Updated July 1, 2026
Updated July 1, 2026
What the AFP’s April 2026 self-reporting guideline means for companies, and why it is not a deferred prosecution agreement.
By Bill Doogue, Director and Accredited Criminal Law Specialist, Doogue + George
In April 2026 the Australian Federal Police published a guideline that changes how serious corporate misconduct can be resolved in this country. For a corporation that discovers wrongdoing, self-reports and cooperates, the AFP will now treat a civil settlement, with no criminal conviction, as the likely outcome. It is a significant shift, and it is already being widely misdescribed. It is not a deferred prosecution agreement. Understanding what it actually is, and what it is not, matters a great deal before any company decides to put its hand up.
The guideline was produced by the AFP’s Taskforce Solaris. It is directed mainly at foreign bribery, but the principles apply more broadly to cooperating corporations. The core proposition is straightforward. Where the AFP is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to allege criminal misconduct, the corporation has provided genuine cooperation, and resolving the matter on a civil basis is in the public interest, the AFP will treat a non-conviction-based resolution under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) as the optimal outcome, unless exceptional circumstances apply.
The mechanism sits inside proceeds of crime law rather than the usual criminal process. The AFP Commissioner is a proceeds of crime authority under that Act, a function exercised through the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce. The resolution takes the form of civil orders, such as a pecuniary penalty order, a forfeiture order or an unexplained wealth order. The corporation relinquishes the benefit it derived, pays, and avoids a criminal conviction. There is no finding of guilt.
This is the point most commentary is getting wrong. Australia still has no deferred prosecution agreement scheme. A DPA scheme for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was drafted and consulted on some years ago, but it was never enacted, and during the 2024 foreign bribery reforms the government decided it was premature to introduce one. So, the AFP has built a settlement pathway out of the civil powers it already holds, rather than the statutory scheme the country never legislated.
The distinction is not academic. Three consequences follow from it.
It binds the AFP, not the prosecutor. The guideline governs the AFP’s view of the optimal investigation outcome. The decision whether to charge remains with the CDPP and is taken independently. A civil resolution is the likely outcome where there is genuine cooperation, not a guarantee against prosecution.
A court must approve it. The resolution is given effect through a Deed of Settlement and consent orders filed in a court with jurisdiction. The court retains a discretion and cannot be compelled to make the orders. Whether they are appropriate is ultimately a matter for the court.
It is civil, not criminal. There is no plea, no conviction and no sentence. That is the benefit. It also means the protections of the criminal process do not all apply in the same way, which is precisely why the decision to enter this path needs careful thought.
The timing is not accidental. Since 8 September 2024, Australian companies have faced a new corporate offence of failing to prevent foreign bribery by an associate, under section 70.5A of the Criminal Code. It is an absolute liability offence. A company can be liable for bribery by an employee, contractor, agent or subsidiary even where it knew nothing about the conduct, unless it can prove it had adequate procedures in place to prevent it. The maximum penalty is very large.
That offence created a great deal of new exposure, particularly for companies operating across the region, in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Singapore and beyond. What it did not create was a clear and incentivised way for a company to resolve a problem once it found one. The April 2026 guideline is the AFP’s answer to that gap. It signals to corporations that self-reporting and genuine cooperation will be met with a civil outcome rather than a prosecution.
The process has a recognisable shape:
The AFP aims to conclude negotiations within twelve months, and reserves the right to walk away if it considers the corporation is not genuinely trying to resolve the matter.
This is where careful advice earns its keep, because the price of a civil resolution is high and is paid in things a company may not have thought through.
Cooperation means individuals. To meet the AFP’s standard, a corporation is expected to disclose all the people involved, hand over the facts and evidence, and cooperate in any prosecution of those individuals. The path to a clean corporate outcome runs directly over the company’s own directors, officers and employees. Their interests and the company’s interests are not the same, and they can diverge sharply the moment a self-report is contemplated.
Cooperation means privilege. The AFP treats the timely waiver of legal professional privilege, including over internal investigation reports, as a marker of genuine cooperation. That is a serious concession, with consequences that reach well beyond the AFP investigation itself.
Cooperation means giving up the benefit. In every case, the corporation is expected to relinquish what it gained. A civil resolution removes the conviction. It does not make the conduct cost-free.
The single most important point is this. The decision to self-report, and the manner of any cooperation, is a strategic decision that should be made with advice before anything is said to the AFP. Once a report is made and privilege is waived, those steps cannot be taken back. Directors and senior executives should understand at the outset that they may need their own representation, separate from the company’s.
For companies operating in higher-risk jurisdictions, the work is also preventative. The adequate procedures defence to the failure-to-prevent offence is only available to a company that genuinely has adequate procedures, tested and documented, before a problem arises.
Doogue + George acts for corporations and their officers in bribery, foreign bribery and proceeds of crime matters. If your company has identified a potential problem, or wants to assess its exposure before one arises, speak to us before you take any step that cannot be undone.
Is this a deferred prosecution agreement?
No. Australia has no DPA scheme. This is a civil settlement under proceeds of crime law, run by the AFP, not by the prosecutor.
Does it guarantee my company will not be prosecuted?
No. The decision to prosecute remains with the CDPP and is made independently of the AFP. A civil resolution is the likely outcome where there is genuine cooperation, not a guarantee.
Does the company have to admit guilt?
No. A non-conviction-based resolution involves no plea and no criminal conviction. The company relinquishes the benefit and pays, by consent orders that a court approves.
Will the resolution become public?
Usually, yes. The AFP’s stated position is that these resolutions should be made public, and it issues a public statement after one is reached.
How long does it take?
The AFP aims to conclude negotiations within twelve months of inviting the corporation into them.
Doogue + George has acted in some of Australia’s most significant bribery and corruption matters. Bill Doogue is ranked by Doyle’s Guide as one of the preeminent criminal defence lawyers in Australia and is listed in Best Lawyers for criminal law.
Bill is a consultant for the firm of Lewing Lowing Sullivan in Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) in relation to bribery and corruption and transnational crime, advising on the Australian and cross-border dimensions of regional white collar matters.
“This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Please consult a qualified criminal defence lawyer before making any decisions regarding your matter”
