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.

283cases from 35 jurisdictions
€2.19bnTotal of monetary amounts (236 cases with an amount)
€1mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

When?

per year, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
202214€207.1m
202348€533.4m
202468€859.1m
202577€329m
202676€266m

283 cases

16 Sep 2026 ENECHANGE株式会社ENECHANGE: 91.495 million JPY over overstated revenue in quarterly report and prospectus JapanDisclosure and reporting obligations €511,488

Because revenue had been overstated at the company and its consolidated subsidiary or subsidiaries, the quarterly report for the third quarter of 2023 (filed on 10 November 2023) showed a consolidated loss of 1,382,861 thousand JPY instead of 1,662,516 thousand JPY; the registration statement for a share issue relied on this report, and on 26 February 2024 3,784,200 shares were issued for 3,999,899,400 JPY. After the company admitted the facts and the amount, an administrative monetary penalty (kachōkin) of 91,495,000 JPY was imposed: 1,500,000 JPY for the quarterly report and 89,995,000 JPY for the registration statement.

What organisations can take from it

Revenue recognition at subsidiaries should be scrutinised before any capital increase; an error in a quarterly report becomes many times more expensive through the prospectus.

Relevance to training and awareness

Correct revenue recognition before capital market transactions

Authority / court
Financial Services Agency (FSA, 金融庁) 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 · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA, 金融商品取引法) Art. 172-4 Abs. 2 a. F., Art. 172-2 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, Art. 185-7 Abs. 1 und 14
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Energy and utilities
Mitigating circumstances
Both partial amounts were halved because the company had filed a report for a reduction before the inspection began (Art. 185-7(14) FIEA).
Published
17 Sep 2026

Original amount 91,495,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Sep 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 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.

16 Jul 2026 TeamViewer SETeamViewer: cyberattack not disclosed as inside information without delay GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €240,000

Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, BaFin) imposed a fine of 240,000 EUR on the software company because it had not disclosed the information about a cyberattack it had suffered as inside information without delay. The fine notice is final.

What organisations can take from it

Put serious IT security incidents immediately before the ad hoc disclosure committee as well – the incident response process must take capital market disclosure into account.

Relevance to training and awareness

Recognising security incidents as potential inside information and reporting them to the ad hoc disclosure committee

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Abs. 1 UAbs. 1 MAR (EU) Nr. 596/2014
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Telecoms, IT and software
Published
20 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.

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.

24 Jun 2026 Exmar NVExmar: €350,000 for late disclosure of inside information BelgiumDisclosure and reporting obligations €350,000

The Sanctions Committee of the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority) found that the shipping company Exmar NV, listed on Euronext Brussels, had not disclosed as soon as possible inside information it held on 19 May and 18 June 2020; the information related to a customer's missing payments for the charter of a floating LNG facility. It imposed a fine of 350,000 EUR and ordered publication by name for one year. Exmar has lodged an appeal with the Market Court.

What organisations can take from it

Payment problems of a major customer can be inside information; the ad hoc assessment must be carried out immediately and documented.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ad hoc disclosure: identifying and promptly publishing inside information

Authority / court
Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten / Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA) – Sanctiecommissie
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (MAR); Art. 36 § 2 und Art. 72 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002 über die Aufsicht über den Finanzsektor
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Transport, logistics and shipping

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.

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.

23 Jun 2026 VARTA AGVARTA: late ad hoc announcement and missing half-yearly financial report GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €620,000

BaFin imposed fines on the battery manufacturer because it had not disclosed inside information without delay and had not published the half-yearly financial report for the 2024 financial year.

What organisations can take from it

Ad hoc assessments and periodic disclosure require fixed responsibilities and deadline controls so that neither inside information nor mandatory reports are left pending.

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Abs. 1 UAbs. 1 MAR; § 115 Abs. 1 Satz 1 WpHG
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Manufacturing and mechanical engineering
Published
1 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.

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.

17 Jun 2026 Peken Global Limited (KuCoin)VARA: fine and cease-and-desist order against unlicensed Peken Global (KuCoin) United Arab EmiratesCapital markets and financial supervision Fine

Following VARA investigations, Peken Global Limited, trading as KuCoin, provided virtual asset broker-dealer and/or exchange services to customers in Dubai without a licence. VARA imposed fines of an undisclosed amount and ordered the immediate cessation of all unlicensed activities; other group entities were expressly not affected.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone providing crypto services cross-border to customers in Dubai needs a licence there – regardless of where the platform is based.

