“It was just a side hustle”: How Money-Mule and Crypto-ATM Cases Become Real Criminal Charges in NSW
A lot of people who end up in money-laundering trouble in NSW do not think of themselves as “money launderers” at all. They think they were helping a friend, doing a quick favour, testing a “work from home” side hustle, moving money for someone they met online, or letting funds pass through their bank account for a commission. Others get dragged in through crypto – a request to deposit cash into a Bitcoin ATM, convert money into digital assets, or hand over account details in exchange for quick cash. But in NSW, that kind of conduct can turn into a very serious criminal brief with surprising speed. And right now, the authorities are plainly telling the public that money-mule activity is a major enforcement target.
In this social and legal climate, you want to know: Can I be charged just for receiving money into my account? What if I did not know exactly where it came from? What if I only moved it once? What if I was told it was a “job”? What if crypto was involved? Could police freeze my assets? Those are real questions, and the law in NSW gives worrying answers if a person gets involved too late.
Why this topic matters right now
The official warnings have become much louder in the last year. In July 2025, the AFP and Australian Banking Association warned that Australians were renting or selling their bank accounts to criminals for as little as $200, and said money mules were firmly in law enforcement’s sights. In March 2025, the AFP and major banks also warned that university students – including international students – were being targeted by fake “side-hustle” jobs designed to recruit them into criminal money movement. Those warnings matter because they show exactly how these cases begin in real life: not with a Hollywood heist, but with Telegram messages, fake recruiters, social-media ads and small “commissions” for moving money.
Crypto has made the problem even bigger. AUSTRAC said in October 2025 that there were almost 150,000 crypto-ATM transactions annually in Australia, moving about $275 million a year, and that its taskforce believed the majority of high-value crypto-ATM transactions were directly associated with scams and money-mule activity. AUSTRAC also said the number of crypto ATMs had jumped from about 1,200 to 2,000 in a short period. That is not a niche regulatory concern. It is a signal that law enforcement now sees crypto ATMs as a mainstream laundering and scam channel.
What are police and regulators actually worried about?
At a practical level, they are worried about one simple thing: criminals getting dirty money out of the visible banking system and into harder-to-trace channels, or using “clean” account holders to disguise where the money is going. AUSTRAC’s June 2025 joint operation on crypto ATMs identified 90 scam victims, money mules and suspected offenders among the most active users. Later reporting said AUSTRAC found 85% of transactions by the 90 most frequent crypto-ATM users were linked to scams or money-mule activity. That is extraordinary. It shows regulators are not treating crypto ATMs as quirky gadgets; they are treating them as part of the same criminal ecosystem as scams, proceeds of crime and offshore cash movement.
For a reader in trouble, this matters because police do not need to think you were a mastermind. If your account, wallet or cash deposits look like part of that criminal chain, you may find yourself charged as the person who “dealt with” proceeds of crime or who was at least reckless as to where the money came from. That is a much harsher legal frame than most people expect when they first hear the phrase “money mule.”
What is the actual NSW offence?
The main NSW money-laundering provision is s 193B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The legislation says a person who deals with proceeds of crime knowing that it is proceeds of crime is guilty of an offence, with a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment, and if the person knows it is proceeds of crime and intends to conceal that fact, the maximum rises to 20 years. It also says a person who deals with proceeds of crime being reckless as to whether it is proceeds of crime is guilty of an offence, with a maximum penalty of 10 years. More recent provisions also catch dealings where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the property is proceeds of crime, especially where the amounts are high.
That statutory language is where many people get the shock. “Deal with” is broader than people expect. The National Criminal Lawyers® proceeds-of-crime page correctly notes that “deal with” can include receiving, possessing, concealing, disposing of property, transferring it electronically, or engaging in transactions involving it. That means you do not have to be the original scammer, hacker or fraudster to get charged. If the prosecution says you received or moved the money while knowing, suspecting or being reckless about what it was, that may be enough to put you squarely inside the offence framework.
The legal question readers usually miss: what did you know, suspect, or ignore?
This is the part of the law that matters most in practice. Money-laundering cases often turn less on whether money passed through an account – that part is usually easy to prove – and more on the mental element. Did the accused know it was dirty money? Were they reckless? Were there reasonable grounds to suspect it? Did they intend to conceal or disguise its source or controller? The Judicial Commission’s Money Laundering chapter says the seriousness of these offences is indicated by the amount of money involved and the mental element to be proved. It also explains that the offences are broad and can apply to a wide range of activities relating to money obtained from serious crime or used in connection with it.
That is why “I didn’t ask too many questions” is not a comforting answer. In real life, the prosecution often points to obvious red flags: a stranger asking to use your account, promises of easy commissions, requests to withdraw cash immediately after deposit, instructions to convert funds to crypto, use of fake job ads, pressure not to ask questions, or movement of money through multiple accounts. The legal issue becomes whether a reasonable person in that situation should have realised something was badly wrong – and whether you went ahead anyway.
What if you genuinely thought it was a job?
