Compliance Radar

Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.

224cases from 33 jurisdictions
€1.73bnTotal of monetary amounts (187 cases with an amount)
€1.19mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

When?

per year, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
202212€206m
202336€474.7m
202452€525.2m
202562€315.2m
202662€209.1m

224 cases

16 Sep 2026 AIFM Capital ABAIFM Capital: 2 million SEK for inadequate selection and oversight of fund managers SwedenOrganisational requirements €177,187

As a so-called fund hotel, the company had its funds managed by other firms, but examined these delegation agreements only insufficiently, did not take the related decisions properly and did not monitor the funds’ returns in relation to risk closely enough. The Swedish financial supervisory authority Finansinspektionen (FI) issued a remark and imposed 2 million SEK; no damage to investors was established.

What organisations can take from it

Outsourcing tasks does not outsource responsibility: document the selection of service providers, the decisions taken and ongoing oversight.

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Schwedisches Fondsrecht – Regeln zur Delegation der Fondsverwaltung und deren Überwachung
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
No established damage to investors; remedial measures already taken during the investigation.
Published
16 Sep 2026

Original amount 2,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

12 Aug 2026 Lebes Financeira S.A. – Sociedade de Crédito, Financiamento e InvestimentoLebes Financeira: BRL 2.58m over lending to a related party above the limit BrazilOrganisational requirements €432,774

The BCB (central bank) sanctions committee COPAS imposed a fine of BRL 2,576,000.00 on Lebes Financeira S.A. – Sociedade de Crédito, Financiamento e Investimento because from January 2022 to March 2023 it engaged in prohibited credit transactions with a related company: its banking correspondent retained collected loan instalments, and the arrears reached BRL 147m at the end of November 2022, or 207.66% of adjusted equity against a limit of 10%. In addition there was a BRL 20m loan routed through a third company. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

If an affiliated distribution partner retains customer money, this can quickly become a prohibited loan to a related party.

Authority / court
Banco Central do Brasil (Comitê de Decisão de Processo Administrativo Sancionador – COPAS)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Lei 13.506/2017, Art. 3 II; Lei 4.595/1964, Art. 34 § 3 V d und § 4 I; Resolução CMN 4.693/2018, Arts. 5, 6 und 7 II
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Original amount 2,576,000 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

5 Aug 2026 Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A. (PKO BP)PKO BP: PLN 47.5m for failings in structured deposits PolandOrganisational requirements €11m

The KNF imposed five fines totalling PLN 47,500,000 on PKO BP in connection with structured deposits: PLN 26m for failing to inform clients of existing conflicts of interest, PLN 8m each for not analysing costs and charges and for an imprecise definition of the risk category and target market, PLN 4m for selling without checking target-market suitability and PLN 1.5m for misleading sales material on two products. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Firms selling structured products must disclose conflicts of interest, test costs against client benefit and define the target market precisely.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest and product governance for retail investment products

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 88c Abs. 1 und 2, Art. 88m Abs. 5 und 9 Prawo bankowe i. V. m. Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 21.01.2019 über Dienstleistungen der Banken bei strukturierten Einlagen
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 47,500,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

31 Jul 2026 UBS Financial Services Inc.UBS Financial Services: 8 million USD over gaps in anti-money laundering monitoring USAOrganisational requirements €6.97m

The CFTC fined the futures commission merchant 8 million USD for failing to supervise diligently the configuration and operation of its anti-money laundering transaction monitoring. From January 2019 to June 2023, thousands of foreign currency wire transfers through retail customers' commodity accounts were insufficiently monitored or not monitored at all: first because of an incomplete manual report which UBS, contrary to commitments made in earlier proceedings in 2018, replaced only more than two years later, and then because of incorrectly fed data in the new automated system. FinCEN, the SEC and FINRA announced their own settlements with UBS Financial Services at the same time. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Commitments made in earlier supervisory proceedings must be implemented on time, and new monitoring systems must be tested for complete data feeds before going live.

