Tobacco Asia

Tobacco Asia 23 Australia's breaking point Australia dominates most discussions on the il‑ licit trade of tobacco for a simple reason: it is now the world's most extreme example of a legal framework inadvertently creating an illicit market of unprecedented scale. Theo Foukkare, c.e.o. of the Australian Association of Convenience Stores, described a retail landscape collapsing under the weight of high excise taxes, prohibitions on nico‑ tine vaping products, and drastically limited legal product options for adult consumers. The pricing gap is huge. A regular pack of 20 combustible cigarettes costs around A$40 (US$26), while illegal versions are smuggled through at a significantly lower price point. For the nicotine pouches and vaping products segment, where le‑ gal options are basically unavailable, illicit market share, in Foukkare's own words, is "in the high 90%, virtually 100." The consequences extend well beyond just lost revenue. Small businesses report death threats, extortion letters, and vehicles that are intention‑ ally crashing into storefronts. Police in New South Wales informed the media that, out of an esti‑ mated 20,000 retailers selling tobacco and nicotine products, only 5,000 had obtained licenses under a new system, leaving 15,000 illegal outlets operating openly. Foukkare warned that without regulatory reform allowing adults access to legal, taxed nico‑ tine products under uniform national rules, the legitimate market could "disappear in two years." Data recently released by the ACIC con‑ firmed the extent of Australia's financial losses: A$3.3 billion in annual excise losses, A$4 billion in total economic damage, and a criminal economy valued at A$82.3 billion. Tobacco and nicotine products make up a significant—and growing— portion of that underground revenue. Pike ques‑ tioned whether reported increases in seizures indi‑ cate progress. Foukkare argued that the opposite is more likely. "Out of 30 containers they would im‑ port, they can lose 29 and still be ahead," he said, adding that true disruption would require shutting down illegal storefronts and rebuilding the legal retail system, not just collecting headline‑grabbing seizure statistics. ASEAN's expanding losses While Australia shows how prohibition fuels crim‑ inal dominance, Southeast Asia illustrates the fiscal magnitude of illicit tobacco in developing markets. A comprehensive report by the Center for Market Education (CME) estimates that ASEAN gov‑ ernments will lose over US$11 billion in tobacco excise revenue between 2025 and 2027, amount‑ ing to roughly US$3.69 billion annually. That sum represents nearly 8 percent of the region's total yearly health spending—resources that could fund schools, clinics, or environmental programs. The losses at the national level are stagger‑ ing. Indonesia loses more than US$1.68 billion each year, mainly because of a 10% market share for illegal cigarettes. CME pointed out that stop‑ ping these losses could allow the Indonesian gov‑ ernment's Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) program to reach over 42 million more people. Malaysia suffers an annual loss of about US$770 million— almost equal to the projected savings from reduc‑ ing its national gasoline subsidy. The Philippines loses over PHP25 billion (US$440 million) annually in cigarette excise tax, which exceeds its PHP21 billion disaster prepared‑ ness budget for a country that has faced several recent devastating storms. Thailand, where nearly 28% of consumption involves illegal products, faces annual losses of nearly US$560 million, ac‑ cording to the report. CME states that the figures are conservative. Much of the illegal activity remains unreported, concealed within larger trafficking networks that also handle counterfeit alcohol, drugs, and human trafficking. As ACIC and Europol have publicly warned for decades, illegal tobacco is no longer just a standalone trade — it is a major source of in‑ come for organized crime groups operating across Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Back in Brussels, Alexander Kupatadze, an associate professor at the School of Politics and Economics at King's College London, explained why traditional border enforcement struggles to keep up. Global customs agencies can only inspect about 1%‑2% of shipping containers physically. They rely heavily on automated anomaly detection that doesn't work properly. He said the logistics algorithms often misclassify complex criminal op‑ erations, either overwhelming officers with false positives or failing to detect high‑risk shipments altogether. In the fight against illicit tobacco, customs agencies physically check just 1–2% of shipping containers, forcing heavy reliance on automated detec- tion systems that frequently fail. Credit: H.M. Revenue & Customs, CC2.0.

• Cover