Relevance to training and awareness

Licensing requirement for crypto services in the target market

Authority / court
Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), Dubai
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision
Legal basis
Federal Decree Law No. (10) of 2025 (AML/CFT/PF); Dubai Law No. (4) of 2022 Regulating Virtual Assets; Cabinet Resolution No. 111/2022; VARA Regulations und Rulebooks
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation and full compliance with the measures; intention to go through the licensing process.
Published
24 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.

16 Jun 2026 Banco BPM S.p.A.; Banco BPM Vita S.p.A.CONSOB fines Banco BPM and BPM Vita €570,000 over delayed disclosure of ECB letter ItalyDisclosure and reporting obligations €570,000

The CONSOB (Italian securities regulator) fined Banco BPM S.p.A. 370,000 EUR, of which 170,000 EUR for late disclosure of inside information under Art. 17(1) MAR and 200,000 EUR for obstructing supervision under Art. 187-quinquiesdecies of the Consolidated Law on Finance (TUF), and fined its subsidiary Banco BPM Vita S.p.A. 200,000 EUR, 570,000 EUR in total. In connection with BPM Vita's tender offer for Anima Holding S.p.A., the bank disclosed an ECB letter of 21 March 2025 rejecting the application of the so-called Danish Compromise to CONSOB and the market only four days later, after two trading days of the acceptance period. Both companies had previously informed CONSOB only incompletely about their discussions with the ECB.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory decisions affecting an ongoing takeover bid must be disclosed to the market and the supervisor at once rather than weighed internally.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ad hoc disclosure and transparency towards the supervisor in takeovers

Authority / court
CONSOB (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Abs. 1 Verordnung (EU) 596/2014 (MAR); Art. 187-ter.1 und Art. 187-quinquiesdecies Abs. 1 und 1-ter D.Lgs. 58/1998 (TUF)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes
Published
23 Jun 2026
Sources

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.

11 Jun 2026 Deutsche Bank AktiengesellschaftDeutsche Bank AG: AUD 2m penalty for inaccurate derivative trade reporting AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €1.21m

ASIC issued an infringement notice because on 208 business days between October 2024 and August 2025 Deutsche Bank had not accurately reported the “direction” fields for 20,483 outstanding and 244,091 terminated or matured OTC derivative transactions, mostly foreign exchange trades, to trade repositories. The bank allegedly paid AUD 2 million under the infringement notice; payment is not an admission of guilt.

What organisations can take from it

Derivative reporting systems need plausibility checks on mandatory fields, otherwise individual errors add up to systemic breaches.

Relevance to training and awareness

Data quality in regulatory transaction reporting

Authority / court
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Rule 2.2.6 ASIC Derivative Transaction Rules (Reporting) 2024; reg 7.5A.104 Corporations Regulations 2001
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation with ASIC and measures to prevent further reporting errors.
Published
13 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 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.

8 Jun 2026 A. Tsokkos Hotels Public LimitedCyprus: 16,500 EUR against A. Tsokkos Hotels for late annual financial report CyprusDisclosure and reporting obligations €16,500

The listed hotel group did not publish its 2024 annual financial report on time; the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) imposed a total of 16,500 EUR. At the same meeting, eleven other issuers were fined between 1,500 and 17,000 EUR for the same reason; a fine of 13,500 EUR had already been imposed on the company under the same law in 2025.

What organisations can take from it

Publication deadlines for financial reports are not negotiable – repeated delays lead to fines and, in extreme cases, to suspension of trading.

