The Australian Federal Police (AFP) have charged a 31-year-old South Sudan-born permanent resident with five counts of violating strict visa-monitoring conditions, after he allegedly ignored residential curfews and tampered with his electronic tracking device. The man appeared in Campbelltown Local Court on 25 November and was granted conditional bail.
Under sections 76C and 76D of the Migration Act 1958, breaching a curfew or failing to maintain an electronic monitoring device carries penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or fines of A$99,000. The AFP alleges four separate curfew breaches and one instance of disabling his tracker between September and November.
![Sydney man charged for repeated breaches of visa curfew and monitoring rules]()
The case is the first high-profile enforcement action since Home Affairs expanded electronic-monitoring powers for high-risk visa holders earlier this year. Legal observers say it underscores the government’s willingness to criminally prosecute non-compliance, rather than rely solely on visa cancellations and deportation orders.
For global mobility managers, the episode is a timely reminder to audit employee compliance where visas impose residency or reporting conditions—particularly for assignees transitioning from detention or subject to character-related undertakings. Lawyers advise that employers who knowingly roster staff during curfew hours could also face accessory liability under the Migration Act.
The defendant is due back in court on 16 January 2026; if convicted on multiple counts he could face cumulative sentences, potentially triggering mandatory visa cancellation and removal proceedings.
Under sections 76C and 76D of the Migration Act 1958, breaching a curfew or failing to maintain an electronic monitoring device carries penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or fines of A$99,000. The AFP alleges four separate curfew breaches and one instance of disabling his tracker between September and November.
The case is the first high-profile enforcement action since Home Affairs expanded electronic-monitoring powers for high-risk visa holders earlier this year. Legal observers say it underscores the government’s willingness to criminally prosecute non-compliance, rather than rely solely on visa cancellations and deportation orders.
For global mobility managers, the episode is a timely reminder to audit employee compliance where visas impose residency or reporting conditions—particularly for assignees transitioning from detention or subject to character-related undertakings. Lawyers advise that employers who knowingly roster staff during curfew hours could also face accessory liability under the Migration Act.
The defendant is due back in court on 16 January 2026; if convicted on multiple counts he could face cumulative sentences, potentially triggering mandatory visa cancellation and removal proceedings.
