Each year on International Women’s Day, the world pauses to recognise the achievements, resilience and influence of women across every part of society. It is a day that honours progress while also reminding us that the work of building a fair and equitable world is ongoing.

In 2026, women continue to shape our communities in powerful ways. They lead businesses, contribute to the justice system, educate future generations and support families. At the same time, many women carry significant responsibilities within their homes and communities, balancing professional ambitions with caregiving, advocacy and leadership within their families.

Women remain at the centre of family life. They are mothers, daughters, partners, professionals and caregivers. Often, they are the emotional and organisational foundation of families, guiding children, supporting loved ones and sustaining the relationships that keep families strong.

Yet when families face challenges, whether through separation, financial stress or parenting disputes, women frequently find themselves navigating complex legal systems to protect their rights and the wellbeing of their children.

For many women, engaging with the legal system occurs during one of the most emotionally difficult periods of their lives. Separation can involve uncertainty, financial concerns and the responsibility of ensuring that children remain safe and supported. In these moments, access to clear legal advice and strong representation can be transformative.

Family lawyers play an important role not only in interpreting legislation but also in guiding individuals through deeply personal circumstances. Their work often involves balancing legal strategy with compassion and understanding, helping clients move forward with confidence and stability.

 

Women Leading in the Legal Profession

International Women’s Day is also an opportunity to recognise the many women within the legal profession who work tirelessly to support families, advocate for fairness and uphold the rule of law. At Freedman & Gopalan Solicitors, women play an integral role in shaping the firm’s commitment to thoughtful and compassionate legal practice.

The firm is proud to be led by its Director, Mittu Gopalan, whose leadership reflects dedication, integrity and a deep commitment to supporting clients through complex family law matters. As Director, Mittu has helped build a practice grounded in professionalism and empathy, ensuring that clients feel supported while navigating difficult transitions in their lives.

Alongside her is the firm’s Senior Solicitor, Zohal Osoly, whose experience and commitment to client advocacy make a significant impact on the families the firm assists. Zohal approaches each matter with a balance of legal precision and genuine care, recognising that behind every file is a person seeking clarity, security and a path forward.

Together, their leadership highlights the important role women play in the legal profession—not only as practitioners, but as mentors, advocates and leaders shaping the future of legal practice.

 

A Day of Reflection and Appreciation

International Women’s Day is a moment to celebrate the achievements of women across every profession and every community. It is also a reminder of the strength, resilience and compassion that women bring to the roles they occupy each day.

From raising families and supporting communities to advocating for justice and leading organisations, women continue to shape the world in meaningful ways.

On this International Women’s Day, we acknowledge the women who hold families together, the women who lead with integrity, the support staff who provide care and dedication behind the scenes, and the women who work every day to ensure that justice, fairness and opportunity remain accessible to all.

Cross-border family law disputes are increasingly common in our globalised world, particularly between Australia and India. The recent decision of the Delhi Family Court in Shikhar Dhawan v Aesha Dhawan provides valuable insight into how Indian courts approach parallel matrimonial litigation when foreign proceedings, such as those in Australia, which have already taken place.

 

The Dhawan Decision Dhawan Case Judgement

The Delhi Family Court considered the outcome of Australian proceedings, which had culminated on 2 February 2024 with a final property division under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Australian orders were as follows:

Despite the finality of these orders in Australia, the Indian court refused to recognise or enforce them. The court found that:

On this basis, the Delhi court issued an anti-enforcement injunction and ordered restitution of the interim Australian distributions with 9% per annum interest, making clear that the Australian judgment’s finality had no preclusive effect in India.

The Indian decision in Dhawan is instructive for understanding how Indian courts approach parallel matrimonial litigation involving foreign forums. The Delhi court’s reasoning demonstrates a methodology grounded in statutory competence, recognition, and public policy.

In contrast, Australian courts apply the “clearly inappropriate forum” test from Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd, as confirmed in Henry v Henry for family law matters. The absence of a comprehensive bilateral or multilateral judgments regime between Australia and India means that Indian decisions like Dhawan do not, by themselves, undermine Australian jurisdiction where proceedings have been properly instituted and a substantial domestic connection exists.