Authority / court
Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Sec. 9(1), 37(2)(a) Transparency Requirements (Securities Admitted to Trading on a Regulated Market) Law 2007
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Other
Repeat case
yes
Published
7 Aug 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 Jun 2026 Wendelspiess Partners AG in LiquidationFINMA: Wendelspiess Partners breached FIDLEG duties, licence revoked SwitzerlandOrganisational requirements Order

Wendelspiess Partners AG invested almost all the money of its more than 400 clients in a barely diversified foreign fund it had set up and managed itself, which invested mainly in a Zug-based investment company and companies linked to it; it gave insufficient information about conflicts of interest and risks, carried out no suitability check and withheld relevant information from the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority). FINMA revoked the licence as an asset manager of the company, which is now bankrupt. Measures against individuals are not set out here. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

In-house funds in client portfolios are a classic conflict of interest that must be disclosed and backed by a documented suitability check.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest with in-house funds; information and suitability duties

Authority / court
Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verhaltenspflichten nach dem Finanzdienstleistungsgesetz (FIDLEG): Interessenkonflikte, Information, Eignungsprüfung; Auskunftspflicht gegenüber der FINMA
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
3 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 5 Oct 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

Report an error

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

2 Jun 2026 bunq B.V.AFM: €170,000 fine for bunq over late replies to fraud complaints NetherlandsOrganisational requirements €170,000

On 2 June 2026 the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM, Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets) fined bunq B.V. 170,000 EUR because in seven cases the bank did not give a substantive reply within the statutory 15 working days to complaints from customers who had fallen victim to online fraud (November to December 2023 and April to at least August 2024). Because bunq fully or largely compensated those affected without being legally obliged to, the AFM lowered the base amount from 500,000 to 200,000 EUR; the simplified settlement brought a further 15% reduction.

What organisations can take from it

Complaint processes for payment services need deadline monitoring, especially for fraud victims with large losses.

Relevance to training and awareness

Timely handling of complaints in payment services

Authority / court
Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 43a Abs. 1 i. V. m. Abs. 2 Besluit Gedragstoezicht financiële ondernemingen Wft (BGfo), Umsetzung von Art. 101 PSD2
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Voluntary full or largely full compensation of the customers concerned; simplified settlement (−15%).
Published
8 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.

29 May 2026 mBank S.A.mBank: PLN 14.9m for failings in treasury business and compliance PolandOrganisational requirements €3.52m

The KNF imposed four fines totalling PLN 14,900,000 on mBank: PLN 0.4m and 6m because staff negotiated client transactions with unauthorised third parties and passed client information to them, PLN 5m for not treating currency hedging transactions as financial instruments and PLN 3.5m for ineffective internal control and compliance functions. Following a request for reconsideration, the KNF upheld the decision on 28 August 2026; it is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Staff may negotiate client transactions only with persons whose authority has been verified, and the compliance function must monitor this.

Relevance to training and awareness

Verifying authority and confidentiality in client dealings

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
§ 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. § 26 Nr. 1 Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 24.09.2012; Art. 83b Abs. 3 und 6, Art. 83c Abs. 1 ustawa o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi; Art. 9c Abs. 1 Nr. 4 Prawo bankowe; Art. 21 und 22 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/565
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 14,900,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 May 2026.

Sources

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.

27 May 2026 Soltec Power Holdings, SASoltec: incorrect 2023 annual figures reported to the market SpainDisclosure and reporting obligations €190,000

The manufacturer of solar tracking systems disseminated its results for 2023 by way of an "Otra Información Relevante" announcement containing inaccurate information. Spain's National Securities Market Commission (CNMV) imposed a fine of 190,000 EUR for a serious infringement; the company waived administrative appeals.

What organisations can take from it

Voluntary market announcements on results are also subject to MAR – figures must be reconciled before publication.

Authority / court
Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 297.1.e i. V. m. 297.2.d Ley 6/2023; Art. 17 i. V. m. Art. 7 MAR
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Energy and utilities
Published
3 Aug 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.

26 May 2026 TGI AGLiechtenstein: FMA halts TGI AG products over deposit-taking without a licence LiechtensteinCapital markets and financial supervision Order

The Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein (FMA, Financial Market Authority) ordered by decree of 26 May 2026 that TGI AG in Vaduz immediately stop distributing and publicly offering its products “Customer Basic 2 %”, “Sales Premium” and “Sofortrabatt”, because it was thereby conducting deposit-taking business without a licence, and that it no longer hold the customer funds received in this way within four months. In a partial decision of 12 August 2026 the FMA's appeals commission granted suspensive effect only for the order concerning the holding of the funds; the other measures remain in force and the proceedings are not final.

