Can a Conjunction Split Be Paid in Crypto in Queensland?
You’ve closed a conjunction deal. The listing agent and the selling agent have agreed on a split. The commission is confirmed. Then the selling agent — or their principal — asks whether their share can be settled in crypto. It’s an increasingly common question, and the answer is not a simple yes or no.
The short version: there is no Queensland law that explicitly prohibits a conjunction split being settled in cryptocurrency between two licensed agents or their agencies. But the absence of a prohibition is not the same as a clear legal pathway, and several layers of compliance — under the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld), the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), and general trust accounting obligations — shape exactly how and whether that settlement can occur in practice.
Here is what every Queensland agent involved in a conjunction arrangement needs to understand before agreeing to crypto settlement of any commission component.
What a Conjunction Split Actually Is
A conjunction sale arises when two agents — typically from different agencies — cooperate on a transaction. One agent holds the listing appointment; the other procures the buyer. Both contribute to the sale, and the total commission agreed with the seller is divided between the two agencies according to a pre-arranged split, most commonly documented in a conjunction agreement.
The commission itself is always earned by reference to the listing agent’s appointment with the vendor. The vendor pays one commission, typically to the listing agent’s principal. The listing principal then pays the selling agent’s principal their agreed share. That inter-agency payment — from one licensee’s trust account or general account to another — is the specific moment where the question of crypto settlement becomes practically relevant.
This distinction matters. The vendor’s obligation is to the listing agent, denominated in Australian dollars as set out in the Form 6 appointment. Crypto is not relevant at that stage. The question of crypto payment arises only at the second step: the internal split between the two agencies after the vendor’s commission has been received.
The Trust Accounting Constraint
Queensland agents operating under the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) are required to deposit commissions into a trust account when they are received on behalf of another party. The Act’s trust accounting provisions, and the detailed requirements of the Property Occupations (Salesperson Registration) Regulation 2014, are prescriptive about how trust money is held, recorded, and disbursed.
Trust money must be deposited into an authorised financial institution — a definition that, under Queensland law, tracks the meaning used in the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 (Cth) and broadly refers to APRA-regulated banks, building societies, and credit unions. Cryptocurrency wallets, exchanges, and blockchain networks are not authorised financial institutions for this purpose. This means that commission money received from a vendor — whether it sits in trust before disbursement or passes through a real estate trust account at any point — cannot be held or disbursed in crypto form at the trust accounting stage.
In practical terms: if a listing agent receives the vendor’s commission into their trust account (the normal case), that money must be disbursed in Australian dollars. The trust account ledger entry will show an AUD disbursement to the selling agent’s agency. The selling agent’s agency receives AUD. If either agency then wants to convert that AUD to crypto — for their own internal purposes — that is a separate commercial decision entirely outside the real estate transaction, and it does not involve the trust account at all.
The trust accounting rule, in plain terms, closes the door on crypto settlement at the trust account disbursement stage. Full stop.
What About Direct Inter-Agency Settlements?
Not every commission flows through trust. Where a commission is structured as an inter-agency fee-for-service arrangement — and where the amount is clearly earned by the selling agent’s agency as a business fee rather than as money held on behalf of the vendor — it may be possible for the two agencies to settle by whatever payment method they mutually agree, including cryptocurrency.
This scenario is uncommon but not unheard of in Queensland, particularly in commercial transactions or where the conjunction arrangement is structured as a referral fee between two businesses rather than as a share of a vendor-held commission. In those circumstances, the payment is a business-to-business transaction between two licensed principals, denominated and invoiced in whatever currency both parties agree upon.
But even here, several practical and legal complications arise.
AML/CTF Obligations
The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) applies to “designated services” as listed in the Act. Real estate agents become reporting entities under the Act when they provide designated services — most relevantly, acting as an intermediary in the purchase or sale of real property. Since 2024, the AML/CTF regime has been progressively expanded to capture real estate professionals more explicitly, and AUSTRAC’s guidance has increasingly focused on high-value transactions and property-adjacent payment methods including cryptocurrency.
