Who was sanctioned, and for what?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

On a complaint by the CFTC, the federal court in New York entered a consent order against the operator of the KuCoin crypto exchange, which is registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Peken Global had given US participants direct access to its trading system without being registered with the CFTC as a foreign board of trade; the court permanently prohibited this and imposed a fine of 500,000 USD. Disgorgement was waived because of the cooperation and the forfeiture in the parallel criminal case, in which Peken Global had pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (auf Klage der CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

CFTC Regulation 48.3 (17 C.F.R. § 48.3); Section 6c Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 13a-1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation with the CFTC and in the criminal proceedings; because of the forfeiture ordered there, the CFTC did not seek disgorgement.

Published

30 Mar 2026

Original amount 500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Mar 2026.

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

ADM had artificially inflated the results of the Nutrition segment through retroactive intra-group rebates and price adjustments in order to show growth targets of 15 to 20 %. ADM is paying a civil penalty of 40 million USD.

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Antifraud-, Reporting-, Buchführungs- und interne Kontrollvorschriften der US-Bundeswertpapiergesetze (Settled Order der SEC)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

ADM's cooperation and remedial measures were taken into account

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Original amount 40,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

Between March 2023 and February 2024 a trader at the Korean financial services firm placed near-simultaneous opposing orders for accounts with the same beneficial owner, so that 127 trades in 440 crude oil futures (around 33.5 million USD) offset each other, some of them against orders from traders on other desks of the firm. The CFTC (U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission) treated this as prohibited wash sales and non-competitive trades and, in a settlement, imposed a civil monetary penalty of 212,500 USD and a cease-and-desist order; it granted a 20% reduction for excellent cooperation. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Section 4c(a)(1) und (2)(A) Commodity Exchange Act; CFTC Regulation 1.38(a)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Excellent cooperation with the Division of Enforcement (20% reduction of the penalty); the CFTC also acknowledged the company's representations regarding its remedial measures.

Published

17 Sep 2025

Original amount 212,500 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 2025.

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

The CFTC imposed a fine of 200,000 USD on the Illinois trading firm. Measures against individuals are not set out here. From May to December 2022, orders were placed for Flatiron in E-mini S&P 500 and E-mini Nasdaq 100 futures on the CME that were intended to be cancelled before execution, so that the genuine orders on the opposite side were filled faster, in larger quantities or at better prices. The spoof orders exceeded the genuine orders in contract volume by a ratio of five to one. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Section 4c(a)(5)(C) Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(5)(C))

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

9 Sep 2025

Original amount 200,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Sep 2025.

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

Employees identified weaknesses in investment models that could affect client returns by March 2019 at the latest, but Two Sigma only acted in August 2023; there were no policies, and one employee made unauthorised changes to more than a dozen models. In addition, separation agreements required employees to declare that they had not filed any complaint with authorities. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) imposed 90 million USD; Two Sigma had already repaid 165 million USD to clients.

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Antifraud, Compliance Rule 206(4)-7); Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary repayment of 165 million USD to affected funds and accounts.

Original amount 90,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jan 2025.

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

From December 2020 to May 2023, staff on the agency CMO bond desk sold mortgage-backed bonds worth around 3 billion USD using misleading metrics; the broker-dealer’s supervisory procedures contained no requirements for the structuring and sale of these bonds. BMO paid 19,417,908 USD in disgorgement, 2,241,507 USD in interest and a civil penalty of 19 million USD.

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 15(b)(4)(E) (Failure to supervise)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Original amount 40,659,415 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Jan 2025.

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

On a complaint by the CFTC, the federal court in New York ordered the New York trust company, in a consent order, to pay a fine of 5 million USD and imposed a permanent injunction. In 2017, in connection with the self-certification of a bitcoin futures contract that referenced an auction on Gemini, Gemini made statements to the CFTC, or omitted facts, that it should reasonably have known were false or misleading, for example on its prefunding requirement, self-trade prevention, fee rebates and trading volume and liquidity. These statements were material to the assessment of whether the contract was susceptible to manipulation. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (auf Klage der CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Section 6(c)(2) Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 9(2))

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

13 Jan 2025

Original amount 5,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Jan 2025.

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

The medical technology manufacturer misled investors about regulatory risks of the Alaris infusion pump, which had more than 25 software defects, and did not record the remediation costs, as a result of which operating income in the fourth quarter of 2019 was overstated by 82 %. BD is paying 175 million USD and must appoint an independent compliance consultant.

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Antifraud-, Reporting-, Buchführungs-, interne Kontroll- und Disclosure-Controls-Vorschriften der US-Wertpapiergesetze

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Original amount 175,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Dec 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

UPS based the valuation of UPS Freight on a consultant's appraisal of around 2 billion USD, although its own analyses had arrived at only about 650 million USD, and did not record a required goodwill impairment. UPS is paying 45 million USD and must introduce training for certain executives, board members and employees and engage an independent compliance consultant.

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Section 17(a)(2),(3) Securities Act; Reporting-, Buchführungs-, interne Kontroll- und Disclosure-Controls-Vorschriften des Exchange Act

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Original amount 45,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Nov 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

In mandatory disclosures, Unisys presented cyber risks as hypothetical, although it had suffered two intrusions with data exfiltration connected with the SolarWinds compromise. On the same day, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also imposed penalties on Avaya ($1 million), Check Point ($995,000) and Mimecast ($990,000).

