Australian AML/CTF · Explainer

Freezing, seizure and confiscation: the differences

Freezing restricts dealings with property. Seizure places property under official control. Confiscation permanently removes property rights under legal authority.

General information only, not legal, compliance, or other professional advice. Does not confirm compliance.

Three different effects

In FATF terminology, freezing prevents specified dealings with property while the measure applies. Seizure also permits an authority or court to take control. Freezing or seizure alone does not transfer ownership to the state.

Confiscation, also called forfeiture, permanently removes property rights through legal authority. These are definitions of different powers, not a fixed sequence for every case.

Source: FATF: Freeze, seize, confiscation and non-conviction based confiscation.

Read the Australian power

Australian legislation uses specific terms and conditions. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides for restraining orders and different forfeiture orders. Some forfeiture powers do not require a criminal conviction.

For example, section 47 concerns conduct constituting serious offences and has its own conditions. Section 48 provides a separate conviction-based route. Neither route allows a business to decide for itself that a customer’s property is forfeited.

Source: Federal Register of Legislation: Sections 19, 47 and 48.

Freezing, seizure and confiscation: the differences
  • Freeze

    Restrict dealings while the measure applies.

  • Seize

    Place the property under official control.

  • Confiscate

    Permanently remove property rights under legal authority.

Freezing, seizure and confiscation: the differences

Compare the legal effects. This is not a required sequence, and a temporary measure does not itself transfer ownership.

Separate evidence questions. An answer to one does not settle the others.

Example: the order controls the record

In a fictional training case, an asset record says only that funds are frozen. The reviewer obtains the relevant order or legal instrument. They identify which dealings it restricts, who controls the property and whether ownership has changed.

The reviewer does not assume that a temporary restriction proves guilt or permits transfer to another person. A later decision needs its own record.

Source: FATF: Freeze, seize and confiscation.

Keep sanctions separate

Sanctions can impose asset-freezing duties outside a proceeds-of-crime recovery case. Use the targeted financial sanctions article for that customer-control subject. Get advice on the applicable instrument before acting on a specific asset.

Source: AUSTRAC: Overview and what to do if a person is designated.

Sources and scope

Sources checked on 2026-09-13. This page is not continuously updated. Check the linked legislation and AUSTRAC guidance for current requirements.

How we prepare articles

This page does not cover: A procedure for responding to a sanctions match; Advice on a particular asset or court order.

Common AML/CTF terms