Two further Chinese nationals have been charged with foreign interference offences following a joint investigation by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), in what authorities say is part of an ongoing effort to counter covert foreign influence operations in Australia.
The two men were charged in Canberra and are expected to face the ACT Magistrates Court. The charges relate to alleged conduct involving the collection of information on behalf of a foreign principal, contrary to Australia’s foreign interference laws introduced in 2018.
According to the AFP, the investigation centres on allegations that the individuals engaged in activities intended to support the interests of a foreign government by gathering information about individuals and community organisations in Australia. Authorities allege the activity was covert and conducted without transparency.
Police have not publicly detailed the full scope of the alleged conduct but confirmed the matter involves the foreign interference provisions of the Criminal Code, which carry significant penalties. These laws were introduced to address espionage, covert influence and interference activities undertaken on behalf of foreign actors.
The case follows earlier charges laid in the same investigation, indicating what appears to be a broader inquiry into alleged foreign interference activities in the ACT. Authorities have previously stated that foreign interference operations can involve monitoring diaspora communities, influencing public debate, or attempting to shape decision-making processes in Australia.
In a statement, the AFP emphasised that foreign interference is treated as a serious national security threat and that investigations of this nature are complex and often span multiple jurisdictions and agencies. ASIO has repeatedly warned that foreign intelligence services are actively targeting Australian institutions, political processes and community groups.
Under Australian law, foreign interference offences do not criminalise legitimate engagement with foreign governments or cultural organisations. Instead, they focus on covert, deceptive or threatening conduct carried out on behalf of a foreign principal with the intent to influence political or governmental processes, or to prejudice national security.
The accused have not entered pleas, and the matters remain before the court. As with all criminal proceedings, the charges must be tested in court and the individuals are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The prosecution comes amid heightened scrutiny of foreign interference risks in Australia, particularly in relation to community organisations and diaspora networks. In recent annual threat assessments, ASIO has identified foreign interference as one of the most significant security challenges facing the country, warning that activities are becoming more persistent and sophisticated.
Further details are expected to emerge as the matter progresses through the court system.
