential penalties as a result of a breach, including: • undertaking due diligence checks for Australian sanctions law and the business and organisational structure of the ultimate customer (or end user) – to this end, the ASO manages the ASO Consolidated List, which sets out the persons and entities who are sanctioned (this is a good, but not definitive, reference point); • adopting appropriate compliance measures and governance policies; • obtaining professional legal advice before engaging in business activities and throughout; and • after obtaining legal advice or otherwise with the assistance of a lawyer, engaging with the ASO
when there are outstanding queries relating to business or activities. The above-mentioned guidance is particularly perti- nent for corporate entities. The criminal offence for breaching a sanctions law is strictly liable; however, there is a defence if the body corporate “took rea - sonable precautions – and exercised due diligence – to avoid contravening” the sanctions law. What this means will depend on the context of each person and company, but the foregoing is a good starting point. 2.2.6 Strict Liability For body corporates, breaches of sanctions are “strict liability” offences (see 2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions), meaning that the prosecution is not required to prove any intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in relation to the offence. Otherwise, mental elements must still be proven. An “authorisation” or “permit” (typically called a “sanc - tions permit”) is available in certain circumstances to permit certain activities related to a person or entity on the Consolidated List that would otherwise be prohib- ited under Australian sanctions laws. These sanctions permits are granted by the Minister (or their delegate). The criteria that must be met vary depending on the specific activity and the sanctions regime from which derogation is sought. For all permits, the Minister must be certain that granting the permit would be in the national interest. Additionally, any permits under the COTUNA require approval from the UNSC. According to new DFAT guidance, any permit applica- tion must be in respect of one of the following: • a basic expense dealing, being “a transaction that is necessary for basic expenses”; • a legally required dealing, being “a transaction that is necessary to satisfy a judicial, administrative or arbitral judgement that was made prior to the date which the person or entity who is party to the proposed transaction became a designated person or entity”; or 2.3 Licensing 2.3.1 Derogation
15 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook