CHAPTER 2

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page

CHAPTER 2 Australian Federal Police Annual Report 2011–12

Background

2.1 The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is Australia's international law enforcement and policing representative and the government's chief source of advice on policing issues. The role of the agency is to:

...enforce Commonwealth criminal law, to contribute to combating organised crime and to protect Commonwealth and national interests from criminal activity in Australia and overseas. As a key member of the national security community, the AFP leads and contributes to many whole-of-government national security initiatives.[1]

2.2 Section 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (the AFP Act) outlines the functions of the AFP which include:

the provision of police services in relation to the laws of the Commonwealth, the property of the Commonwealth (including Commonwealth places) and property of authorities of the Commonwealth;
the safeguarding of Commonwealth interests and anything else that is incidental or conducive to the provision of these services;
the provision of police services in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and Australia’s external territories;
protective and custodial functions as directed by the Minister;
the provision of police services and police support services to assist or cooperate with an Australian or foreign law enforcement agency, intelligence or security agency or government regulatory agency; and
the provision of police services and police support services to establish, develop and monitor peace, stability and security in foreign countries.

2.3 The AFP's strategic priorities are determined in accordance with section 8 of the AFP Act and Ministerial Directions issued under subsection 37(2) of the AFP Act.[2]

Annual reporting and compliance

2.4 The AFP is required to prepare an annual report under section 67 of the AFP Act. The section requires that:

(1) The Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on the administration and the operations of the Australian Federal Police during the year that ended on that date.

(1A) The report must contain, in respect of the year, prescribed particulars about:

(a) the AFP conduct issues that were dealt with under Part V during that year; and

(b) the action that was taken, during that year, in relation to AFP conduct issues that were dealt with under Division 3 of Part V.

(2) The Minister shall cause a report furnished to him or her under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is received by the Minister.

2.5 The AFP is a prescribed agency for the purposes of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act). As an FMA Act agency, the AFP must comply with the Requirements for Annual Reports for Departments, Executive Agencies and FMA Act Bodies, prepared by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The report's compliance with these requirements is set out in a compliance index.[3]

2.6 Based on the committee's assessment of the report, it fulfils these requirements.

AFP focus 2011–12

2.7 During the year, the AFP continued to focus on reducing criminal and other security threats to Australia's collective economic and societal interests. In collaboration with partners at the domestic and international level, the AFP concentrated on four key areas, namely:

preventing and investigating organised and serious criminal activity affecting Australians and Australian interests;
countering the threat of terrorism to Australians and Australian interests, both nationally and internationally;
providing assistance to the Pacific region and to other areas of national interest such as Timor-Leste and Afghanistan to strengthen order and the rule of law; and
countering the threat posed by high-tech crime and cybercrime.[4]

Countering the threat posed by high-tech crime and cybercrime

2.8 In relation to the fourth area concerning high-tech crime and cybercrime, the AFP has responsibility for High Tech Crime Operations (HTCO). HTCO target criminal acts that manipulate the workings of computer systems relied upon by the Australian critical infrastructure community and/or information systems of national significance. HTCO also focus on criminal acts that exploit the integrity and safety of children while also providing effective and contemporary crime prevention strategies in relation to cyber safety and security awareness.[5]

2.9 The AFP identified a number of challenges in relation to high tech crime and cybercrime. These include an increase in the scale, sophistication and successful perpetration of cybercrime and its transitional nature which limits the investigational capacity of one agency or one jurisdiction to disrupt the criminal activities. The AFP emphasised that the ability to use technology to commit crime, attack critical infrastructure, engage in terrorism activity and undermine national security is a 'very real threat that law enforcement is responding to'. For these reasons, cybercrime presents unique challenges for law enforcement including advances in technology, ability of criminal networks to exploit technology, data preservation, mobile computing and identification of individual offenders.[6] Other challenges include the volume of data and its retention by Internet Service Providers and telecommunications carriers for use as evidence. Another challenge which has required the AFP to develop working relationships with social networking platforms is the:

