Firstly the Constitution does not such thing. It was reached at by a merging of negotiated interests of various colonies and a few visionaries, but nothing like the US Constitution, which arose out of a war with England.
Also it's uneven in operation and well past it's use by date. This is why we end up with what's called judicial activism. Judges have to imply things into the Constitution because it's such a moribund thing.
Aside from all of this, you have to look at the public policy reasons for the measure. The judges will decide if any provision has been offended in the Constitution and this will be if there are any arguments that somebody wants to take to the Federal Court, then the High court to test them. They must have the money to do it, AND the legal arguments to do it.
I would think the public policy behind this is to inhibit money laundering. If the effect of your arguments will make money laundering easier (arguments I fully expect will apply) the Courts will simply not allow it.