 

Australian Doctrine: Voth and Its Application in Family Proceedings

The High Court in Voth v Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd established that the relevant question is not whether a foreign court is more appropriate, but whether the Australian court is a clearly inappropriate forum, such that continuation would be unjust, vexatious, or oppressive.

In Henry v Henry, the High Court confirmed that the Voth test governs matrimonial stay applications. The existence of parallel foreign proceedings does not, without more, displace Australian jurisdiction. Relevant considerations include:

Australian family courts may grant anti-suit relief where foreign proceedings would be vexatious or oppressive, but such relief is exercised cautiously and only after resolving any stay application. Duplication and first seisin (which court was first seized of the matter) are relevant but not decisive, and the onus remains on the party seeking a stay to show that Australia is clearly inappropriate.

 

Indian Approach Evidenced by Dhawan

Indian courts first determine whether jurisdiction is properly attracted under the relevant matrimonial statute, considering residence, domicile, a real cause of action in India, and any local statutory rights.

The court assesses whether a foreign decree is recognisable under the Civil Procedure Code and matrimonial law, and whether foreign proceedings or outcomes would offend Indian public policy.

The analysis is jurisdiction-affirming: Indian courts focus on whether Indian jurisdiction is validly invoked and whether foreign proceedings undermine justice or Indian statutory protections, rather than comparing the appropriateness of forums.

Indian courts have resisted attempts to subordinate Indian proceedings to foreign suits, especially where matrimonial status or rights under Indian personal law are at stake and where recognition or enforcement abroad is uncertain.

 

Enforcement Considerations

Australia is party to several Hague instruments (service, evidence, child abduction) and has reciprocal recognition mechanisms with New Zealand. However, Australia is not a party to the Hague Judgments Convention 2019. Enforcement of non-money foreign judgments otherwise depends on statute or common law and can be limited.

India is not a party to the Hague Judgments Convention. Recognition of foreign matrimonial decrees is governed by Indian domestic law. The absence of a multilateral judgments convention between Australia and India reduces reciprocity and predictability in cross-border enforcement, a factor considered under Voth and Henry when assessing the practicality and completeness of relief.

Australian family property jurisdiction operates in personam, meaning courts can adjust parties’ interests in overseas assets by making orders directed at the parties themselves, while generally avoiding orders that would directly conflict with foreign land law or public policy. The Full Court has emphasised caution where an order would operate in direct conflict with foreign law. This in-personam focus can weigh against a stay under Voth where the Australian court can practically and fairly resolve the controversy, subject to enforceability concerns.

 

Assessment of the Dhawan Decision’s Persuasive Weight

 

Practical Implications for NSW Family Law Proceedings with Indian Parallels

 

Conclusion

Shikhar Dhawan v Aesha Dhawan reflects a sovereignty, and statute-centred Indian approach to matrimonial jurisdiction, focused on domestic competence, recognition, and public policy. Australian courts, applying Voth as confirmed in Henry v Henry, will not cede jurisdiction unless the local forum is shown to be clearly inappropriate. Robust Indian assertions of jurisdiction do not, without more, undermine Australian proceedings. Where Australian proceedings have been properly instituted and a substantial domestic connection exists, the Australian court’s doctrinal position remains secure, with duplication and comity considered within the high Voth threshold.

Family law practices in New South Wales are increasingly at risk of AML/CTF regulation in property settlement and spousal support orders, especially if the practice receives or makes payments, facilitates real property transactions, or restructures family trusts. Starting 31 March 2026, practices offering a designated service must register with AUSTRAC, with full requirements beginning 1 July 2026. The following 12-point plan combines family law relief with risk-based AML regulation.

1) Establish Scope and Implement Immediate Risk Measures

Assess if the matter involves a designated service (such as trust account settlements, property transactions, trust/company restructurings). If suspicious circumstances emerge, suspend transactions (without alerting the party), refer to the AMLCO/risk partner, segregate communications, and document a contemporaneous risk memo.