What organisations can take from it

Business models in which customer money is taken in and later repaid must be checked for a licensing requirement of the financial regulator before launch.

Relevance to training and awareness

Licensing requirement when accepting customer funds (deposit-taking)

Authority / court
Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein (FMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
28 May 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.

25 May 2026 Robomarkets LtdCyprus: Robomarkets pays 100,000 EUR under settlement over CFD sales to retail clients CyprusOrganisational requirements €100,000

For the period June 2023 to June 2024, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) examined the investment firm’s organisational requirements, client information, appropriateness assessment and compliance with the restrictions on marketing CFDs to retail investors. The proceedings were concluded with a settlement of 100,000 EUR, which the company has already paid.

What organisations can take from it

When selling CFDs to retail clients, the appropriateness assessment and product intervention rules are central points of supervisory scrutiny.

Relevance to training and awareness

Appropriateness assessment when selling complex products

Authority / court
Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 22(1), 25(1), 26(3) Gesetz über Wertpapierdienstleistungen 2017; Art. 42 VO (EU) 600/2014; CySEC-Richtlinie DI87-09; Art. 37(4) CySEC-Gesetz
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
24 Aug 2026
Sources

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.

18 May 2026 Havenport Investments Pte LtdMAS: composition fine for Havenport Investments SingaporeOrganisational requirements €26,855

The fund manager Havenport Investments Pte Ltd lacked an adequate framework for managing the risks of the assets under its management, breached its base capital requirement without reporting this to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator), and violated conditions of its Capital Markets Services Licence requiring prior approval for a new product and personalised advice from independent financial advisers for retail investors before onboarding. MAS allegedly imposed a composition fine of SGD 40,000; the company has ceased its retail fund management business and has not been allowed to manage retail investors' money since 18 July 2024. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

Licence conditions and capital requirements belong in ongoing compliance monitoring by senior management; any shortfall must be reported immediately.

Relevance to training and awareness

Senior management duties regarding licence conditions, capital requirements and reporting to the regulator

Authority / court
Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Securities and Futures Act (SFA) und zugehörige Regulations; Auflagen der Capital Markets Services Licence
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
18 May 2026

Original amount 40,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 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.

13 May 2026 Oma Säästöpankki OyjOma Säästöpankki: 400,000 EUR over late and incomplete insider lists FinlandMarket abuse and insider dealing €400,000

The bank failed to draw up insider lists in good time for two pieces of inside information (termination of the core banking project with Cognizant in 2021, merger talks with Liedon Säästöpankki in 2022), did not update them and omitted mandatory information. The Finanssivalvonta (Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority, FIN-FSA) imposed a total fine of 400,000 EUR; the decision was not appealed and is final.

What organisations can take from it

Insider lists must be created from the moment inside information exists – a fixed process with designated responsible persons prevents gaps.

Relevance to training and awareness

Insider lists and handling of inside information

Authority / court
Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (MAR) Art. 18 Abs. 1, 3 und 4; Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2016/347
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Measures to prevent recurrence and partial admission/cooperation had a mitigating effect.
Published
15 May 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.

13 May 2026 Pareto Securities AbPareto Securities: EUR 115,000 for gaps and duplicate filings in transaction reporting FinlandDisclosure and reporting obligations €115,000

The Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA, Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed a penalty payment of 115,000 EUR on Pareto Securities Ab. The firm had submitted no transaction reports at all on 71 days in 2024 and 20 days in 2025, and between June 2023 and May 2025 it reported 13 transactions an unusually high number of times, most of them more than 300 times. The admission of the failings reduced the amount.

What organisations can take from it

Automated reporting pipelines need controls that detect outages and duplicates immediately.

Relevance to training and awareness

Monitoring automated reporting pipelines

Authority / court
Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 26 Abs. 1 UAbs. 1 MiFIR (VO (EU) Nr. 600/2014); Sijoituspalvelulaki 15 luku 2 § 7 mom. 5 kohta; FivaL 40 §, 41 §
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Admission of the failings and cooperation with the supervisor.
Published
13 May 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.