...business model of international corporations such as Facebook, Google and Yahoo are often not bound by domestic legislation and can serve to limit law enforcement capability to gain evidence to support criminal prosecutions for cyber related crimes.[7]

2.10 In terms of its approach to tackling high-tech crime and cybercrime, the AFP works in collaboration with a diverse range of partners including local and overseas laws enforcement and government agencies, non-government agencies, industry and the community. Initiatives include the AFP's contribution to the National Security Strategy and Cyber Security Operations Centre as well as participation in nine government cyber security and policy forums.[8]

2.11 AFP operational highlights in relation to cybercrime and high-tech crime included Operation Lino, a criminal investigation undertaken by Cyber Crime Operations to dismantle a Romanian-based crime syndicate. The syndicate was reported to have accessed approximately half a million Australian credit cards of which 30 000 had been used to perpetrate an estimated $30 million in fraud worldwide.[9] In November 2012, more than 200 Romanian National Police officers executed 36 search warrants across Romania. More than 500 000 Euros, multiple firearms and almost 90 computer servers were seized and four 'carder' sites or websites used to sell stolen credit cards were dismantled.[10] Law enforcement agencies from thirteen countries including the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation were involved in the operation alongside the AFP.[11]

AFP achievements 2011–12

2.12 In the Commissioner's review, Mr Tony Negus highlighted a number of the AFP's 2011–12 achievements. They include:

meeting or exceeding all 33 key performance indicators;
a 95 per cent conviction rate for cases reaching court;
drug and fraud investigations resulted in a return on investment ratio of 8 to 1;
a Drug Harm Index calculation of over $5.1 billion compared with $1.2 billion in 2010–11. The associated Estimated Financial Return trebled to $871 million;
restraint of over $97 million of proceeds of crime, more than double the amount of the previous year;
rapid deployment of AFP members to immigration detention centres in response to unrest and assistance in restoring order on a number of occasions; and
a record 90 per cent satisfied/very satisfied rating in its survey of 86 stakeholders.[12]

2.13 Mr Negus informed the committee that throughout the year in review, the AFP had continued to build on its investigative and operational capabilities while improving its efficiency. Efforts were also directed to building effective working relationships with international and national partners and the AFP's contribution to whole-of-government efforts. As a result, Mr Negus argued that the AFP had built on its previous year's positive results to produce 'outstanding results' for the reporting period.[13]

2.14 In terms of operational successes, the continued focus on illicit drug importation led the AFP to seize almost 15 tonnes of drugs while ongoing attention to child online exploitation offences led to 171 apprehensions carried out over the year. In relation to one such operation, titled Operation Belfort, the AFP identified and dismantled a group of online child sex predators and arrested 16 individuals in March 2012.[14]

2.15 The AFP also provided protective security advice as well as significant operational resources and support for key national events including the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, ANZAC Day ceremonies in Turkey and France, and the visits of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II and the United States President Barack Obama.[15]

2.16 In relation to significant legislative changes, amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 were introduced to support the permanent AFP-led multi-agency Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce which was established during the reporting period. The amendments enable the AFP to conduct its own proceeds of crime litigation.[16] From April 2012, the AFP commenced responsibility for all new proceeds of crime litigation matters. Under this new capability, the action taken in relation to one alleged tax evasion case, codenamed Operation Beaufighter resulted in the restraint of over $50 million in assets.[17] The taskforce itself combines the resources of the AFP, Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Australian Crime Commission (ACC). Mr Negus drew attention to the $97 million in proceeds of crime that were restrained by the taskforce in 2011–12 as evidence of the taskforce's success.[18] The taskforce was able to increase the amount of criminal assets restrained from $41 million in 2010–11.[19]

AFP structure and performance measurement

2.17 Following the Federal audit of police capabilities by Mr Roger Beale AO in 2009, the AFP consolidated its key national capabilities around three core operational programs—security and protection, international deployments, and serious crime.[20] Together with one operational support program, the four programs were rationalised from an original seven.