2) Risk-Based Customer Due Diligence

Check identity (VOI) and obtain complete identifying information. Identify and verify beneficial parties and controllers of companies, trusts (including appointers and beneficiaries), SMSFs, and third-party funders. Screen for PEPs, exposure to sanctions, and adverse media. Obtain written beneficial ownership and third-party payment statements.

3) Determine and Confirm Source of Funds and Source of Wealth

Seek reasonable risk-based evidence of the source of funds used in the transaction (bank statements, settlement statements, loan agreements, payroll records) and the source of wealth (tax returns, financial statements, trust deeds, inheritance records). Use enhanced CDD in high-risk situations.

4) Create Funds Flow Maps and Strengthen Settlement Arrangements

Develop a funds flow map from source to destination. Demand remittance from confirmed accounts in the name of (or third party to) the relevant party. Ban cash and anonymous remitters. Make payments only to confirmed payees, with dual confirmation for changes to accounts.

5) Use Red Flags Relevant to Family Issues

Review for suspicious lack of explanation for large deposits, unexplained “loans,” round-trip transactions, unconnected offshore receipts, under/overvaluation of assets, payments structured around $10,000, refunds to strangers, or suspicious explanations for source of funds.

6) Use Family Law Tools to Trace and Preserve Property
Deploy disclosure and subpoenas to banks, accountants, trustees, and exchanges. Seek freezing or injunction orders where dissipation risk exists. Consider applications under s 106B of the Family Law Act 1975 to set aside defeating transactions, and third-party orders under s 90AE. Engage forensic accountants for complex or cross-border structures.

7) Crypto, Remittance and Cross-Border Payments (Heightened Controls)
Require liquidation of crypto via regulated exchanges linked to verified accounts. Collect exchange statements, wallet addresses, and transaction hashes. Prohibit mixers and off-exchange trades. For offshore transfers, obtain SWIFT/MT103 records and credible purpose-of-payment evidence; apply ECDD for high-risk jurisdictions.

8) Decisioning and AUSTRAC Reporting (from 1 July 2026)
If suspicion forms on reasonable grounds while providing a designated service, submit a Suspicious Matter Report within three business days (24 hours for terrorism financing). Do not tip off. Conduct a legal professional privilege analysis and document decision-making.

9) Trust Account Governance and Reporting Baselines
Do not operate as a “bank.” Handle funds only with a clear legal nexus to the retainer. Enforce strict authority protocols, segregate duties, monitor reporting triggers (e.g. threshold cash transactions where applicable), and retain records for at least seven years.

10) Interface with Proceeds of Crime and Civil Confiscation
Check early for restraint or forfeiture proceedings under Commonwealth or NSW confiscation regimes that may affect the asset pool. Court orders do not “cleanse” tainted funds.

11) Documentation, Training and Independent Review
Maintain a matter-level ML/TF risk assessment, CDD/ECDD notes, funds-flow map, and decision logs. Provide targeted AML training to fee earners and trust staff. Subject procedures to periodic independent review and monitor updates from The Law Society of NSW and Law Council of Australia.

12) Condensed Due Diligence Checklist
Identity and beneficial ownership (VOI, corporate/trust/SMSF documents); source of funds (6–12 months’ bank statements, contracts, loan documents, payslips, tax returns); crypto/offshore (exchange KYC, wallet records, SWIFT data); risk screening (PEP/sanctions/adverse media); governance (funds-flow map, exception approvals, SMR/LPP documentation).

The recent legislature updates regarding the conduct of NSW Family Law practitioners create new potential consequences for a practitioner if they fail to identify or report suspicious activity connected with money laundering. The recent updates stress upon the importance of legal practitioner’s duty towards the law and rules.

Consequences under the AML & CTF Act (Cth)

Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 Cth ( AML Act), from the 1 July 2026, failing to report a suspicious matter via a Suspicious Matter Report with 3 business days or 24 hours for terrorism-financing suspicions may incur civil penalty contraventions and proceedings. This may include infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, and remedial directions as well as a large penalty fine. Furthermore, failure in maintaining an adequate Anti-Money Laundering Program, or record‑keeping may provide grounds for systemic breaches of the legislation- therefore increasing the possibility of civil proceedings being taken against you.