Authority / court
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
CFTC Regulation 166.3 (17 C.F.R. § 166.3)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
The CFTC recognised the remediation described; according to the order, the core problems of the automated system had been fixed by the fourth quarter of 2022.
Published
3 Aug 2026

Original amount 8,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

27 Jul 2026 China Industrial Securities International Asset Management LimitedSFC: HKD 6.8m fine for CISIAM over missed red flags in a private fund Hong KongOrganisational requirements €761,367

The SFC publicly reprimanded China Industrial Securities International Asset Management (CISIAM) and fined it HKD 6.8 million because, between August 2019 and September 2020, the manager of a private fund set up for the insurer Tahoe Life acquired complex structures with notes linked to bonds of a related company at the request of the insurer's chief investment officer, without identifying and properly examining the red flags. CISIAM also failed to observe the fund's investment restrictions and objectives and did not manage its risks effectively. In setting the penalty, the SFC also took into account management fees of around HKD 1.9 million received from the fund.

What organisations can take from it

A fund manager must independently assess an investor's instructions and must not implement unusually complex structures without a clear commercial rationale unchecked.

Relevance to training and awareness

Recognising red flags in investor-driven fund arrangements

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), Hongkong
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 194 Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571); General Principle 2 Code of Conduct; Paragraphen 1.2(d), 3.1 und 3.11.1 Fund Manager Code of Conduct; Abschnitt VIII Management, Supervision and Internal Control Guidelines
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial measures (new policies on risk management and dubious investment arrangements, compliance training), cooperation with the SFC and an otherwise clean disciplinary record.
Published
27 Jul 2026

Original amount 6,800,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

27 Jul 2026 Bright Smart Securities International (H.K.) LimitedBright Smart Securities: HKD 2.8m fine for inadequate wash-trade controls Hong KongMarket abuse and insider dealing €313,504

Bright Smart Securities International (H.K.) was publicly reprimanded and fined 2,800,000 HKD because between November 2023 and September 2025 its controls did not prevent 615 clients from executing 1,021 pairs of wash trades (trades without a change in beneficial ownership) in 736 shares and warrants. Monitoring was mostly after the event and manual, and several wash trades by one client on the same day counted as a single occurrence. Similar deficiencies had been identified and raised repeatedly before but were not fully remedied in any instance.

What organisations can take from it

Trade surveillance must intercept wash trades automatically before execution; after-the-event manual reviews are not enough for recurring patterns.

Relevance to training and awareness

Detecting and preventing wash trades

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
s. 194 SFO (Cap. 571); Code of Conduct GP 2, para. 4.3
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Enhanced systems and a commitment to an independent effectiveness review, cooperation.
Published
27 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,800,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

17 Jul 2026 80 Eight South Africa (Pty) Ltd (vormals Ela Asset Management (Pty) Ltd)80 Eight South Africa: failing to protect clients against fraud South AfricaOrganisational requirements Fine

The financial services provider had not made sure that its clients were protected against losses from theft, fraud or other dishonest acts by its employees; one individual's misconduct caused clients substantial losses. The company was directed to introduce, within two months, a policy protecting against such risks. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

Financial services providers need effective controls against fraud by their own employees – even contraventions they discover and report themselves can lead to a penalty and directives.

Relevance to training and awareness

Insider fraud and internal controls

Authority / court
Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Sections 2 und 11 General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (2003); Section 13(3)(a) Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002; Section 42(1) Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for Financial Services Providers (2017)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
According to the authority's update of 22 July 2026, the company had itself discovered and reported the contraventions, which occurred in 2021.
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
17 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

16 Jul 2026 Swedbank AB (publ) (mit New York Branch)NYDFS: USD 50 million against Swedbank for withholding information USA, New YorkDisclosure and reporting obligations €43.6m

The NYDFS imposed a penalty of USD 50 million on Swedbank AB (publ) and its New York branch. In response to several requests by the regulator under section 37 of the New York Banking Law concerning links between its Baltic subsidiaries and the law firm Mossack Fonseca (Panama Papers) and the status of European investigations, the bank did not provide the requested information, in breach of section 125(3) of the New York Banking Law. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Information requests from the regulator must be answered in full; withholding information is sanctioned in its own right.

