The offence under s 31(1) of the Cash Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth) requires proof that the accused in fact had the sole or dominant purpose of ensuring currency was transferred in amounts below the $10,000 reporting threshold, but does not require proof that the accused knew of the bank's specific reporting obligation. The words 'it would be reasonable to conclude' lower the standard of proof for the purpose element below beyond reasonable doubt. The matters in s 31(1)(b)(i) and (ii) may be an exhaustive statement of the matters to which regard may be had in determining purpose, though this was not unanimously resolved. The relationship between the Pfennig test and s 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 was questioned but not definitively resolved.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.