News · Explainer
Money mules and dealing with the proceeds of crime.
A NSW crime squad this week charged people described as accountants and money mules in a fraud scheme. Money-mule charges reach ordinary people who move money for others, sometimes without knowing the full picture. Here is how the offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime works in NSW, and where the line sits.
By Aaron Kernaghan · Published 10 September 2026
What is a money mule?
A money mule is a person who receives money into their own bank account and then moves it on to someone else, usually for a cut. The money is often the proceeds of fraud, romance scams, investment scams, or other crime. Mules are recruited through job ads, social media, or contacts who present the work as easy money. Many mules are young, and some are themselves victims of a scam before they become part of one.
The important point is that a person can be charged with dealing with the proceeds of crime even if they did not commit the fraud that produced the money. Moving the money is itself an offence.
The NSW offence, and its tiers.
Section 193B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) makes it an offence to deal with the proceeds of crime. The offence is graded by the mental state of the accused. Dealing with money while knowing it is the proceeds of crime is the most serious form. Dealing while being reckless about whether it is proceeds of crime is next. Dealing where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the money is the proceeds of crime is the lowest tier, and it still carries imprisonment.
That lowest tier is the one that catches many money mules. It does not require the Crown to prove the accused knew the money was dirty. It asks whether a reasonable person, knowing what the accused knew, would have suspected the money was proceeds of crime. There is a parallel Commonwealth regime, dealt with in our note on money laundering under Division 400, which is charged where the money moves across borders or through the federal banking system.
Can you be guilty if you did not know?
This is the question money mules most often ask, and the answer is uncomfortable. You can be convicted of the lowest tier on the basis that there were reasonable grounds to suspect, without proof that you actually knew. The law expects people to notice the warning signs: large sums passing through a personal account, instructions to move money quickly, payment for doing so, and no ordinary reason for the transfers. Where those signs are present, an honest claim of ignorance may not be enough.
That does not mean every mule is guilty. The Crown still has to prove the money was proceeds of crime and that the grounds for suspicion existed on the facts known to the accused. Where the accused was genuinely deceived, or the circumstances were not obviously suspicious, there is real ground to fight.
What the defence looks at.
The defence work starts with the mental state and the facts. What did the accused actually know, and what would a reasonable person in their position have suspected. It looks at how the account was used, what the accused was told, whether they were paid, and whether they were themselves tricked or pressured. Being coerced or deceived into acting as a mule is relevant both to whether the offence is made out and, if it is, to sentence. Young people and people who have been exploited are treated differently from organisers.
If police contact you.
If your account has been frozen, or police want to ask about money that passed through it, do not try to explain your way out of it in an interview. What seems like a helpful explanation can lock in the very suspicion the Crown needs. Get advice first. For related financial offences, see our notes on fraud and on asset confiscation and forfeiture.
Penalties and how these cases are sentenced.
The penalty rises with the mental state and the amount of money involved. Dealing with the proceeds of crime while knowing they are proceeds of crime carries the highest maximum. The reckless form carries less, and the lowest tier, based on reasonable grounds to suspect, carries less again, but still exposes a person to imprisonment. The value of the money that passed through the account is a major factor at sentence, alongside the role of the accused and whether they profited.
Courts draw a clear line between organisers and used people. A person who set up the scheme, recruited others and took the profit is treated very differently from a young person who let a friend use their account for a small fee and did not grasp what they were part of. Genuine remorse, early repayment where possible, and cooperation all count. So does the personal background of a person who was exploited into the role.
Protecting yourself.
The best protection is prevention. Never let anyone else use your bank account. Be wary of any job that involves receiving money and passing it on for a commission, however it is dressed up. If you are already caught in it, stopping and getting advice quickly is far better than continuing or trying to explain it to police alone. The earlier a lawyer is involved, the more can be done about both the charge and any restraint over your funds.
Frequently asked.
What is a money mule?
A person who receives money into their account and moves it on for someone else, often for a fee. The money is usually the proceeds of fraud or scams. Even a person who did not commit the original crime can be charged with dealing with proceeds of crime.
What is the offence in NSW?
Section 193B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It is tiered by mental state: knowing is most serious, then reckless, then dealing where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the money is proceeds of crime.
Can you be guilty if you did not know the money was dirty?
You can be charged with the lowest tier where there were reasonable grounds to suspect, even without actual knowledge. What a reasonable person would have suspected on the facts known to you is the question.
What are the defences?
The defence turns on mental state and facts: genuine ignorance, an innocent explanation for the transfers, and the absence of circumstances that should have raised suspicion. Being tricked or coerced is relevant to liability and sentence.
To speak to a criminal defence lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.
This article is written by Aaron Kernaghan, criminal defence lawyer at Brady & Associates Lawyers, as at 10 September 2026. It is commentary and reflects the personal opinion of the author only. It is not legal advice, it is not a substitute for advice on your own matter, and it does not purport to be accurate or complete. Any matter referred to may be before the court and any person charged is presumed innocent. For advice on a specific matter, contact Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.
More criminal-law commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.