Relevance to training and awareness

Complete and truthful disclosures to the regulator

Authority / court
New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
New York Banking Law § 125(3) i. V. m. § 37; Sanktion nach Banking Law §§ 39, 44
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Liability of senior managers
According to the order, the bank has since, among other things, dismissed its then Chief Compliance Officer and its former CEO and parted ways with numerous other employees; the majority of the board has been replaced.
Published
16 Jul 2026

Original amount 50,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

16 Jul 2026 HDI Global SEPRA: £4.165m fine on HDI Global SE for inaccurate data on the FSCS compensation scheme United KingdomDisclosure and reporting obligations €4.91m

The PRA fined HDI Global SE, an insurer headquartered in Hanover that operates in the UK through a branch, 4,165,000 GBP. Between August 2021 and August 2024 the firm repeatedly submitted incorrect data on liabilities protected by the FSCS and on the FSCS levy tariff, including in supposedly corrected submissions; it lacked written procedures, clear accountability and internal oversight, and before summer 2023 it did not consult the PRA's rules and guidance.

What organisations can take from it

Returns used to calculate levies need documented calculation procedures and independent review – especially where corrections are submitted.

Authority / court
Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), Bank of England
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
PRA Fundamental Rules 2 und 6; s. 206 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
Detailed account under the Early Account Scheme, settlement with a 30% discount (otherwise 5,950,000 GBP), corrected historical data and additional FSCS levies paid; in the PRA's view the breaches were neither deliberate nor reckless.
Published
20 Jul 2026

Original amount 4,165,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

10 Jul 2026 Brown Capital Management LLCBrown Capital Management: voting rights notifications not submitted on time GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €187,500

The Baltimore-based US asset manager had not submitted voting rights notifications to the issuer and BaFin in time; the deadline is four trading days after reaching a notifiable threshold. BaFin imposed a fine of 187,500 EUR; the notice is final.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone investing in German issuers needs automated threshold monitoring with clear responsibility for the four-day deadline.

Relevance to training and awareness

Threshold monitoring and notification deadlines for shareholdings

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
§ 33 Abs. 1 Satz 1 WpHG
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
22 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

3 Jul 2026 ASX LimitedASX: 20.5 million AUD for misleading announcement on CHESS replacement project AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €12.4m

The Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 20.5 million AUD on the exchange operator because a market announcement of 10 February 2022 stated that the project to replace its CHESS clearing and settlement system was progressing well. About six weeks later ASX announced a likely delay and paused the project in November 2022; in June 2026 it admitted contraventions of ss 12DA and 12DB of the ASIC Act.

What organisations can take from it

Progress updates on major projects must reflect the actual status, including known risks – and operators of critical market infrastructure are held to a particularly high standard.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accuracy and balance of market announcements about ongoing major projects

Authority / court
Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) und (e)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
3 Jul 2026

Original amount 20,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

30 Jun 2026 Moody's Deutschland GmbHESMA fines Moody's Deutschland 2.1 million EUR EU levelOrganisational requirements €2.15m

The credit rating agency did not submit up-to-date rating information to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), did not provide complete historical performance data to the central repository and lacked adequate procedures and internal control mechanisms. ESMA found negligent infringements and imposed fines totalling 2,145,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Reporting obligations to the supervisory authority are data quality issues – without functioning internal controls, they become a risk of fines.

Authority / court
Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1060/2009 (CRA-Verordnung), Art. 24, 36a, Anhang III
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

30 Jun 2026 „Paysera LT“, UABPaysera: daily fine for missing annual accounts adds up to 362,000 EUR LithuaniaDisclosure and reporting obligations €362,000

Because Paysera did not comply with the order to submit its 2024 annual financial statements by 30 September 2025, the Lietuvos bankas (Bank of Lithuania, financial supervisor) first imposed 20,000 EUR in November 2025 and then a daily fine of 1,000 EUR (rising to 2,000 and 3,000 EUR respectively). As the infringement was only remedied after 6 May 2026, the daily fine added up to 362,000 EUR. Source: archived copy of the press release.