Where a real estate agency receives or pays a commission in cryptocurrency, that transaction may trigger reporting and verification obligations under the AML/CTF framework — regardless of whether the payment is between two agents rather than between an agent and a client. Agencies handling crypto payments should have an AML/CTF programme in place that accounts for virtual asset transactions. Most Queensland agencies do not currently have such a programme calibrated for crypto, and principals should be aware that this gap creates compliance risk.
Tax Treatment of Crypto Commission Payments
The Australian Taxation Office treats cryptocurrency as property, not currency. A commission received in cryptocurrency is taxable income to the receiving agency, assessed at the Australian dollar value of the crypto at the time of receipt. The ATO’s position on this has been consistent since its 2014 guidance and has been reinforced through subsequent rulings.
This creates a practical complication: the receiving agency must determine the AUD market value of the crypto at the moment of settlement, record that value as income, and pay GST on the supply if applicable. If the crypto subsequently appreciates or depreciates in value before the agency converts it to AUD, a separate capital gains tax event may arise. For a conjunction split — typically a relatively modest amount compared to a full commission — the administrative burden of complying with these tax obligations can quickly outweigh any perceived benefit of transacting in crypto.
GST and Invoice Requirements
A conjunction split paid between two registered agencies is a taxable supply. The selling agent’s agency must issue a valid tax invoice in AUD under the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth). Where the payment is received in crypto, the invoice must still express the consideration in Australian dollars. The crypto amount received is simply the mechanism of payment — the legal obligation is denominated in AUD, and the invoice and BAS must reflect that.
This is not an impossible compliance structure, but it requires deliberate and careful accounting treatment that most agencies are not currently set up to provide.
The Conjunction Agreement: What It Should Say
Whether or not crypto is involved, the conjunction agreement between the two agencies governs how the split is calculated and paid. A properly drafted conjunction agreement — recommended by the REIQ and consistent with standard industry practice — should specify the currency of payment, the timing of payment, and the mechanism of payment.
If two principals genuinely want to settle a conjunction split in cryptocurrency, the conjunction agreement is the document that should record that arrangement. It should specify:
- the agreed split expressed as a percentage or dollar amount in AUD
- that payment will be made in cryptocurrency (specifying the asset — Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDC, or other)
- the method for determining the AUD-equivalent value at the time of settlement (typically using a specified exchange or price feed)
- the wallet address(es) for delivery
- that the AUD equivalent constitutes the agreed consideration for GST and income tax purposes
Without this level of specificity, a crypto payment between two agents is legally ambiguous — and in the event of a dispute about the value received, the ambiguity will be resolved in a way that may not favour either party.
Agents should also be aware that the conjunction agreement, once executed, forms part of the agency’s records and may be subject to audit by the Office of Fair Trading. An arrangement to settle in crypto must be fully disclosed and documented — there is no basis for treating it as an off-the-books arrangement.
Licensing and Professional Conduct Considerations
The Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) imposes conduct obligations on licensees that go beyond the specific rules about trust accounts. Section 208 of the Act requires licensees to act in the best interests of their client, and the general conduct provisions require agents to deal fairly and honestly with all parties.
Where a conjunction arrangement involves crypto settlement, the listing agent’s obligations to their vendor client are not directly affected — the vendor pays in AUD and is entitled to have the full commission accounted for in AUD. The crypto component is entirely downstream of the vendor’s position. Nevertheless, listing principals should consider whether a crypto settlement arrangement with a selling agent creates any disclosure obligations under their agency agreement or the general transparency requirements of the Act.
The Real Estate Institute of Queensland (REIQ) does not currently publish specific guidance on crypto commission payments. Agents seeking formal guidance may wish to raise the question directly with the REIQ’s legal advisory team or seek independent legal advice appropriate to their specific arrangement.
What If the Agent (Not the Agency) Wants to Be Paid in Crypto?