2.18 A revised outcome 1 statement and associated programs formally took effect from 1 July 2010. The AFP's outcome and program structure are set out in the Attorney-General's Portfolio Budget Statements.

Figure 1: AFP Outcomes and Programs

Outcome 1

Outcome 1 contributes to reduced criminal and security threats to Australia's economic and societal interests through cooperative policing services.

Program 1.1 National Security—Policing

Program 1.1’s primary focus is on prevention. It comprises the Counter Terrorism, Aviation and Protection functions.

Program 1.2: International Deployments

Program 1.2 delivers initiatives on behalf of the Australian Government that are aimed at improving regional and international security, stability and governance. It is supported by the International Deployment Group.

Program 1.3: Operations—Policing

Program 1.3 seeks to reduce criminal threats to Australia’s collective economic and societal interests by employing a multidisciplinary approach to combating crimes against the Commonwealth. The program comprises the Serious and Organised Crime (which includes the International Network) and Crime Operations functions.

Program 1.4: Close Operations Support

Program 1.4 provides specialist support to the AFP’s national security and operations programs, in particular keeping pace with advancements in technology and science.

It comprises the Operations Support, Intelligence, Forensic and Data Centres, and High Tech Crime Operations functions.

Outcome 2

Outcome 2 contributes to a safe and secure environment through policing activities on behalf of the Australian Capital Territory Government.

Program 2.1: ACT Community Policing

Program 2.1 provides crime and safety management, road safety, prosecution and judicial support, and crime prevention.

Strategic Leaders' Group

2.19 Established in 2007–08, the Strategic Leaders' Group (SLG) is the AFP's peak advisory committee. Its membership consists of the Commissioner as Chair, Deputy Commissioners, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Police Officer ACT Policing, National Managers and two non-executive members. The SLG assists the Commissioner to make decisions and exercise his statutory responsibilities. The SLG also supports the Commissioner in developing and enhancing partnerships with external stakeholders.

2.20 During the year in review, the SLG considered the development of the AFP's Strategic Plan for 2012–15 including review of the AFP's vision statement, core values and priorities. In considering the strategic plan, the SLG determined that the AFP vision statement, core values and priorities remained appropriate and no changes were sought to them.[21]

2.21 In 2011–12, the SLG also considered the direction and challenges of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, progress of the AFP's Spectrum Program, (an information technology project), as well as implementation of the Fraud Control and Anti-Corruption Plan.[22]

2.22 For the 2012–13 financial year, key issues for consideration by the SLG are expected to include the progression of Program Spectrum, a review of the AFP's International Engagement Strategy, and consideration of the AFP's annual intelligence assessment.[23]

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

2.23 During the review period, three new KPIs specific to Outcome 1, Program 1.1: National Security—Policing (protection) were added to the National Security Program in the Portfolio Budget Statements to provide indicators for the:

percentage of time dedicated to prevention versus responses activities by uniform protection (KPI 9);
percentage of time dedicated to prevention versus response activities by close personal protection teams (KPI 10); and
number of available incidents per 5000 hours (KPI 11).[24]

2.24 The AFP explained that the three KPIs were introduced to provide expanded coverage on the performance of its protection function as it had previously been represented through a single KPI which measured stakeholder satisfaction.[25]

2.25 Two other new KPIs were introduced within Outcome 1, Program 1.3 Operations—Policing. These include:

KPI 18 which measures the level of external client/stakeholder satisfaction (percentage of clients satisfied or very satisfied). This KPI is a consolidated overall measure of client satisfaction and combines two survey indicators. It provides consistency in measuring satisfaction with other AFP programs;[26] and
KPI 22 which provides the amount of assets restrained ($m).[27] This KPI was added to reflect the performance of the newly formed Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce by measuring the total monetary value of assets restrained.[28]

2.26 In terms of performance over the review period, the AFP has 33 KPIs relating to Outcome 1 and its four programs. According to the annual report, the AFP met or exceeded targets for each of the 33 KPIs which is the:

