What penalties does an Australian provider face for not refunding international students (2026)?

Plain-language guide · general information, not immigration advice

A registered provider that fails to provide a refund required under section 47D or 47E after an overseas student or intending overseas student defaults in relation to a course commits an offence under section 47G of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), carrying a maximum penalty of 60 penalty units. The offence is one of strict liability, and it continues day by day — so the exposure grows the longer the money sits unpaid. That is what the official text of the Act published on the Federal Register of Legislation says.

For a student mid-negotiation with a school, this matters more than the headline number. The penalty structure is built so that delay itself is costly, not just the original refusal.

What has to happen before section 47G applies?

Three things, and all three come straight from the section:

The person is a registered provider — or, if the provider is an unincorporated body, the person is its principal executive officer.
An overseas student, or an intending overseas student, defaults in relation to a course at a location the person provides, provided, or is to provide.
The person fails to provide a refund to that student in accordance with section 47D or 47E.

Note the direction of travel: section 47G is triggered by student default. The refund obligation itself lives in sections 47D and 47E, and 47G is the enforcement teeth behind it. The parallel provision for provider-side default sits elsewhere in the Act (see below), but the penalty design is identical.

Is 60 penalty units a fixed fine?

No. It is a ceiling, and it is expressed in penalty units rather than dollars. The dollar value of a penalty unit is set under separate Commonwealth legislation and is adjusted from time to time, which means the monetary ceiling moves whenever that value is updated — the Act itself only ever states the figure in units.

Two practical consequences follow. First, you should not treat "60 penalty units" as the amount a provider actually pays in any given case; it is the maximum a court can impose for the offence. Second, because the figure is denominated in units, the same statutory text produces a larger dollar ceiling after an indexation change, with no amendment to the ESOS Act at all.

Does the penalty keep growing while the provider delays?

Yes, and this is the part most students don't know about. Section 47G(3) sets the maximum penalty for each day the offence continues at 10% of the maximum penalty for the offence — on a 60-unit maximum, that is up to 6 penalty units per day. A note to the section confirms that subsection 47G(1) is a continuing offence under section 4K of the Crimes Act 1914.

That is the mechanical answer to "why won't they just sit on it?" A single late payment is one offence; an unpaid balance that stays unpaid is treated as an offence that repeats each day it continues. A provider calculating whether to argue for another month is doing so against a running meter, not a one-off ticket.

Why does strict liability matter here?

Section 47G(2) states that the offence is one of strict liability, with a note pointing to section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. In plain terms, strict liability removes the need to establish a fault element — intent, knowledge, or recklessness — for that element of the offence.

So the explanations students typically hear back from an administration office — the refund was stuck in a queue, finance didn't approve it, nobody meant to withhold it — don't engage with what the provision actually asks. Whether the refund required under section 47D or 47E was paid is the question. The reason it wasn't paid is not part of it.

Can a provider escape by closing down or losing registration?

No. The wording of section 47G(1)(c) applies "whether or not the provider is still a registered provider at that time". Deregistration, a campus closure, or a change in the provider's corporate arrangements does not switch off the liability for a refund that was already owed.

For unincorporated providers, the section reaches the principal executive officer personally rather than the body, which closes the gap that would otherwise exist where there is no company to prosecute.

What if the school never gave me a compliant written agreement?

That is a separate offence under section 47F: failing to enter into an agreement that complies with the requirements of section 47B. It also carries 60 penalty units and is also strict liability.

There is one telling difference. Section 47F(3) states that section 4K of the Crimes Act 1914 — the continuing offences provision — does not apply to it. Missing or defective paperwork is a fixed one-time exposure; withholding money that is actually owed accrues daily. The Act draws that line deliberately, and it tells you which of the two failures the legislature treats as more urgent to stop.

Is the refund the only obligation carrying this penalty?

No. Section 46E creates the mirror-image offence: where a provider defaults in relation to an overseas student or intending overseas student and a course at a location, and fails to discharge its obligations to that student under section 46D, the penalty is again 60 penalty units, again strict liability, and again subject to the 10%-per-day continuing penalty under section 46E(3).

Both tracks apply whether or not the provider is still registered at the time, and both name the principal executive officer where the provider is an unincorporated body.

Can the student still sue for the money itself?

Yes — and this is a different remedy from the penalty, running in the student's favour rather than the state's. Section 48(1) provides that an overseas student or intending overseas student may recover an amount owing under that Division as a debt by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Act also notes that section 48 is affected by section 50C.

Two details in section 48 are easy to miss:

Where a registered provider owes an amount under section 47D and the agreement entered into under section 47B specifies a person other than the student, it is that specified person — not the student — who may recover the amount as a debt in court.
Section 48(3) confirms the Division does not affect any other liability the provider has, apart from the Division, to pay an additional amount to the student. The statutory refund route is additive, not a cap on what you can claim.

A criminal penalty against the provider and a debt action by the student are therefore not alternatives. One is a matter for prosecution; the other puts the money claim in front of a court.

What this means if you are negotiating right now

The useful framing is that the Act has already priced the delay for you. You are not asking a provider for a favour when you ask for a refund owed under section 47D or 47E; you are asking it to stop doing something that carries a daily maximum. That is a different conversation, even if you never mention the section numbers.

This article is general information about how the legislation reads and is not personalised legal advice, and it makes no prediction about any outcome. Refund disputes turn heavily on the individual agreement, the default event, and the current text of the Act — so the official text and a qualified professional's view on your specific situation are the things to rely on, and the position should be checked against the latest official publication.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is 60 penalty units the fine a provider automatically gets?

No. It is the maximum penalty a court can impose for the offence under section 47G. Whether a matter is investigated or prosecuted is a separate question from what the section provides.

Does the penalty really accumulate every day?

For the refund offence, yes. Section 47G(3) sets the maximum for each day the offence continues at 10% of the maximum penalty — up to 6 penalty units a day on a 60-unit maximum — and the offence is continuing under section 4K of the Crimes Act 1914.

Can the provider defend itself by saying it never intended to withhold the refund?

Section 47G(2) makes the offence one of strict liability, so a fault element such as intent does not have to be established. The relevant question is whether the refund required under section 47D or 47E was paid.

Does the provider's registration status protect it?

No. Both section 47G and section 46E apply whether or not the provider is still a registered provider at the time of the failure, and both reach the principal executive officer where the provider is an unincorporated body.

Does this apply if I am the one who defaulted on the course?

Section 47G specifically covers the case where the overseas student or intending overseas student defaults; the provider's obligation to refund under sections 47D and 47E is what the section enforces. Provider-side default is handled by the separate offence in section 46E.

Can I still take the provider to court over the unpaid refund?

Section 48(1) lets an overseas student or intending overseas student recover an amount owing under the Division as a debt by action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and section 48(3) preserves any additional liability the provider has outside the Division.