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (inkl. Disclosure Controls)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation in the proceedings and improvement of cybersecurity controls.

Published

22 Oct 2024

Original amount 4,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Oct 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The CFTC fined the registered swap dealer 4 million USD. From 2018 to 2023 the firm reported more than five million swap transactions incorrectly or late, among other things because of a duplicate swap identifier, incorrect primary economic terms and time stamps, and errors in continuation data reporting. The firm admitted the facts; the fine was lower because of substantial cooperation and remediation. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Sections 2(a)(13) und 4r(a)(3) Commodity Exchange Act; CFTC Regulations 43.3 und 45.3–45.4

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

1 Oct 2024

Original amount 4,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Sep 2024.

Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 30 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The CFTC fined the Singapore-based agricultural supply chain company 3,250,000 USD. In August and September 2021, subsidiaries reported five sales of more than 375,000 bales of US cotton worth over 190 million USD to an Asian buyer to the US Department of Agriculture one to five weeks late, and left them out of seven Form 304 reports to the CFTC. According to the order, this happened knowingly or recklessly, although the company knew that such sales data affects the price of cotton.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Section 6(c)(1)(A) Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 9(1)(A)); CFTC Regulations 19.02(a) und 180.1(a)(4); frühere CFTC Regulation 19.01(a) (17 C.F.R. § 19.01(a) (2020))

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

The CFTC recognised the company's cooperation with the investigation and the remediation it described.

Published

27 Sep 2024

Original amount 3,250,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Sep 2024.

Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 27 Sep 2026 · Direct link

In its 2019 and 2020 annual reports, the group claimed that tests confirmed the recyclability of its coffee pods, but failed to disclose that two of the largest US recycling companies had expressed significant concerns and stated that they did not currently intend to accept the pods. The group is paying a civil penalty of 1.5 million USD.

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Section 13(a) Securities Exchange Act 1934, Rule 13a-1

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Original amount 1,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Sep 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 10 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The CFTC fined the former designated contract market 22 million USD. Between 2015 and 2018, the exchange made volume-based payments to certain participants in its market maker programme on top of the disclosed fixed stipend, did not disclose this to the CFTC, the public, its own compliance staff or its regulatory service provider, and made false and misleading statements to the CFTC about it. It also failed to follow its regulatory service provider's recommendation concerning certain trading activity and did not record why.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Sections 5(d)(2), 5(d)(7), 5(d)(12) und 6(c)(2) Commodity Exchange Act; CFTC Regulations 38.150, 38.154(c), 38.400, 38.401(b), 38.650, 38.651, 38.4(b) und 40.6

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

29 Aug 2024

Original amount 22,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Aug 2024.

Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 Aug 2026 · Direct link

The trading company sold physical gasoline below the bids in order to depress the benchmark price and thereby benefit its short positions in EBOB-related futures. Under the settlement, it is paying a civil penalty of 48 million USD.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Commodity Exchange Act und CFTC-Regulations (versuchte Marktmanipulation)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Original amount 48,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Aug 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Aug 2026 · Direct link

The CFTC imposed a fine of 750,000 USD, jointly and severally, on a Brazilian and a Swiss company of a Brazilian sugar and energy group. From March to September 2022, the two group companies executed 44 exchange for physical transactions in sugar futures on a US futures exchange between accounts that were not independently controlled, in order to transfer physical sugar within the group; the CFTC treated them as prohibited wash sales and non-competitive transactions. More than 50,000 contracts worth over 1 billion USD were involved; the companies admitted the facts.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Section 4c(a)(1) und (2)(A) Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 6c(a)(1), (2)(A)); CFTC Regulation 1.38(a)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

The CFTC acknowledged the remediation described: stopping intra-group EFPs, a written compliance manual, training on US law, annual training programmes and additional compliance staff.

Published

19 Aug 2024

Original amount 750,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Aug 2024.

Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 19 Aug 2026 · Direct link

From 2014 to April 2019 the US trading company of an international commodity trading group traded gasoline while in possession of confidential information that an employee of a Mexican trading entity had passed on in breach of his duties, and in February 2017 it artificially pushed up the USGC HSFO benchmark by buying 80 cargoes of fuel oil (3.6 million barrels) in the Platts trading window to benefit its own derivatives positions. In addition, broadly drafted confidentiality clauses in employment and separation agreements (2017–2020) hindered employees from contacting the CFTC (U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission) directly – according to the regulator, its first action of this kind against a company. Under a settlement, the trader pays a civil monetary penalty of 55,000,000 USD and must amend the clauses.

Authority / court

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Section 6(c)(1) und Section 23(h)–(j) Commodity Exchange Act; CFTC Regulations 180.1(a)(1), (3) und 165.19

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Mitigating circumstances

According to the trader, it voluntarily took remedial action (market integrity policies, controls on market-related communications, more training and compliance testing).

Published

17 Jun 2024

Original amount 55,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Jun 2024.

Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 17 Jun 2026 · Direct link