...best result since comprehensive reporting of KPIs against targets was introduced in 2009–10. Strong operational results have been achieved across all programs. Stakeholder satisfaction is also the highest ever recorded, reaching 90 per cent overall for the AFP as a whole for the first time in 10 years that the Business Satisfaction Survey has been undertaken. This is a five percentage point increase from the overall result in 2010–11 and is based on responses from 826 external clients, stakeholders and partners.[29]

2.27 While drawing attention to the AFP's success in meeting all the KPIs for the first time, AFP Commissioner, Mr Negus emphasised that the targets in relation to the KPIs were deliberately set to stretch the organisation:

We went close last year, but this year is the first time we have met them all. They are based on historical performance, but we do stretch ourselves each year and reassess. We add more and we subtract ones which are no longer relevant—we try to make sure they do stretch the organisation to perform at a higher level each year.[30]

2.28 The AFP's Chief Operating Officer, Mr Andrew Wood informed the committee that an annual structured review of the KPIs is undertaken to establish whether current KPIs reflect the AFP's performance priorities. Mr Wood explained to the committee the process of KPI development:

There is an internal audit and business analysis team within my portfolio. They drive the generation of information, including in consultation with some of our research partners, such as the University of Queensland, to identify opportunities for improvement in the performance KPIs we have. The technical process is that we then, as part of the budget process, take our suggestions to the Department of Finance and Deregulation and to our minister for inclusion in the portfolio budget statement each year. The final sign-off is technically by the Treasurer when he tables the PBS on budget night.[31]

Outcome 1—key highlights and performance

Program 1.1: National Security—Policing

2.29 Three major functions make up the program—counter terrorism, aviation and protection.

Counter-terrorism

2.30 In relation to counter-terrorism, there are Joint Counter Terrorism Teams in each Australian jurisdiction made up of members of the AFP, state and territory police, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and in the case of NSW, the NSW Crime Commission. During the year, a memorandum of understanding between these agencies was renewed for each of the Joint Counter Terrorism Teams as part of efforts to 'enhance the nationally consistent governance framework for the strategic management of counter-terrorism operations across Australia'.[32]

2.31 During the year, counter-terrorism training was provided to 99 members of the Joint Counter Terrorism Teams and 340 members of international law enforcement agencies in the region. Other highlights for the year in relation to AFP counter-terrorism activities included:

co-hosting the Counter-Terrorism Leaders' Forum in Manila which brought together senior counter-terrorism partners from across the region to enhance regional strategies and strengthen collaboration and information exchange;
Operation Neath—which resulted in the arrest of three men in Victoria who were sentenced to 18 years imprisonment each for their role in a plot to attack Australian Defence Force facilities in Australia.[33]

2.32 The AFP achieved its target in relation to all five KPI's specific to counter-terrorism and one program-level KPI. It relation to some KPIs including KPI 5, the targets were exceeded.[34]

2.33 The 90 per cent target for KPI 5 concerning the 'percentage of counter-terrorism investigations that result in a prosecution, disruption or intelligence referral outcome' was exceeded by 10 per cent to achieve a 100 per cent outcome.[35]

Aviation

2.34 The role of the AFP in relation to aviation is to contribute to law enforcement and security at major Australian airports. The AFP is responsible for managing criminal threats at Australia's ten designated airports—Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Gold Coast, Hobart, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney and to deliver security on select Australian-flagged flights.

2.35 Some highlights during the year in relation to the aviation function included:

214 011 prevention operations, patrols and other activities which reduced the likelihood of terrorist or criminal activity occurring in the airport environment;
attending 20 164 response incidents;
responding to 3645 unattended or suspicious packages; and
arrest of 471 individuals resulting in 558 charges. With the Joint Airport Investigation Teams, a further 95 arrests were made resulting in 203 charges.[36]

