Puleo v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd

[2026] VSC 513

Supreme Court of Victoria

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

A bank's internal AML/CTF Part A Program, including its ECDD processes and CEF Charter, are not to be treated as prescriptive statutes where any deviation invalidates a customer exit decision; non-compliance with internal processes does not negate a bank's legitimate basis for closing accounts where there is a rational assessment of money laundering risk based on the potential for, not the actuality of, ML/TF activity.
Where a bank's contractual termination clause permits closure where the bank 'considers it necessary to protect its legitimate interests', and a separate clause limits exercise of rights to what is 'reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests', the combined effect imposes an objective reasonableness standard — but this does not require identification of actual money laundering or strict compliance with the Part A Program before accounts can be closed for ML/TF risk.
The designation of brothels as 'prescribed high risk' customers in a bank's AML/CTF program, based on industry characteristics such as cash intensity and AUSTRAC guidance, does not of itself constitute direct or indirect discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic); the causal question is whether the protected attribute was a substantial reason for the exit decision, which on the facts was not established where the decision was driven by suspicious transactional activity.