That is one of the most common reader questions, and it is one of the hardest in practice. The AFP’s March 2025 warning about “side-hustle” job scams shows why the defence arises so often: criminals deliberately dress mule recruitment up as casual admin work, payment processing, transfer-agent roles or remote assistant jobs. Students and recent arrivals are particularly targeted. That does not automatically make everyone recruited this way guilty. But it also does not automatically protect them. The closer the facts look to deliberate blindness – fake employers, no real interview, abnormal payment structure, pressure to use your own account, instructions to forward money fast – the harder it becomes to say you innocently believed it was legitimate.
This is exactly why early legal advice matters. The difference between “genuinely deceived victim” and “reckless participant” can sit in the details: what messages you received, what the “job” looked like, how quickly the money moved, whether you kept any share, and what you said once you became suspicious. Those are not side issues. They are often the whole case.
Why crypto makes these cases worse, not safer
Many people still assume crypto somehow makes a case more technical and therefore harder for police. That is increasingly the wrong instinct. AUSTRAC has spent 2025 openly warning that crypto ATMs are a key criminal channel because they allow fast conversion from cash into digital assets and onward transfer, often to high-risk jurisdictions. The regulator has already introduced minimum standards for crypto-ATM providers and publicly said it will continue targeting high-risk operators. The public message is unmistakable: if crypto is involved, regulators may become more interested, not less.
Our article “Crypto, NFTs & the Law: When Digital Assets Lead to Criminal Charges in NSW” may help you understand a crucial point many miss: blockchain transactions may be pseudonymous, but they are also highly traceable once investigators have account, exchange or wallet information. For a person already under scrutiny, crypto is not a magic cloak; it is often just another evidentiary trail.
What evidence do police usually rely on?
Usually the evidence is much more ordinary than people expect. Bank records. Transfer histories. Screenshots. Account-opening material. ATM and CCTV footage. Crypto exchange records. Chat messages. “Job offer” conversations. Cash withdrawal patterns. Phone extractions. Device contents. Sometimes police will also rely on the sheer structure of the transactions – multiple deposits, immediate withdrawals, splitting funds, converting to crypto, or moving funds through several accounts – to argue that the dealing was arranged to conceal or disguise the money’s features. The legislation itself says concealment can include disguising the identity of a person who effectively controls the property.
That is why one of the worst mistakes a reader can make is trying to “explain everything” to police before understanding the charge. These cases are often won or lost by how the facts are framed at the beginning: as naïve victimhood, reckless conduct, or deliberate laundering. National Criminal Lawyers® should naturally link “How to Stop Charges Before Court: Letters of Representation” and “What Happens After Charges Are Laid?” here, because early strategic work can matter enormously in proceeds matters.
Why the amount matters so much
The NSW money-laundering framework is tiered, and the amount involved strongly affects seriousness. The legislation and Judicial Commission materials both reflect that larger values attract heavier penalties and stronger inferences about seriousness. Amount also shapes how police and prosecutors view a defendant’s claim to innocence. A one-off $800 transaction may be argued very differently from repeated five-figure movements through accounts and crypto ATMs. The more structured and substantial the dealing looks, the less likely police are to treat it as a misunderstanding.
And then there is confiscation. NSW’s Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 allows the state to pursue confiscation of profits and forfeiture of property in certain circumstances. So the practical stakes can extend well beyond the criminal charge itself. In some cases, property, accounts or assets may become part of the fight too.
How this overlaps with fraud, identity crime and Commonwealth offending
Another reason this topic is so commercially strong is that it rarely stays neatly inside one offence. The Judicial Commission’s Fraud Offences chapter notes separate NSW offences around dealing in or possessing identification information to commit or facilitate indictable offences, with maximum penalties of 10 years and 7 years respectively. If the money movement sits inside a broader scam, phishing operation, business email compromise, romance scam or fake-identity scheme, police may charge multiple dishonesty and cyber-related offences together.
Why you should get help fast
Because these are exactly the kinds of cases where delay makes everything worse. Accounts may be frozen. Banks may close facilities. Devices may be seized. Funds may be traced. The “job” recruiter may disappear. And the person who thought they were on the edge of a scam can suddenly find themselves treated as part of it. By the time a court date arrives, what matters most may be the evidence preserved in the first days, the explanation given or withheld, and whether a lawyer was able to present the right narrative early.
Contact Us
If you have been accused of dealing with proceeds of crime, money laundering, money mule activity, or moving money through crypto ATMs, do not assume that being “only a middle person” makes the case minor. In NSW, these offences are broad, the penalties are serious, and regulators are openly treating money-mule and crypto-facilitated conduct as a major criminal priority.
At National Criminal Lawyers®, we understand how proceeds, fraud and digital-asset allegations are built. We can help analyse what police can actually prove, whether the facts support knowledge or recklessness, and what can be done early to protect your position before the case hardens against you.
Call us at 1800 CRIM LAW for a free consultation. Help us help you understand your situation and get you the best outcome possible.