2.36 There are three specific KPIs concerning aviation (KPI 6, KPI 7, KPI 8) as well as the program level KPI regarding external client/stakeholder satisfaction noted above. In relation to all three KPIs, the AFP exceeded its 2011–12 target. KPI 8 concerns the 'response to aviation law enforcement and/or security incidents in accordance with priority response times'. The target for this KPI in relation to a number of priorities appears low compared to the results of previous years and the 2011–12 result:[37]

Figure 2: KPI 8—Aviation

KPI 8 Aviation	2009–10 result	2010–11 result	2011–12 target	2011–12 result
Priority 1: within 5 minutes	81%	83%	75%	82%

2.37 The committee asked the AFP to explain why the target for KPI 8 was lower in 2011–12 compared to previous years. The AFP noted in its response that KPI 8 was introduced in 2009–10 and is based on the established response framework used in community policing. The AFP highlighted that the KPI 8 target of five minutes exceeded that of community policing (ACT Policing is eight minutes) and is considered to be appropriate given the size and nature of various airport precincts in contrast to the broader community policing environment. The AFP also clarified that:

Response times are influenced by a range of factors including distance to travel, number and location of terminals, congestion and passenger movements. These factors continually change as airport facilities expand or are upgraded, and passenger movements increase. The AFP will continue to review its targets and is duly proud of its ability to meet this KPI.[38]

Protection

2.38 AFP protection is designed to keep safe those individuals and interests identified by the Commonwealth as being at risk from acts of terrorism, violent protest and 'issue-motivated violence'. Protection services include high-visibility security for Commonwealth establishments, close personal protection for Australian high-office holders while in Australia and when travelling overseas, and administration of the National Witness Protection Program.

2.39 Highlights in relation to protection services over the year included the provision of protective security arrangements for:

the October 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in collaboration with the Western Australia Police involving more than 250 AFP officials;
ANZAC Day ceremonies in Turkey and France; and
deployment of an additional 110 protective service officers at five additional Department of Defence locations and at the High Court of Australia.[39]

2.40 As previously noted, there are three new KPIs relating to protection (KPI 9, KPI 10 and KPI 11). KPI 11 concerns the number of avoidable incidents per 5000 hours. The target for the KPI was less than four and the actual result was 0.03 based on two incidents.[40]

Program 1.2: International Deployments

2.41 The International Deployment Group (IDG) was established in February 2004 to provide the Australian government with a 'standing capacity to deploy Australian police domestically and internationally to contribute to stability and police development operations'. The IDG contributes to Australia's United Nations (UN) commitments, regional security and rule of law interests. Under this program, the AFP maintains operational officers in 28 countries to facilitate collaboration with international law enforcement partners and advance criminal investigations at both Commonwealth and state levels.[41]

2.42 Highlights for the year in relation to the IDG include:

management of UN Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-moon's visit to the IDG in September 2011;
training of 5225 Pacific Island police personnel; and
the construction of 72 houses for the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force members, one police station in Nauru and three police stations in both Vanuatu and Tonga.[42]

2.43 There are six KPIs relating to international deployments (KPIs 12 to 17) which were all met and in some instances exceeded. KPI 16 concerns the percentage of mission resources committed to countries with rule of law indicators below the international median as determined by figures published by the World Bank. The AFP exceeded its target of 80 per cent for KPI 16 in 2011–12 by achieving 90 per cent.[43]

Program 1.3: Operations—Policing

2.44 The crime program comprises the serious organised crime and crime operation areas. Its focus is combating organised crime nationally and internationally with a focus on prevention and disruption. Highlights for the year in relation to this program include:

329 drug investigations (an increase from 305 the previous year) which collectively led to the seizure of 14 838.4 kilograms of illicit drugs representing an almost three-fold increase from 5297.6 kilograms in 2010–11;
restraint of $97.4 million in assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
arrest of six people smuggling organisers and 67 crew members as well as the conviction of 92 crew members;
10 operations conducted by the Identity Security Strike teams resulting in 14 arrests for 53 offences. The value of fraud prevented is estimated at over $55 million.[44]

