technology lawyer

Introduction of cryptocurrency and hacking offences to Parliament

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–7 minutes

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022 (Bill) seeks to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code), the Crimes Act 1914 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to bring historical legislation into the modern state of play as it relates to threats of ransomware.  The new powers under this Bill complement existing search and seizure powers, which we have previously considered here.

Geographical considerations

Importantly, at the outset, the Bill does away with geographical constraints upon offending.  Whilst it may have been the case that to be charged with a cyber type of offence the offending would need to have occurred within Australia, the Bill introduces an ‘impact-focused’ method of determining jurisdiction.  That is, instead of focusing on the location at which the offending occurs, the Bill is concerned of the location upon which the offending impacts.

Where the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly outside Australia and it constitutes an offence relating to unauthorised:

  • access to data;
  • modification of data;
  • impairment of electronic communication of data to or from a computer; or
  • impairment of the reliability, security or operation of any data; and

the data is under the control of an Australian person or corporation and is reasonably capable of being accessed within Australia, an offender will not escape liability for the offence based on the geographical externality to Australia.[1]

Cryptocurrency seizures

Schedule 3 of the Bill inserts various sections into the Crimes Act 1914.  Arguably, most interestingly amongst them is section 1, which inserts section 3C(1) to define a digital asset and its seizure as follows:

“digital asset means:

  • a digital representation of value or rights (including rights to property), the ownership of which is evidenced cryptographically and that is held and transferred electronically by:
  • a type of distributed ledger technology; or
  • another distributed cryptographically verifiable data structure; or
  • a right or thing prescribed by the regulations;

but does not include any right or thing that, under the regulations, is taken to be a digital asset for the purposes of this Part.

seize, for a digital asset, has a meaning affected by subsection 3FA(3).”

 The legislative definition does not outright state ‘cryptocurrencies’, but it is perfectly clear for all who read that it is indeed such currency which is being referred to.  Indeed, a cryptocurrency is a digital representation of value with ownership cryptographically evidenced and is tradeable on distributed ledge technology.

Therefore, it is prudent to consider the circumstances in which this Bill would allow the government to seize cryptocurrencies.

If a warrant is in force in relation to either a premises or a person, an executing officer may seize a digital asset if:

  • in the course of exercising the warrant, the officer finds one or more things that suggest the existence of the digital asset; and
  • the officer suspects the digital asset to be:
    • evidential material in relation to an offence to which the warrant relates; or
    • evidential material in relation to another offence that is an indictable offence; or
    • evidential material or tainted property; and
  • the officer reasonably suspects that seizing the digital asset is necessary to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction, or its use in committing an offence.[2]

It is clear that there needs to be a sufficient connection between the digital asset and an offence before an officer is authorised to seize the digital asset.  Where an officer is authorised to do so by transferring the digital asset from an existing digital wallet to a digital wallet controlled by the Australian Federal Police.[3]  Notably, the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill indicates that an officer is not confined merely to the above method of seizing digital assets.[4]  It appears Parliament intends to provide very broad powers to officers, in certain circumstances, to seize digital assets.

Hacking offences

The Bill establishes an offence of data extortion with penalty of imprisonment of ten (10) years.  Where a person without authorisation accesses, modifies or impairs data held in a computer and then, via a carriage service, makes a threat to the owner of the data compelling them to do or omit to do an act.[5]

The Bill also established an offence of dealing with data.  Where a person obtains, accesses, modifies or releases data by use of a carriage service and was not authorised to access or modify said data, they will have committed an offence and be liable for five (5) years imprisonment.[6]

The most severe penalty for offending introduced by the Bill is in relation to aggravated computer offences, whereby an offender may be liable to twenty-five (25) years imprisonment.  Where an offender commits an underlying offence, such as unauthorised access or modification, but that act is targeted directly or indirectly towards ‘critical infrastructure’, it will be considered aggravating offending.[7]  Critical infrastructure is expansively defined under section 9 of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018.

Takeaways

The Bill provides a novel power for law enforcement to seize digital assets such as cryptocurrencies and provides further protection against cyber crimes via the introduction of more severe penalties and the removal of geographical constraints, which may otherwise have created difficulty in prosecuting international offenders.

