Australian AML/CTF · Explainer

Suspicious matter reports

An SMR reports a suspicion that meets the applicable legal test; it is not a finding that a customer committed a crime.

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

Start with: Initial customer due diligence

Understand the reporting decision

AUSTRAC guidance distinguishes unusual activity from a suspicion formed on reasonable grounds. Its deadline guidance specifies 24 hours for terrorism financing and three business days after the day of forming other suspicions. It also explains a qualified legal professional privilege timing rule for certain non-terrorism matters. Read those conditions before relying on a deadline. Section 41 of the Act sets the reporting framework. A request or enquiry about a designated service can matter; a completed transaction is not the only possible setting.

Organise a suspicious-matter reviewFollow the process from top to bottom. Facts: Record the service and relevant events. Assessment: Separate observations from inference. Reporting decision: Apply the current legal test and timing. Follow-up: Retain the reference and unresolved actions.Facts Assessment Reporting decision Follow-up
  1. Facts

    Record the service and relevant events.

  2. Assessment

    Separate observations from inference.

  3. Reporting decision

    Apply the current legal test and timing.

  4. Follow-up

    Retain the reference and unresolved actions.

Organise a suspicious-matter review

Illustrative workflow. Read the page and current primary guidance for conditions and exceptions.

Follow the process from top to bottom.

Build the narrative from evidence

An illustrative report preparation method starts with the people, service and sequence of events. Separate direct observations from the customer explanation and the reviewer inference. Explain why the combination raised suspicion. Use dates and transaction references that allow someone else to trace the activity. Avoid an unsupported statement that a person is a criminal. If a document conflicts with another document, describe the conflict. The aim is a clear account of the information and reasoning, not a dramatic description of the customer.

Worked example: conflicting ownership information

Imagine a company customer supplies an ownership chart that names one controller. Instructions and payment records suggest that another person directs the transaction. The reviewer asks ordinary information questions through the approved process and compares the answers. If the inconsistency remains, the reviewer assesses its relevance to the legal reporting test. The example record shows the documents, responses and time of the decision. It does not convert a missing answer into proof of an offence. It also identifies any information that is unavailable.

An alert is not the same as a formed suspicionFollow the process from top to bottom. Observed activity: Record the facts that need examination. Assessment: Assess the relevant information and applicable suspicion grounds. Reporting decision: If the duty arises, apply the relevant deadline and conditions. Do not wait for proof of an offence.Observed activity Assessment Reporting decision
  1. Observed activity

    Record the facts that need examination.

  2. Assessment

    Assess the relevant information and applicable suspicion grounds.

  3. Reporting decision

    If the duty arises, apply the relevant deadline and conditions. Do not wait for proof of an offence.

An alert is not the same as a formed suspicion

Read this visual with the source conditions and explanation in this section.

Follow the process from top to bottom.

Make responsibility and timing visible

For this example, a small firm could use a restricted decision record with a named reviewer and a backup. The record can distinguish when an alert arrived, when information was reviewed and when suspicion was formed. Those are different events. A reporting deadline should not be measured from a convenient later approval meeting. The procedure also needs an escalation route when the usual reviewer is absent. This is a suggested operating arrangement; the current legal timing rules and exceptions still control the actual report.

What changes after the first report

A later suspicious request can require another SMR; a previous report does not cover every future event. AUSTRAC gives the example of a returning customer whose further transactions create reasonable grounds for suspicion. A new report can refer to the earlier report number. For remittance networks, either the affiliate or provider can report under the relevant written agreement. Privilege also needs specific treatment: where only part of the information is withheld under LPP, the guidance requires the unprivileged information and the relevant LPP form.

Sources and scope

Sources checked on 2026-09-06. This page is not continuously updated. Check the linked legislation and AUSTRAC guidance for current requirements.

This page does not cover: A decision on whether a real case requires an SMR; Every privilege or disclosure exception.

Common AML/CTF terms