Mr Lin was wearing the device under a"defendant-funded"option offered to courts.
The bracelet is designed to send an automatic alert to a central monitoring system if a violation occurs,prompting an email to be sent to a designated address provided to Attenti by the relevant authority.
Such violation alerts are not monitored by a human,but are computer-administered.
It is understood a number of emails were sent to an AFP email address at the time Mr Lin went missing,however there were inconsistencies in how the alerts were sent.
These included alerts sent to the personal account of an officer who was on leave,meaning the messages were not seen for a number of days until the officer returned to work.
However Attenti's regional vice president David Tombs disputed any suggestion that the device had been ineffective.
"In the case of Mr Lin,the electronic monitoring device worked as it should under the system design. The system automatically reports violations as they occur in the form of alerts via the designated contact email address provided to Attenti by the AFP,"he said,adding that Attenti has since given evidence to an enquiry by the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions.
"Attenti has no control,or knowledge of,what actions the AFP took in relation to any alerts."
Mr Lin's case was recently referred to during an application for bail in an unrelated matter in the NSW Supreme Court,where it was suggested that systems around the device had"failed".
Prosecutor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Karthikeyan Kanagasabapathy used Mr Lin's situation as an example of the potential shortcomings associated with electronic monitoring,in opposing the bail application.
During a cross-examination of Attenti's business development manager for Australia Philipp Schluter,Mr Kanagasabapathy highlighted that a user could potentially remove a tracker if they entered an area"without a signal",such as a"carpark or basement".
He also had Mr Schluter confirm that in circumstances where a tracker is removed,in an area without cellular coverage,"no signal would be sent to the central monitoring system".
Mr Kanagasabapathy suggested the AFP had indicated they were"receiving several nuisance violation alerts in regards to Mr Lin’s tracker,"prior to his disappearance,prompting Attenti to recommend an alternative type of tracking device.
TheHerald understands NSW Police have previously expressed their own concerns to other stakeholders about the capability of Attenti systems and devices in bail scenarios,however a spokeswoman declined to comment.
An AFP spokesman also declined to comment on the Attenti device,but said investigators had obtained an arrest warrant for Mr Lin's breach of bail on May 28,and continued to liaise with partner agencies to locate him.
"This includes enquiries at locations he was previously known to frequent. Mr Lin was last believed to be in the company of his wife and two young children - a boy and a girl."
Information provided by the District Court said Mr Lin remained a"fugitive with the AFP investigating".
The court confirmed orders were made on November 1 by Judge Deborah Sweeney in respect of bail,ordering that an application to discharge liability under the bail security agreement was refused.
A total of $1,050,000 deposited on Mr Lin's behalf was forfeited to the Crown.
Anyone with information about Mr Lin is urged to contact the AFP on 131 444 orCrimeStoppers.