AML compliance for Australian real estate agencies

Generally no. Ongoing property management of residential rentals — collecting rent, handling repairs, dealing with tenants — is not a designated service under the Tranche 2 amendments. The trigger is acting in a property purchase or sale: listing and selling agents, buyer's agents, and commercial brokers are in scope. Mixed agencies that do both rentals and sales need a program scoped to the sales side, with clear internal documentation that the rental management book is out of scope. Short-stay management, novation of leases on sale settlements, and rent-roll sales can have their own nuances and are worth confirming with a provider.

Both, separately, where each is providing a designated service. The selling agent is the reporting entity for the listing and acts on behalf of the vendor — they have CDD obligations on the vendor and risk-based obligations on the buyer they accept an offer from. The conveyancer or solicitor for either side is a reporting entity for the legal services they provide and runs their own CDD on their client. There is no single 'one verification covers the chain' provision: each reporting entity must complete CDD for the service they provide, although several providers offer shared identity-verification platforms that reduce duplication for the consumer at the front desk.

You must not proceed with the designated service — the Act explicitly prohibits providing a designated service where required CDD cannot be completed, and proceeding anyway is itself a contravention. In practice, agencies handle this by building ID capture into the offer and listing process so it happens before the deal point, with scripts that explain it as a regulatory requirement (the same way banks ask for ID at account opening). Providers give you the scripts, the digital ID flow that handles 95%+ of buyers in under three minutes, and an escalation playbook for the small number of refusals. A documented refusal is also a potential SMR trigger if combined with other red flags.

Source-of-funds (SoF) is risk-based: not every buyer is asked, but anyone presenting a higher-risk indicator is. Common triggers include cash deposits, overseas wires from higher-risk jurisdictions, structures with offshore beneficial owners, PEP exposure, or values significantly above the buyer's apparent profile. The enquiry is documentary (payslips, accountant's letter, sale-of-asset documentation, statutory declaration) and proportionate — you are not running a financial audit, you are forming a reasonable basis to believe the funds are legitimate. Providers script the questions, integrate them into the buyer onboarding flow, and capture the evidence in the file so an AUSTRAC reviewer can see your reasoning.

Generally no — each licensed agency is its own legal entity and reporting entity, even within a national franchise brand. The head office can (and typically does) provide a master program template, central training, and approved tooling, but each franchisee enrols with AUSTRAC separately and is accountable for its own program implementation, CDD, and SMRs. Multi-office independent groups under a single ABN can run a single enrolment and program with office-level appendices. Providers experienced with franchise networks offer a 'master + appendix' model that gives the brand consistency while preserving each entity's individual accountability.