Consequences under Legal Profession Uniform Law and ASCR

Unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct where the practitioner:

  1. fails or is wilfully blind to the use of the client’s or their trust account for purposes unconnected to legal services,
  2. Or fails in maintaining competence and diligence in verifying client’s identity with relation to transactions
  3. Or breaches statutory duties

may amount to reprimand, conditions on practice, fines, suspension or cancellation of a practising certificate, and costs orders lodged against the practitioner. It can also trigger regulator audits, external examiner qualifications, personal liability for trust deficits and compensation orders and disciplinary actions.

Criminal Proceedings

Under the Criminal Code (Cth), if a practitioner knows, is reckless to, or believes there is a substantial risk that the property is a proceed of crime and deals with it (including by facilitating transactions or handling funds), they risk criminal prosecution. They may be charged with accessory liability, conspiracy, procuring or obstructing justice. However, mere negligence is insufficient to prove criminal liability.

Key Steps to take if you are a family-law practitioner:

Concealing assets during family law proceedings undermines fair property settlements and can facilitate money laundering. This article outlines common concealment tactics, recent legal developments, and the tools available to family lawyers in Australia.

 

Common Asset Concealment Tactics

Individuals may use several methods to hide assets, including:

- Offshore Accounts: Moving funds to foreign banks with strict privacy laws.

- Shell Companies: Using companies with no real operations to obscure ownership.

- Cryptocurrency: Transferring wealth via digital currencies, which are harder to trace.

- Third-Party Transfers: Temporarily shifting assets to friends or relatives.

- Misrepresenting Asset Values: Undervaluing assets or overstating debts.

These strategies can not only frustrate property division but may also amount to money laundering, especially if the intent is to disguise ownership or the source of funds.

 

Legal Remedies and Investigative Tools

Family lawyers can use several tools to uncover hidden assets:

- Disclosure Orders:  Compelling parties to provide detailed financial information.

- Freezing Orders: Preventing parties from dealing with assets during proceedings.

- Anton Piller Orders: Allowing search and seizure of evidence to prevent its destruction.

- Subpoenas: Obtaining documents from third parties to trace asset movements.

 

Conclusion

Asset concealment in family law not only disrupts fair settlements but can also facilitate money laundering. By understanding concealment tactics, using available legal tools, and collaborating with experts, family lawyers can help ensure transparency and uphold the integrity of the family law system. Ongoing reforms and vigilance remain essential to address these challenges.

Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) regime will soon extend to legal professionals, including NSW family law practices. From 1 July 2026, any practice that handles client money or facilitates asset transfers in property settlements, spousal maintenance, or child support arrangements may become a reporting entity with obligations to AUSTRAC.

The core legislation is the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), as amended in 2024. From 31 March 2026, practices providing a “designated service”, such as receiving or holding client funds, managing trust accounts, or assisting with real property transfer, must enrol with AUSTRAC. AML/CTF obligations will apply from 1 July 2026. Not all family law work is covered; pure advisory or litigation-only matters, where the firm does not handle funds or facilitate transactions, are generally excluded. However, the actual services provided will determine whether the regime applies.

Family law is particularly exposed to money laundering (ML) and terrorism financing (TF) risks because it often involves large, rapid asset reallocations, use of trust accounts, transfers of real property and interests in companies or trusts, third-party contributions, and cross-border elements. These features can be exploited to introduce or disguise illicit funds, conceal proceeds of crime, or legitimise high-risk or foreign-sourced funds.

Practitioners should be alert to red flags such as reluctance to provide identification, instructions from undisclosed third parties, disengagement after questions about funds, large or unusual deposits into trust, funds from high-risk jurisdictions, use of multiple accounts or cryptocurrencies, requests to refund money to different accounts, and complex or opaque asset structures. Procedural anomalies, such as urgency or frequent changes of solicitor, may also indicate risk.

