Gold bullion, scam proceeds and NSW Cybercrime Squad: what money mule charges mean for you
In May and June 2026, NSW Police Cybercrime Squad charged multiple people with dealing in proceeds of crime following an investigation into the conversion of online scam proceeds into gold bullion. Those arrests sit within a broader and intensifying pattern of NSW cybercrime enforcement that has been building for several years. If you have been contacted by police or charged in connection with money transmission, cryptocurrency conversion, asset acquisition, or any other conduct that police allege is connected to criminal proceeds, understanding what the charges mean, what the prosecution needs to prove, and what defences might be available is the essential first step to protecting yourself.
The term money mule describes a person who receives funds derived from criminal activity – typically fraud, romance scams, investment scams, or other online crime – and moves, converts, or transfers those funds at the direction of someone else. That someone else is usually a criminal network, often operating entirely from overseas and recruiting Australian participants through fake job offers, social media approaches, or online romantic relationships. Some money mules are fully knowing participants who understand they are facilitating money laundering and receive a commission for doing so. Others are genuinely deceived, recruited into what they believed was legitimate work such as a financial services role or international money transfer service, and have no real understanding of what they are actually doing. The criminal law applies the same offence provisions to both types, but what a person actually knew or should have known is centrally important to the defence available and to the penalty that courts impose.
Why gold bullion attracts enforcement attention
Law enforcement agencies in NSW and nationally have identified the conversion of cash to gold bullion as a significant money laundering pattern. The technique is attractive to criminal networks because gold is a physical, portable, internationally fungible asset that can be purchased from licensed dealers in incremental amounts and then sold through secondary markets or exported without the same level of transaction monitoring that applies to bank transfers and electronic payments.
The mechanism works as follows: victims of scams send money to Australian accounts controlled by or accessible to criminal networks; those funds are then withdrawn as cash and used to purchase gold bullion from licensed dealers; the gold is subsequently resold through secondary markets or physically exported. Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), licensed dealers in precious metals and physical currency are required to report suspicious transactions to AUSTRAC. When purchases appear in patterns that are inconsistent with legitimate personal investment – multiple cash purchases in quick succession, purchases linked to accounts that have received large unexplained transfers from overseas – the reporting obligation activates. AUSTRAC shares that intelligence with NSW Police and the AFP, and investigation follows.
The NSW offence of dealing in proceeds of crime
Section 193B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) creates the offence of dealing in proceeds of crime. A person deals with proceeds of crime where they receive, possess, conceal, dispose of, bring into NSW, or engage in banking transactions with money or property that they know or believe to be the proceeds of a serious indictable offence, or in circumstances where a reasonable person in their situation would suspect it to be. The maximum penalties under this provision are significant: 20 years’ imprisonment where the amount is $1,000,000 or more; 15 years where the amount is between $100,000 and $1,000,000; and 10 years for amounts below that. These are serious indictable offences dealt with in the District Court.
Commonwealth offences that also apply
Part 10.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) provides a complementary suite of Commonwealth dealing in proceeds of crime offences that frequently apply alongside the NSW charge. Section 400.3 – dealing with knowledge that the property is proceeds of crime – carries a maximum of 20 years. Section 400.4 – dealing with recklessness as to whether the property is proceeds of crime – carries 10 years. Section 400.5 – dealing in circumstances of negligence – carries 5 years. These Commonwealth provisions apply especially where the conduct involves a carriage service or a financial corporation. Both NSW and Commonwealth charges can be pressed simultaneously, substantially increasing the total sentencing exposure.
What prosecution must prove about what the accused knew
The most contested issue in every money mule prosecution is the accused’s state of mind. Under the NSW provisions, the prosecution must prove either actual knowledge that the property is proceeds of crime, or that the circumstances were such as would cause a reasonable person to suspect it. Under the Commonwealth framework, the choice between the knowledge, recklessness, and negligence tiers reflects different levels of evidence about what the accused knew.
Prosecutors assemble the case for knowledge through a combination of evidence types: the circumstances of the accused’s recruitment and the inherent implausibility of any claimed legitimate explanation; the nature of instructions given to the accused, including instructions to maintain secrecy, to move funds quickly without keeping records, or to avoid triggering banking monitoring systems; the volume and frequency of transactions and their complete absence of any legitimate business rationale; financial records showing the movement of funds through the accused’s accounts and any commissions received; communications between the accused and those directing them; and any prior warnings received from banks, family members, or others that the activity they were involved in was suspicious.
The objective circumstances test is central: what would a reasonable person in the accused’s position, with the information available to the accused, have suspected? Where someone received multiple large transfers from strangers, was instructed to move the money immediately into cash or gold, was paid a significant commission per transaction, and was specifically told not to discuss it with their bank, a court will find it very difficult to accept that no reasonable person would have been suspicious.
Participating in a criminal group
In major cybercrime money laundering operations, charges of participating in a criminal group under section 93T of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) are often added alongside the proceeds of crime charges. The offence requires proof that the accused intentionally participated in conduct that contributed to the criminal activities of a group, knowing or being reckless as to whether the group was a criminal group. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. In cybercrime operations where multiple people participated in different roles – account holders, cash couriers, gold purchasers – this charge can be pressed against those who played more peripheral roles in the overall network.
Asset restraint and the immediate financial consequences
In cybercrime and money laundering investigations, asset restraining orders are sought at the earliest possible stage, often before criminal charges are formally laid. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) allows Commonwealth authorities to apply for restraining orders over assets alleged to be proceeds of crime. NSW has equivalent powers under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW). The organised crime reforms passed in June 2026 extended the asset forfeiture window from one year to five years for people subject to Drug Trafficker Declarations, significantly expanding the period during which assets can be pursued. Bank accounts can be frozen immediately. Property can be restrained. Physical assets including gold bullion can be seized. The financial impact is immediate and severe. An accused may be unable to access their own funds, pay legal fees, or meet everyday expenses while criminal proceedings run, and challenging a restraining order requires urgent specialist legal action.
Contact Us
At National Criminal Lawyers, we advise on cybercrime fraud, dealing in proceeds of crime, and money laundering charges at both state and Commonwealth level. We also advise on urgent challenges to asset restraining orders and on the right approach when police or AUSTRAC make contact. These investigations move quickly and the consequences of navigating them without specialist legal advice can be severe.
Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.