What organisations can take from it

Running daily fines make every delay expensive – supervisory orders need top-management priority.

Authority / court
Lietuvos bankas (Litauische Zentralbank, Finanzaufsicht)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Aufsichtsrechtliche Anordnung und Berichtspflichten nach litauischem E-Geld-Recht
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Published
30 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

30 Jun 2026 Curtis Faraday LimitedFCA bars debt adviser Curtis Faraday from taking new customers over consumer risks United KingdomOrganisational requirements Order

The FCA barred the debt advice firm Curtis Faraday Limited with immediate effect from accepting new customers or referrals for debt, insolvency and IVA-related activities and required it to refer existing customers to other advice providers. Based on file reviews and call recordings, the FCA saw indications that customers' financial information was distorted during the advice process, that the business model, with close links to insolvency service providers, created conflicts of interest and a bias towards commission-generating solutions, that staff circumvented controls and that the firm repeatedly gave the FCA incomplete or inconsistent information.

What organisations can take from it

Debt advice must be impartial: commission incentives and close links to debt solution providers require effective controls against product bias.

Relevance to training and awareness

Impartial advice and handling conflicts of interest

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
s. 55L(3)(a) FSMA 2000; Threshold Conditions nach Schedule 6 FSMA (paras. 2C, 2D, 2E und 2F)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

26 Jun 2026 Netrios LP Ltd.; Red Acre Ltd.Netrios and Red Acre: 2.5 million USD for white-label leveraged trading with US retail customers USAOrganisational requirements €2.19m

The CFTC fined Netrios LP Ltd., incorporated in Saint Lucia, 1,750,000 USD and Maltese Red Acre Ltd. 750,000 USD, totalling 2,500,000 USD. From 2019 to September 2025, Netrios sold a white-label service (website, trading software, margin accounts, execution, back office) through which offshore platforms offered US retail customers who were not eligible contract participants leveraged forex, precious metals, crypto and equity transactions outside a registered exchange; Red Acre assisted with customer support and marketing. The SEC took parallel action over the same conduct. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Technology and service providers share liability if their platform solution enables US retail customers to trade on leverage unlawfully outside registered exchanges.

Authority / court
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 4(a) Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 6(a)); Beihilfe nach Section 13(a) (7 U.S.C. § 13c(a))
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
29 Jun 2026

Original amount 2,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

26 Jun 2026 Banque Degroof Petercam SABanque Degroof Petercam: 1 million EUR settlement over hidden costs in employee stock options BelgiumOrganisational requirements €1m

In stock option plans for employees of client companies (2018–2023), the bank did not fully inform the beneficiaries about costs, had initially not recorded the conflicts of interest in this business and assessed clients’ knowledge only with a yes/no question. The Autorité des services et marchés financiers (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority, FSMA) accepted a settlement of 1 million EUR with publication by name and commitments on cost information.

What organisations can take from it

Full cost transparency and a dedicated conflicts register also apply to ancillary business such as employee stock option plans.

Authority / court
Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Loi du 2 août 2002; Wohlverhaltensregeln (Loyalität, Kostentransparenz, bestmögliche Ausführung, Interessenkonflikte, Kundenkenntnis)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
Remediation of all deficiencies (appropriateness test, conflicts policy, cost disclosure, waiver of CVA/KVA discounts).
Published
26 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

23 Jun 2026 Bourse Direct SAAMF: EUR 800,000 on online broker Bourse Direct over reporting and monitoring failures FranceDisclosure and reporting obligations €800,000

According to the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers, French financial markets authority) Enforcement Committee, the online broker Bourse Direct did not properly submit its transaction reports under Art. 26 MiFIR between January 2021 and November 2023 and did not maintain an adequate system to detect and report suspicious orders and transactions under Art. 16(2) MAR. The company received EUR 800,000. The amount covers only the sanction imposed on the company.

What organisations can take from it

Investment firms should regularly test transaction reporting and market abuse surveillance for completeness and effectiveness.