From 1 July 2026, family law practices providing designated services must enrol with AUSTRAC, appoint an AML/CTF Compliance Officer, and implement a tailored, risk-based AML/CTF Program. This includes conducting customer due diligence (CDD), identifying beneficial owners, determining the source of funds, ongoing monitoring, and keeping records for at least seven years. Suspicious matters must be reported to AUSTRAC within three business days (or 24 hours for terrorism financing). “Tipping off” clients about reports is prohibited, and legal professional privilege is recognised in the reporting process. Trust accounting obligations under the Legal Profession Uniform Law will continue to apply.

Examples of in-scope services include receiving and disbursing settlement proceeds via trust, acting as a paying agent for spousal maintenance or child support, managing client funds pending sale or division, facilitating real property transfers as part of settlements, and establishing or restructuring family trusts or companies. Litigation-only matters or advice without handling funds are generally out of scope. If in doubt, firms should treat the matter as potentially covered and conduct risk assessment and CDD at the enquiry stage.

AML/CTF checks can be integrated with family law disclosure obligations, such as reconciling financial statements and bank records. Early checks for restraining or freezing orders are essential to avoid facilitating the dissipation of proceeds of crime. Consent orders do not legitimise tainted funds; suspicious inflows must still be reported.

To prepare, practices should review their services against AUSTRAC’s designated services tool, appoint a compliance officer, draft a risk-based AML/CTF Program, update client intake documents, build file-level checklists, and implement technology for CDD registers and bank detail verification. After 1 July 2026, practices must apply the new rules before handling funds or facilitating transfers, monitor for red flags, and report as required.

The expansion of the AML/CTF regime to legal professionals marks a significant shift for NSW family law practices. Early preparation, robust risk assessment, and integration of AML/CTF controls with existing professional obligations will be essential to ensure compliance and protect both clients and practitioners from ML/TF risks.

 

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML/CTF Act) is Australia’s primary legislation for preventing money laundering, terrorism financing, proliferation financing, and other serious financial crime.

In simple terms, the Act requires certain businesses — known as reporting entities — to know who their customers/ clients are (customer identification and verification), assess and manage the risk those customers/clients pose, monitor transactions and services for suspicious activity, report certain matters to the regulator and keep records demonstrating compliance. The Act is administered and enforced by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), Australia’s financial intelligence agency and AML/CTF regulator.

Purpose of the AML/CTF Act

The AML/CTF Act exists to protect: Australia’s financial system, The broader economy and the community/citizens. It does this by making it harder for criminals to hide or move illicit funds, use legitimate businesses to launder money and finance terrorism or organised crime. The regime does not turn businesses into law enforcement agencies. Rather, it positions them as gatekeepers — identifying risk early and reporting concerns where required.

Why It Matters More Now: Tranche 2 Reforms

When introduced in 2006, the AML/CTF regime applied mainly to financial institutions, casinos and other high-transaction businesses (often referred to as Tranche 1 entities).

From 1 July 2026, under the Tranche 2 reforms, the Act will extend to a broader range of professional services, including: Lawyers/ Solicitors, Real estate agents, Conveyancers, Accountants and tax agents, Trust and company service providers, Dealers in precious metals and stones.

What This Means for Family Lawyers

Family law matters frequently involves property transfers, trust and company structures, cross-border assets/ transfer of funds and large financial settlements- international or local. These are precisely the types of transactions that attract AML scrutiny.

The Practical Takeaway

Understanding the AML/CTF Act — and preparing for Tranche 2 — is essential to protect the legal firm from regulatory risk, avoid inadvertent involvement in financial crime, maintain professional integrity, safeguard the reputation of the legal profession. As the regime expands, family lawyers will increasingly play a frontline role in protecting Australia’s financial system — not as investigators, but as informed and vigilant gatekeepers.

Allegations of money laundering can make family law cases more complex and stressful. The Family Court takes these matters seriously, especially when it comes to protecting children and making sure only legally obtained assets are divided.

What Happens to Property Linked to Crime?

