Australia’s anti-money laundering regime is not only changing agency compliance. It is forcing businesses to decide how much of the new financial burden should be carried by vendors and buyers.
Australian real estate agencies are confronting a new and potentially uncomfortable question less than three weeks after sweeping anti-money laundering laws came into effect.
Who pays for compliance?
Since 1 July, real estate agents, buyer’s agents and certain property developers have been brought under Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing regime for the first time.
Agencies providing regulated real estate services must now operate an AML/CTF program, verify clients, assess transaction risks, maintain records and report suspicious activity to AUSTRAC where required. An agency must have its program in place before brokering the sale, purchase or transfer of real estate.
The objective is difficult to dispute. Australia’s property market has long been considered vulnerable to criminals seeking to move or legitimise illicit funds, and the reforms bring real estate professionals into a regulatory system already applying to banks, casinos and other financial businesses.
The practical cost of delivering that protection, however, is beginning to emerge.
A Geelong agency principal recently estimated that using a third-party compliance provider could cost his business approximately $60,000 annually, excluding additional wages. He indicated that a separate $125 compliance fee would be passed on to clients.
Earlier industry discussions in Queensland produced estimates of between $400 and $500 per person for some compliance processes, although costs will vary substantially depending on the agency, transaction, provider and level of risk involved. These figures are individual industry estimates rather than an established national benchmark, but they highlight the commercial uncertainty now confronting business owners.
More than an identity check
Much of the public conversation has focused on buyers and sellers being asked to provide identification.
That is only the most visible part of the change.
Customer due diligence may also require an agency to understand who it is dealing with, identify beneficial owners, assess the risk attached to a client or transaction and, in some circumstances, seek further information about the nature of the transaction or the source of funds.
These obligations are not confined to the moment an authority is signed or an offer is accepted. Agencies must maintain systems capable of identifying and escalating unusual activity throughout the relationship.
That means software, training, documentation, oversight and staff time.
For larger networks, the expense may be spread across hundreds of offices or incorporated into national systems. For independent and boutique agencies, the same obligation could represent a far more noticeable addition to operating costs.
Absorbing the expense will place further pressure on margins already affected by rising wages, technology subscriptions, portal costs, insurance and marketing expenditure.
Passing it directly to clients carries a different risk.
Vendors already expect to pay commission, advertising and campaign expenses. A separately itemised AML fee could be interpreted as another administrative charge unless its purpose, amount and timing are explained clearly before the client signs.
The decision cannot simply be left to individual agents to manage differently from one listing appointment to another.
A new client-experience test
The most successful agencies are likely to treat AML compliance as part of their customer experience rather than an obstacle sitting beside it.
Buyers and sellers may now be asked for identification by their agent, conveyancer, lawyer, finance provider or another professional involved in the transaction. Without a clear explanation, repeated requests can appear unnecessary, invasive or poorly coordinated.
The agency representative asking a vendor about company structures, beneficial ownership or the source of funds must be able to explain why the information is required without making the client feel accused of wrongdoing.
That will require more than issuing staff with a compliance manual.
Scripts, onboarding communications, privacy notices and listing documentation will need to work together. Clients should understand what information is being collected, how it will be protected, who may receive it and whether any additional cost will be charged.
REIA has advised buyers and sellers that customer due diligence is now a mandatory part of property transactions handled by regulated agents, including identity verification and further checks where required.
Compliance collides with privacy
The reforms also arrive as the property industry faces increased scrutiny over the collection and retention of personal information.
AML processes may require agencies to hold identification documents and sensitive information capable of causing significant harm if accessed improperly.
Legal guidance issued ahead of the reforms warned that affected businesses may need to update their privacy policies, collection notices, onboarding documents and internal data-handling procedures so clients understand why information is being requested and how it will be stored or disclosed.
An agency can therefore meet its identity-checking obligation and still expose itself to risk through poor cybersecurity, excessive access permissions or indefinite retention of documents.
The cheapest verification platform will not necessarily be the safest or most commercially responsible option.
Business owners need to know where client information is stored, whether documents are retained by the agency or its provider, which employees can access them and what happens when the regulatory retention period ends.
For an industry built on relationships and reputation, a preventable data breach could prove considerably more expensive than the compliance system itself.
The industry’s next pricing debate
There is no single approach that will work for every business.
Some agencies will absorb AML expenses as part of their operating model. Others may incorporate the cost into existing administration or professional-service fees. Some will introduce a clearly disclosed standalone charge.
What matters is that the decision is deliberate, transparent and consistent.
Agencies introducing a new fee should be able to demonstrate how it was calculated and what service it covers. Those choosing to absorb the cost should understand its effect on profitability rather than allowing it to disappear unnoticed across thousands of transactions.
The introduction of AML laws was always going to change how property transactions are administered.
The more consequential change may be how the reforms alter agency pricing, client onboarding, data security and the responsibilities carried by individual salespeople.
The regime was designed to make Australian property more difficult for criminals to exploit.
Its first major test for the real estate profession will be whether agencies can meet that responsibility without making legitimate buyers and sellers feel that they are paying more, surrendering more information and receiving less personal service.
By Real Estate Today Australia
This article was independently written and edited by Real Estate Today. © Real Estate Today 2026 – All Rights Reserved.
Real Estate Today is the most engaged & influential real estate industry publication throughout Australia and New Zealand.