A slightly different question arises when a salesperson employed under a selling agency asks to receive their personal commission share in crypto — that is, the agency-to-salesperson payment rather than the agency-to-agency split.
This is a matter of employment or contractor arrangements between the salesperson and their principal. There is no Queensland-specific rule that requires a principal to pay their salesperson in Australian dollars, provided the arrangement is documented, the tax obligations are met, and the payment does not circumvent superannuation guarantee obligations (which must be met in Australian dollars under the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)).
Again, ATO income tax obligations apply at fair market value in AUD at the time of payment. The practical complexity is similar — possibly greater, given the need to comply with superannuation rules on the AUD-equivalent amount.
What Exchanges and Wallets Are Actually Used
For completeness, Queensland agents who are considering or encountering crypto commission payments should understand the basic infrastructure involved.
Most crypto settlements between businesses in Australia occur via major Australian-registered exchanges (such as Independent Reserve or CoinJar, both of which hold AUSTRAC registration as digital currency exchange providers) or via direct wallet-to-wallet transfers for parties who hold their own custody. Stablecoins — particularly USDC and USDT — are increasingly preferred for business transactions because they eliminate price volatility during settlement, simplifying the AUD valuation question.
The use of a stablecoin pegged to the US dollar still creates a minor currency conversion step (USD/AUD at the time of receipt), but it removes the volatility risk that makes Bitcoin or Ethereum settlements administratively more complex. For a conjunction split where both parties want the convenience of crypto rails but neither wants exposure to price fluctuation, a USD-pegged stablecoin is the most practical option currently available.
That said, USD-pegged stablecoins are not AUD-denominated assets, and the ATO treats them as foreign currency for tax purposes — a further layer of complexity that agents and their accountants need to consider before adopting them for commission settlement.
Practical Risk Assessment for Queensland Agents
Before agreeing to settle a conjunction split in crypto — whether as the paying or receiving party — a Queensland principal should run through the following considerations:
Does the commission sit in trust at any point? If yes, crypto settlement of that component is not legally available. The disbursement must be in AUD.
Is the conjunction arrangement structured as a direct inter-agency business payment? If yes, crypto settlement may be legally permissible but requires careful documentation, AML/CTF consideration, and precise tax treatment.
Does the agency have an AML/CTF compliance programme that covers virtual asset transactions? If not, receiving crypto commission payments may create AUSTRAC reporting exposure.
Is both parties’ conjunction agreement drafted to specifically accommodate a crypto settlement? If not, the arrangement should not proceed without one.
Has the principal obtained advice from their accountant and, if warranted, a lawyer familiar with crypto transactions in a business context? The intersection of Queensland property law, federal AML/CTF obligations, and ATO crypto guidance is not a space where improvised arrangements tend to hold up.
These are not reasons to categorically refuse a crypto settlement — they are the questions that need answers before one is agreed.
What This Means for Queensland Agents
The honest answer to the question is: a conjunction split can be paid in crypto in Queensland in limited circumstances, but those circumstances are narrow and the compliance requirements are non-trivial.
Where commission passes through a trust account — which is the standard flow in most residential sales — crypto settlement of the inter-agency split is not available at the trust disbursement stage. The trust must disburse in AUD. Full stop.
Where the inter-agency payment is structured outside trust — as a direct business-to-business fee — crypto settlement is legally possible if both principals document it properly, address the AML/CTF obligations, and account for the ATO’s treatment of crypto as property rather than currency. The conjunction agreement must reflect the arrangement in specific terms.
For agents who regularly work conjunction deals with interstate or international selling agents, or in commercial sectors where crypto-holding counterparties are more common, having a clear internal policy on crypto commission payments is worth developing now. The regulatory landscape is moving — AUSTRAC’s expanded AML/CTF coverage of real estate is already in motion, and the ATO continues to sharpen its focus on undisclosed crypto income.
Agents who get ahead of this with proper documentation, a compliant AML/CTF programme, and well-drafted conjunction agreements will be better positioned than those who improvise when the question lands mid-transaction. And it will land. It already is.