If there are claims that some family assets come from illegal activities like money laundering, the Court may treat these assets differently. Money or property gained through crime can be taken away by the government, meaning it might not be included when dividing property between separating partners. This can leave less to share and may affect both parties’ financial futures.

How Criminal Investigations Affect Family Law Cases

If someone is being investigated or charged with money laundering, family law cases can be delayed. The Court might wait for the criminal matter to finish before making decisions about property or children, especially if the outcome could change what assets are available or affect a parent’s ability to care for their children. People involved in criminal cases may also be less willing to share information about their finances, making it harder for the Court to get a clear picture of the family’s assets.

Protecting Children and Vulnerable Family Members

The Family Court’s main concern in parenting cases is always the best interests of the children. If money laundering or related criminal activity puts children at risk, the Court can make special orders to protect them, such as supervised visits or limiting a parent’s time with the children. The Court can also make orders to help keep vulnerable family members safe, such as giving them the right to stay in the family home or providing financial support.

Key Points

Valentine’s Day is usually associated with flowers, dinners, and promises of forever. It celebrates commitment, optimism, and love at its most hopeful stage. But for many couples, love stories evolve. Some strengthen over time; others change direction. While it may feel unromantic to think about separation on a day devoted to romance, being smart about your future is not cynical, it is responsible.

In Australia, relationships, whether marriages or de facto partnerships are governed by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). That legislation provides a framework for property division and financial adjustment when relationships break down. It is designed to be fair, but the process can be emotionally and financially draining if parties are unprepared or in conflict.

There is a misconception that planning for separation signals doubt. In reality, it reflects maturity. Just as people take out insurance policies not because they expect disaster but because they understand risk, couples can structure their financial affairs thoughtfully without undermining their relationship.

A Binding Financial Agreement (‘BFA’) is one such mechanism. Under the Family Law Act, couples can enter into agreements before marriage often referred to as prenups, during a relationship, or after separation. These agreements can set out how property, financial resources, and even spousal maintenance will be handled if the relationship ends.

BFAs are powerful tools, but they must be entered into freely and with proper independent legal advice. Agreements signed under pressure or significant inequality may be vulnerable to challenge. Being smart is not just about signing a document, it is about ensuring fairness, transparency, and legal compliance.

When separation occurs, persistence and clarity matter. Emotions run high, particularly where property, businesses, or children are involved. The law focuses on contributions financial and non-financial, future needs, and what is just and equitable. But litigation is costly, both financially and psychologically.

Those who approach separation strategically, gathering documents early, seeking sound legal advice, and focusing on resolution rather than revenge, are often in a stronger position. Persistence here does not mean hostility. It means staying committed to a fair outcome even when the process feels slow or difficult.

A well drafted BFA provides certainty. It can

  1. Quarantine pre-existing assets such as inheritances or family businesses.
  2. Protect intergenerational wealth.
  3. Avoid protracted litigation.
  4. Sustain a healthy relationship in the future.
  5. Provide clarity about spousal maintenance.

Importantly, BFAs remove the Court’s discretion to alter property interests except in limited circumstances such as fraud, unconscionable conduct, or material non-disclosure. For many couples particularly those entering second marriages or bringing significant assets into a relationship this certainty is invaluable.

However, they are not suitable for everyone. If entered into carelessly, they can create more disputes rather than fewer. Being smart means assessing whether a BFA is appropriate for your circumstances, not simply assuming it is necessary.

Valentine’s Day celebrates the beginning of commitment. The law deals with what happens if commitment ends. Between those two points lies the reality of life, careers change, children, health shifts, and financial hardship and evolution.

The couples who thrive and the individuals who navigate separation with dignity tend to share common traits, foresight, resilience, and informed decision making. Being persistent does not mean clinging to something unhealthy; it means persistently protecting your wellbeing and financial stability.

Love may be emotional, but separation is legal and financial.

This Valentine’s Day, celebrate love wholeheartedly. But also remember being smart about your future is not unromantic. It is empowering.

envelopeprinterphonemap-marker