Form · AML/CTF — the practice as a reporting entity
ML/TF risk assessment record for a legal practice
Record of the practice's own ML/TF risk assessment under s 26C: the services, customers, channels and countries it actually has, the ratings the compliance officer gives, and the senior manager's approval.
- Kind
- Form. A form to complete, or a guide to completing an official one.
- Where it applies
- Australia
- AI use
- Red You write the text. The tool writes nothing into the document. Where permitted, it may check, clarify or collect data, and anything it checks or collects is verified.
- Law stated as at
- 22 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 22 October 2026 against the 3 authorities it cites, for Australia.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use when the practice provides a designated service and must assess the money laundering, terrorism financing and proliferation financing risks it may reasonably face. Do not adopt a sector template's ratings as the practice's own. Update it when those risks change.
Used for these tasks
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
The compliance officer writes the risk ratings and the reasons; a tool may only list matter types, channels and countries from a table the officer has already approved.
AI may
- List matter types, delivery channels and countries from a schedule the compliance officer has approved, with counts if those counts come from the practice system.
- Flag rows in an old version of this record that have no entry in the new version.
AI must not
- Must not rate a risk, accept a risk, or copy a kit rating into the rating column.
- Must not describe a client as high risk or as suspicious.
- Must not be given client CDD files or suspicion material.
The lawyer checks
- Each rating and reason was written by the compliance officer after looking at the practice's own work, not at a blank template.
- Section 26C(3) factors are addressed, including new or emerging technologies in services and in delivery channels.
- The senior manager has approved this version, and the previous version is kept.
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Read the full text
The full text is available after you log in. It is free. When you log in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in AML/CTF — the practice as a reporting entity
- AML/CTF program for small legal practices: AUSTRAC legal profession starter kit adoption guide
- AUSTRAC enrolment form for a reporting entity
- Independent evaluation of the practice AML/CTF program
- Designated services capture map and enrolment decision record (AML/CTF Act s 6(5B), table 6)
- Enhanced customer due diligence decision record
- First independent evaluation deadline for the practice
- AUSTRAC suspicious matter report
- Customer due diligence file index before the service starts
- Initial customer due diligence checklist for law practice designated services
- AUSTRAC legal professional privilege form for a report
- Legal profession AML/CTF program review triggers
- AI and automated tools in the AML/CTF program: control standard
- Deadline to notify AUSTRAC of the AML/CTF compliance officer
- AUSTRAC legal professional privilege form for a notice
- Tipping-off holding script for staff and the approved client note
- AML/CTF record retention schedule for the practice
- Suspicious matter escalation, reporting and legal professional privilege procedure
- Client letter: why we need to verify your identity (AML/CTF obligations)
All precedents for AML/CTF — the practice as a reporting entity · Tasks and AI use in this area