Links and further references

Legislation

Crimes Act 1914

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022

Criminal Code Act 1995

Explanatory Memorandum to Crimes Legislation Amendment (Ransomware Action Plan) Bill 2022

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018

Further information about cryptocurrency seizure and hacking offences

If you need advice on cryptocurrency seizure and hacking offences, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

[1] Bill section 1 introducing section 476/3 to the Code.

[2] Bill Schedule 3 section 7 inserting section 3FA(1) and (2) into the Crimes Act 1914; Bill Schedule 3 s 11 inserting section 288A(1) in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

[3] Bill Schedule 3 section 7 inserting section 3FA(3) into the Crimes Act 1914; Bill Schedule 3 s 11 inserting section 288A(2) in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

[4] Explanatory memorandum at [144].

[5] Bill Schedule 1 section 2 inserting section 477.4 into the Criminal Code.

[6] Bill Schedule 1 section 2 inserting section 478.5 into the Criminal Code.

[7] Bill Schedule 1 section 12 inserting sections 479.1 and 479.2 into the Criminal Code.


Related insights about cryptocurrency seizure and hacking offences

  • Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach

    Telegram terror content: eSafety alleges Online Safety Act breach

    Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (Court) against Emirati-based Telegram FZ-LLC (Trade License Number 94349) (Telegram), alleging that it failed to comply with obligations to detect, deter and disrupt the distribution of pro-terror material and remove unlawful material from its messaging service. The proceedings, eSafety Commissioner v…

    Read more …

  • Privacy Amendment Bill 2026 proposes Privacy Act amendments

    Privacy Amendment Bill 2026 proposes Privacy Act amendments

    On 31 August 2026, the Australian Government published a Consultation Paper and released an exposure draft of the Privacy Amendment (Personal Data Protection) Bill 2026 (Bill), proposing amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (Privacy Act).  The Bill proposes amendments to the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) codified in Schedule 1 of the Privacy Act. The…

    Read more …

  • Digital Duty of Care Bill 2026

    Digital Duty of Care Bill 2026

    The Australian Labor party has introduced an exposure draft of the Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 (Digital Duty of Care Bill/Draft Bill) for “consultation”.  The Digital Duty of Care Bill proposes to make a number of minor (and major) amendments to the Online Safety Act 2021(Cth) (Online Safety Act) and adds…

    Read more …

  • AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    AI compliance programs: one size does not fit all

    Australia does not have any standalone legislation addressing how businesses can safely implement Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Use of AI by Australian businesses is, however, regulated, not by a patchwork combination of Federal and State legislation, industry-specific legislation and standards, professional body rules and guidance issued by government departments and other regulators.  This article discusses the…

    Read more …

  • AI evidence misleading Court:  Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    AI evidence misleading Court: Ba v Sterling Parts Australia

    On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts).  Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court).  Symons J dismissed…

    Read more …

  • Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    Office of AI announced by Federal Government

    On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…

    Read more …

  • AI businesses should have duty of care

    AI businesses should have duty of care

    In a recent interview with InnovationAus.com, Victorian Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Senator) emphasised the need to adopt digital duty of care laws for artificial intelligence (AI) companies.[1]  As a representative of the ALP and former AI start-up founder, the Senator calls for the proposed digital duty of care to apply to AI companies.  If implemented, the…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court orders winding up of crypto mining investment scheme

    Federal Court orders winding up of crypto mining investment scheme

    The Federal Court of Australia delivered judgment in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v NGS Crypto Pty Ltd (No 5) [2025] FCA 1611, on 18 December 2025 ordering the winding up of two (2) cryptocurrency related entities after finding that they operated an unlicensed financial services business and an unregistered managed investment scheme in contravention…

    Read more …

  • Online Safety – is your online business a DIS or a RES?

    Online Safety – is your online business a DIS or a RES?

    Whether your online business has to comply with the obligations contained in the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (OSA), and related standards and industry codes will largely depend on how your business is classified because of the functionality it provides to end users in Australia.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend