Understand the arrangement
A trust requires different questions from a company because its roles and powers are different. Rules 6-3 covers a trust or equivalent foreign legal arrangement where the designated service is proposed through an Australian permanent establishment. It requires information about the trust's identity, kind, existence, business or operations and governing powers.
The business needs to understand the arrangement relevant to its customer. The name printed on a deed is not a complete explanation of who can act or who controls decisions. A corporate trustee adds another entity to understand; it does not turn the trust into an ordinary company customer.
- AML/CTF Rules 2025: Section 6-3(1) to (6)
- Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006: Section 28(2) to (3)
- Trust and terms
Understand the arrangement and governing powers.
- Trustee
Establish the current trustee and authority to act.
- Beneficiaries
Identify beneficiaries or the permitted class description where its conditions apply.
- Other control roles
Check relevant settlor, appointor, guardian and protector information.
Keep trust roles separate
A role map, not an ownership chart. Roles do not require identical checks, and a corporate trustee remains a separate entity.
Connected concepts. Lines do not show ownership or a reporting hierarchy.
Distinguish the roles
The Rules address beneficiaries, trustees and control information separately. They require beneficiary identity information, or a description of each class where the nature of the trust makes identification of each beneficiary impossible. That qualification is important: a class description is not an automatic substitute in every trust.
Rules 6-3 also addresses the control structure and the identity of any settlor, appointor, guardian or protector. These are not interchangeable labels. The initial CDD obligations determine how the relevant information is established and checked. Avoid a universal rule that every person named anywhere in a deed must receive identical checks.
Worked example: a changed trustee
A fictional trust provides its original deed, but the current instruction is signed by a company not named as trustee in that document. The reviewer asks for the information needed to understand the change and who now has authority. The original deed remains useful but may not describe the current arrangement.
The reviewer separates the identity of the trust, the current trustee and any other relevant control roles. This example illustrates an evidence gap, not a conclusion that the change is improper. The appropriate checks depend on the actual documents, customer risk and applicable legal requirements.
- AML/CTF Rules 2025: Section 6-3(1) to (6)
- Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006: Section 28(2) to (3)
- Trust file
A fictional file contains the original deed and a current instruction.
- Original trustee
The original deed names one trustee.
- Current signer
A different company signs the new instruction. Establish its current role and authority.
- Evidence gap
Check the change and the relevant powers. Do not infer that the difference is improper.
An old deed and a new trustee
Hypothetical example. The labelled links explain the arrangement; they do not determine its legal treatment.
Hypothetical example. Current trust instruction. Original trustee: Named in old deed. Company signer: Current role to check.
Use a role map
A practical role map can place the trust at the centre and label each person's role and relevant power. Show corporate entities and individual people differently. Add references to the information supporting the current role so a later reviewer can follow the conclusion.
Do not use one unlabelled ownership percentage for a relationship that is actually a power to appoint or remove someone. Mark any uncertainty about the current documents or authority. The map is a communication aid, not legal advice about the trust deed. If the arrangement cannot be understood from the available information, the unresolved question needs assessment rather than a guessed answer.