2.45 There are six KPIs relating to this program (KPIs 18 to 23). The result in relation to KPI 20 for operations–policing concerning the 'return on investment for investigation of transnational crime' was eight while the target was less than one. In comparison, the 2010–11 result was thirteen. The annual report noted that this KPI is limited to cases finalised in 2011–12 which ensures that 'benefits and costs are fully aligned and enumerated'.[45]

2.46 The committee asked the AFP why the target of less than one was so low in comparison to the 2010–11 result of thirteen and 2011–12 result of eight. The AFP responded that the return on investment measure combines information gained from the Drug Harm Index and expected financial return measures into a single return on investment for the crime program with a 'conservative target' of the return being greater than one.[46] The AFP further clarified that:

Due to the sensitivity of the result to considerable variability in drug seizures and fraud values, and to some of the assumptions in the model, it was determined that any return on investment greater than 1:1 would demonstrate benefit to the Commonwealth, and would not detract from preventative strategies undertaken by the program.[47]

Program 1.4: Close Operations Support

2.47 The close operations support program provides specialist support to the AFP National Security and Operations programs, 'particularly to address advancements in technology and science'. It comprises the AFP forensic and data centres, and the high tech crime operations, intelligence and operations support functions. Highlights for 2011–12 included the processing of the following operational requests by the operations coordination Centre Watch Floor Teams:

452 family law orders and warrants;
58 916 INTERPOL communications (including search requests);
2555 national security hotline reports;
8374 information reports.[48]

2.48 There are ten KPIs relating to this program (KPIs 24 to 33). Most of these KPI targets were exceeded including KPI 30 which concerns technology crimes investigations and measures the number of high-impact to very high-impact cases reaching court. The target for this KPI was 70 and the AFP achieved a result of 109 cases.[49]

Operations and multi-agency taskforces 2011–12

2.49 A total of 4232 new referrals were dealt with over the year of which the majority related to the Crime Program within Program 1.3: Operations–Policing. There were also a large number of requests from other domestic and international law enforcement agencies.[50]

2.50 In relation to illicit drug importation, 329 new drug investigations were undertaken during the review period leading to the seizure of 14 838 kilograms of illicit drugs.[51]

2.51 Other operational highlights across the AFP's respective programs include:

Operation Hitch—a joint operation with the National Narcotics Control Commission of the People's Republic of China which led to the seizure of 3.35 tonnes of safrole oil (which is capable of producing 274 kilograms of pure methylenedioxymethamphetamine)[52] and arrest of six individuals in China and three in Australia;
Operation Paradigm—seizure of 271 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of $200 million and arrest of three people;
Operation Polaris-Whitesea—seizure of 11 tonnes of hypophosphorous acid (a precursor chemical used for the domestic manufacture of methylamphetamine);
Operation Zanella-Avalon—300 kilograms of cocaine originating from Vanuatu worth $78 million seized from a yacht, restraint of $3.9 million in assets and the arrest of four persons;
Operation Manzanita—joint investigation with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) which led to the seizure of 104 kilograms of heroin and 117 kilograms of pseudoephedrine resulting in the arrest of one person; and
apprehension of 171 people for offences concerning online child exploitation.[53]

2.52 Many of these operations were carried out by joint taskforces established as part of a response to the Commonwealth Organised Crime Strategic Framework which emphasises a multi-agency approach. During the year, the AFP collaborated in the establishment of five new taskforces including the:

Joint Organised Crime Taskforce (Victoria) established in January 2012 with partners Victoria Police, ACC and ACBPS to target organised crime in Victoria;
Joint Organised Crime Group (Sydney Office) which is focused on disrupting transnational organised crime. The group's operations led to the seizure of 104.83 kilograms of drugs with a value of $14 829 250, and $1 802 800 in currency as well as charges laid against 16 individuals in Australia and eight in foreign jurisdictions;
Task Force Galilee—established by the ACC Board on 13 April 2011 to build a picture of the nature and extent of serious organised investment fraud and to reduce its impact and threat in Australia;
Yelverton Taskforce (Perth) comprising the AFP and ACBPS with support from the Western Australia Police to target multi-jurisdictional trafficking of illicit drugs, financial transactions intended to disguise income source or currency flow and criminal activity that indicate a level of organisational structure.[54]

Proceeds of crime

Legislation and committee oversight

2.53 Amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Proceeds of Crime Act) received royal assent in December 2011 with provisions commencing on 1 January 2012. The amendments empower the Criminal Asset Confiscation Taskforce to commence and conduct Proceeds of Crime Act litigation.

