---
title: "Decide what may be said to the client once a suspicion is reported"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity/decide-what-may-be-said-to-the-client-once-a-suspicion-is-reported"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A52OB-X20260927-6"
practice_area: "AML/CTF — the practice as a reporting entity"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Decide what may be said to the client once a suspicion is reported

> Assemble the material the practitioner reads before deciding — the categories of information in section 123(2), the exceptions in section 123 with the ones not yet in operation marked, the conduct rules on…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity/decide-what-may-be-said-to-the-client-once-a-suspicion-is-reported  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [AML/CTF — the practice as a reporting entity](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | Assemble the material the practitioner reads before deciding — the categories of information in section 123(2), the exceptions in section 123 with the ones not yet in operation marked, the conduct rules on confidentiality, instructions and termination, and a list of everyone inside and outside the practice who has already seen the escalation. The tool writes no part of the note and proposes no wording for anything said to the client. |
| What the lawyer must review | The practitioner writes the note. Confirm that any exception relied on is actually in operation — AUSTRAC's guidance records that section 123(5), the exception for disclosures between reporting entities, is not yet in operation. Decide the privilege position item by item rather than over the file as a whole. Work the collision with the duty to the client through the conduct rules that apply in your jurisdiction, and take an ethics ruling if the retainer decision turns on it. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

- What the AI does: Assemble the material the practitioner reads before deciding — the categories of information in section 123(2), the exceptions in section 123 with the ones not yet in operation marked, the conduct rules on confidentiality, instructions and termination, and a list of everyone inside and outside the practice who has already seen the escalation. The tool writes no part of the note and proposes no wording for anything said to the client.
- What the lawyer does: The practitioner writes the note. Confirm that any exception relied on is actually in operation — AUSTRAC's guidance records that section 123(5), the exception for disclosures between reporting entities, is not yet in operation. Decide the privilege position item by item rather than over the file as a whole. Work the collision with the duty to the client through the conduct rules that apply in your jurisdiction, and take an ethics ruling if the retainer decision turns on it.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.
- Restriction: The lawyer makes the substantive assessment. Any permitted AI assistance remains supporting work with its own checks.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. List the information the prohibition actually covers by reference to section 123(2), and separate it from information about the matter you may still discuss with the client.
2. Check that each exception you propose to rely on is in force; AUSTRAC states section 123(5) is not yet in operation, so do not rely on it.
3. Decide the privilege position item by item and record the basis; section 242 preserves the law of legal professional privilege and section 242A allows guidelines for reviewing assertions of it.
4. Work the retainer decision through the conduct rules that bind you — confidentiality, following lawful instructions, and terminating for just cause on reasonable notice — and record which rule you relied on.
5. Close the list of people who know: name who inside the practice is told, confirm no client-facing letter, invoice narration or shared file note records the report, and confirm no tool with client access holds it.

## Notes

- These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Sources

- [AUSTRAC: Tipping off](https://www.austrac.gov.au/industry-and-business/obligations-and-guidance/your-amlctf-program/reporting-us/tipping-off) (checked 2026-09-27)
- [AUSTRAC: Legal professional privilege](https://www.austrac.gov.au/industry-and-business/obligations-and-guidance/your-amlctf-program/reporting-us/legal-professional-privilege) (checked 2026-09-27)
- [Parliamentary Library Bills Digest: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2024 (section 242 and legal professional privilege)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd018) (checked 2026-09-27)
- [Law Institute of Victoria: Ethical obligations in complying with the AML/CTF regime (11 December 2025)](https://www.liv.asn.au/Common/Uploaded%20files/Knowledge-Hub/AML/20251211_AMLCTF_EthicalObligations_InformationSheet_Final.pdf) (checked 2026-09-27)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [AUSTRAC suspicious matter report](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity/form-austrac-suspicious-matter-report.md) | Form | Yellow | Link to the AUSTRAC suspicious matter report lodged in AUSTRAC Online. The page states the suspicion test and the time to report. |
| [AUSTRAC legal professional privilege form for a report](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity/form-austrac-lpp-reporting-obligation.md) | Form | Yellow | Link to AUSTRAC's privilege form for a suspicious matter report or a threshold transaction report. It is lodged with the report in AUSTRAC Online. |
| [AUSTRAC legal professional privilege form for a notice](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity/form-austrac-lpp-responding-notice.md) | Form | Yellow | Link to AUSTRAC's privilege form for a notice or request for information. The page says to email it to lpp.forms@austrac.gov.au within the time the notice states. |
| [Tipping-off holding script for staff and the approved client note](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity/tipping-off-holding-script.md) | Notice | Red | Words the compliance officer approves for staff to use when more information is needed or a matter cannot proceed, so a client is not told that a suspicious matter report exists or that the practice… |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/aml-ctf-the-practice-as-a-reporting-entity/decide-what-may-be-said-to-the-client-once-a-suspicion-is-reported/united-states.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*