Understand the disclosure question
Tipping off concerns disclosure of protected information where it would or could reasonably be expected to prejudice an investigation. Section 123 sets the offence.
It applies to specified people, including reporting entities and their officers, employees and agents. Disclosure to an AUSTRAC entrusted person is excluded from this offence.
Protected information includes SMRs, information about the duty to report and specified information requests. The offence can concern current or future investigations.
The person need not know that an investigation has started. The recipient, content, timing and method of disclosure all matter.
Ordinary customer questions are not automatically prohibited. A disclosure that escapes this offence may still face privacy or other legal restrictions.
Sources: AUSTRAC: Meaning of tipping off and controls; Federal Register of Legislation: Section 123(1) and (2).
- Proposed message
Identify the recipient and the routine information they need.
- Restricted material
Examine attachments, file names, comments and message history.
- Authorised review
Escalate uncertainty and apply the current disclosure test and exceptions.
Review the whole disclosure
Suggested communication check. It neither bans all customer contact nor supplies a universally lawful script.
Follow the process from top to bottom.
Separate service work from restricted material
A suggested operating design keeps routine customer information requests separate from restricted review notes. Staff can use approved explanations for normal verification work without being shown every internal conclusion. Access should follow the person’s role in the process. Before sharing a document externally, consider attachments, comments and message history as well as the visible sentence. This is an illustrative control design, not a prescribed software permission model.
Its purpose is to make accidental disclosure less likely while allowing necessary business work to continue.
Invented example: a customer asks about delay
Imagine a customer asks why a transaction is taking longer than expected. A staff member can see a restricted review note and is tempted to copy it into a reply. In the example workflow, the staff member instead refers the communication to the authorised reviewer. That person considers the applicable disclosure rules and the facts. The answer should not reveal a report merely to justify the delay.
The example does not supply a universal script because the lawful response depends on the circumstances.
Review more than email
The same example business examines shared folders, customer portals, meeting notes and support tickets. A restricted report reference could appear in a file name or an exported case summary even if the main message is careful. A useful review asks what the recipient can infer from the full material being released. It also examines whether an automated notification can expose an internal status. These examples show how restricted information can be disclosed.
They are not evidence that a particular platform has a defect or that every disclosure is prohibited.
Give staff a clear escalation path
A practical instruction tells staff whom to contact when they are unsure about a proposed disclosure. It includes a backup so that uncertainty does not produce an improvised answer. Training can use fictional messages and ask staff to identify what should be escalated. Record the final decision and the basis for it in the restricted case record. Where the law is unclear on the facts, obtain appropriate advice.
This process supports careful communication but does not replace the current statutory test or its exceptions.