2.54 Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the operation of Part 2 (Literary proceeds orders) and section 20A (restraining orders—unexplained wealth) are subject to the oversight of the PJC-LE. Subsection 179(U) of the Proceeds of Crime Act notes that:

The Committee may require the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the DPP or any other federal agency or authority that is the recipient of any material disclosed as the result of the operation of this Part to appear before it from time to time to give evidence.

Proceeds of crime activities 2011–12

2.55 The Criminal Asset Confiscation Taskforce was originally established to provide a coordinated approach to Commonwealth asset confiscation commenced as a permanent taskforce in January 2012 comprising the AFP, ACC and ATO. The conduct of litigation is a 'significant new function for the AFP' which required the agency to establish a Proceeds of Crime litigation area to deliver litigation services. Mr Michael Phelan, Deputy Commissioner informed the committee that a legal practice was established within the agency which is separate to the operations component. He noted that they work in partnership with the investigators while the decision to litigate is vested with the Commissioner.[55] In relation to the policies, Mr Phelan explained that:

We have a settlement policy that is available on our hub site within our government structure. So the policies are set out and all of our members know what they are. It is very similar to the prosecution and litigation policies that the DPP would have had in their previous role. So they are the ones that take the matters forward. They will file the cases, they will work with the investigators, they will brief out to counsel if necessary, they will work with ITSA [Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia], they will manage the assets and so on that have been forfeited and they will go through the whole litigation process themselves.[56]

2.56 The first litigation to restrain assets was carried out under Operation Beaufighter. The seven-month joint investigation was the largest tax fraud investigation since Project Wickenby was launched in 2006. In relation to Beaufighter, the annual report noted that:

Between April and May 2012 investigators arrested and charged two men for conspiring to dishonestly cause a loss to the ATO and conspiring to deal in the proceeds of crime to the value of $63 million, dismantling a multi-million dollar tax evasion and money laundering scheme.

The Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce conducted the proceeds of crime investigation in support of Operation Beaufighter, restraining more than $54 million in assets including luxury cars, boats, real estate and bank accounts.[57]

2.57 Deputy Commissioner Phelan explained that Beaufighter was an ongoing operation which was extremely complex in nature due to the number of assets involved. He noted that one of the lessons emanating from the operation was of a need to work closely with the defence as well as prosecutors 'in making sure there is a seamless transfer of information between the prosecutors, our litigators and also our agents that are doing the proceeds and criminal prosecution'.[58]

Resources and staffing

2.58 The AFP delivered a budget surplus of $12 million excluding depreciation and bond rate movements.[59] The departmental operating income for 2011–12 was $1289 million comprising:

$1002 million in government appropriation;
$142 million from the ACT government for policing services; and
$145 million in other externally generated revenue.

2.59 In addition, the AFP received $54 million in government appropriation for capital expenditure and $8 million as an equity injection as part of new initiatives. In 2011–12, the AFP also administered $44 million in expenses on behalf of the government.[60]

2.60 As of 30 June 2012, the AFP had 6543 staff comprising 3321 sworn police, 836 protective service officers and 2386 unsworn staff.[61]

2.61 The following table provides an overview of staffing figures from 2009–10 to 2011–12.[62]

Figure 3: AFP staffing 2009–10 to 2011–12

Sworn status	2009–10	2010–11	2011–12
Sworn police	3056	3217	3321
Protective service officer	1199	1066	836
Unsworn staff	2453	2605	2376
Asia-Pacific Group	7	10	10
Total	6715	6898	6543

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page