Relevance to training and awareness

Transaction reporting and market abuse surveillance at brokers

Authority / court
Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Commission des sanctions
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 26 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 600/2014 (MiFIR); Art. 15 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/590; Art. 16 Abs. 2 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (MAR); Art. 2, 3 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2016/957
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
50 to 249
Published
25 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

19 Jun 2026 Banque Internationale à Luxembourg S.A.Banque Internationale à Luxembourg: €3.255m ECB penalty for breaching a model decision EU levelOrganisational requirements €3.26m

From 2 October 2023 to 22 October 2024, contrary to a 2023 ECB decision, Banque Internationale à Luxembourg did not apply the newly approved internal models for the expected loss best estimate (ELBE) of defaulted retail and corporate exposures and therefore reported an IRB shortfall to be deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 capital that was too small. The ECB regarded the breach as intentional and severe and imposed 3,255,000 EUR; remedial action was taken into account as mitigating.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory decisions on internal models must be implemented on time, even if the previous approach produces more favourable capital figures.

Relevance to training and awareness

Timely implementation of supervisory decisions

Authority / court
Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 18 Abs. 7 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013 (Verstoß gegen einen EZB-Beschluss zu internen Modellen)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial action to alleviate the effects and to prevent future breaches.
Published
29 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

19 Jun 2026 moomoo証券株式会社moomoo Securities: three months without new accounts after false NISA information and AML gaps JapanOrganisational requirements Order

From February to May 2025 the online broker wrongly displayed at least 77 US ETFs and ETNs as eligible for NISA (59 clients traded 25 of them in the tax-advantaged account) and repeated this for a further security after discovery, handled affected clients carelessly and unequally, had since 2024 refused all transfers of holdings to other institutions, carried out no suspicious-transaction assessment for at least 1,531 rejected account applicants and managed cyber and system risks inadequately. Soliciting and accepting new accounts was prohibited from 19 June to 18 September 2026, together with a business improvement order.

What organisations can take from it

A firm that grows fast with account-opening bonuses must scale product approval, complaints handling, suspicious-transaction checks and IT security at the same pace.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accurate product information and suspicious-transaction checks also for rejected clients

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Kanto Local Finance Bureau (関東財務局) auf Empfehlung der Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission (SESC, 証券取引等監視委員会)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA, 金融商品取引法) Art. 52 Abs. 1, Art. 51; Art. 38 Nr. 1, Art. 43, Art. 40 Nr. 2 FIEA i. V. m. Art. 123 Abs. 1 Nr. 14 Cabinet Office Order on Financial Instruments Business; Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds (犯罪収益移転防止法)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
19 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

18 Jun 2026 HSBC Bank Australia LimitedHSBC Bank Australia: AUD 35m penalty for failing to protect customers from scams AustraliaOrganisational requirements €21.4m

HSBC admitted that from May 2023 to May 2024 it lacked adequate controls against unauthorised payments via its internal transfer channel, that from January 2020 it handled scam reports under the ePayments Code too slowly (144 days on average) and without applying the liability rules, and that until April 2024 it gave affected customers no orderly way back into their accounts. The Court imposed AUD 35 million (AUD 10 million for the fraud controls, AUD 22.5 million for the contraventions relating to the ePayments Code, AUD 2.5 million for restoring account access) and ordered notices on the website, in the app and in letters to customers.

What organisations can take from it

Banks must deploy scam controls on every payment channel and handle scam reports within the deadlines of the applicable rules.

Relevance to training and awareness

Fraud and scam prevention in payments and handling of customer scam reports

Authority / court
Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
s 912A(1)(a), (5A) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); s 47(1)(a), (4) National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Admissions and jointly proposed penalty; remediation programme with payments of AUD 27,915,700.56 by 21 May 2026; no previous contraventions of a similar nature.
Liability of senior managers
According to the agreed facts, senior management was also aware before May 2023 of heightened fraud risks and gaps in the controls.
Published
18 Jun 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

Load 20 more of 204

Ready for training that actually lands?

Try the combination for free: automated administration for you, learning formats that fit your team, with no minimum or credit card.

Start 14-day free trial