5 May 2026 P&V Assurances SCP&V Assurances: 150,000 EUR – distribution via a deregistered insurance intermediary BelgiumOrganisational requirements €150,000

One of the insurer’s intermediaries was removed from the FSMA register in December 2023; owing to a human data entry error in the monitoring tool, P&V only noticed this after more than a month and concluded 34 contracts through him during that time. The Autorité des services et marchés financiers (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority, FSMA) accepted a settlement of 150,000 EUR; there had already been a settlement for the same amount in 2020.

What organisations can take from it

Automated register checks are only as good as the underlying data maintenance – critical entries require a four-eyes principle.

Relevance to training and awareness

Care in master data maintenance / register reconciliation

Authority / court
Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances, Art. 259
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
IT adjustments to prevent recurrence.
Published
5 May 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.

1 May 2026 Swiss Fund Management AG in Liquidation; BZ Berater Zentrum AGFINMA revokes Swiss Fund Management's licence and confiscates BZ commissions SwitzerlandOrganisational requirements Order

Swiss Fund Management AG in liquidation and BZ Berater Zentrum AG, which held around 2,000 asset management mandates, channelled investor money of around CHF 200 million, directly or via funds, into illiquid bonds of interlinked issuers that financed real estate projects of related companies, without adequately informing investors about the conflicts of interest and without adequate suitability and appropriateness checks under FIDLEG (Swiss Financial Services Act). By ruling of 1 May 2026 the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority) revoked SFM's licence as a manager of collective assets, rejected BZ's application for a licence as an asset manager and confiscated placement commissions of more than CHF 3 million from BZ. The ruling is final.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone steering client money into products of related companies must disclose the conflicts of interest and document a suitability check for each client.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest and suitability checks in asset management

Authority / court
Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verhaltensregeln nach dem Finanzdienstleistungsgesetz (FIDLEG): Interessenkonflikte, Eignungs- und Angemessenheitsprüfung
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
29 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.

28 Apr 2026 Canva Pty Ltd; Canva Operations Pty Limited; Canva Trading Pty Ltd; Fusion Books Pty LtdCanva group: AUD 792,000 in penalties for late annual financial reports AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €485,086

Four Australian companies of the Canva group did not lodge their financial reports for the 2024 financial year with ASIC by the due date of 30 April 2025; the consolidated report followed only on 27 March 2026. ASIC issued an infringement notice of allegedly AUD 198,000 to each company (AUD 792,000 in total); the notices were paid, which is not an admission of guilt.

What organisations can take from it

Even fast-growing technology groups must monitor the reporting deadlines of every single group company.

Relevance to training and awareness

Lodgement deadlines for the financial reports of all group companies

Authority / court
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
s 319(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); Bußgeldbescheide nach s 1317DAM
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Telecoms, IT and software
Published
6 May 2026

Original amount 792,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Apr 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 Apr 2026 Compensa Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń S.A. Vienna Insurance GroupCompensa: PLN 8.5m for inadequate motor third-party liability premiums PolandOrganisational requirements €2m

The KNF fined the insurer Compensa PLN 8,500,000 because, in motor third-party liability insurance (class 10) in 2022 to 2024, it set premiums that were insufficient to cover all obligations under the contracts and the costs of its insurance business. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Insurers must price premiums so that they cover at least all contractual obligations and operating costs, and review this regularly.

Relevance to training and awareness

Adequate premium pricing in insurance

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 33 Abs. 2 ustawa z dnia 11 września 2015 r. o działalności ubezpieczeniowej i reasekuracyjnej
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 8,500,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Apr 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.

23 Apr 2026 PricewaterhouseCoopers Hong KongPwC Hong Kong: HKD 1bn compensation for Evergrande shareholders under SFC agreement Hong KongMarket abuse and insider dealing Other

Under an agreement with the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC, Hong Kong's securities regulator), PricewaterhouseCoopers Hong Kong has undertaken to set aside 1,000,000,000 HKD to compensate independent minority shareholders of China Evergrande Group; in return the regulator will take no further action, without any admission of liability. China Evergrande's audited revenue was allegedly overstated by 44.79% for 2019 and 69.03% for 2020, and PwC Hong Kong, as auditor, was allegedly concerned in the dissemination of false information, allegedly did not maintain its independence and allegedly acquiesced in management's manipulation of audit samples and site inspections.

What organisations can take from it

Auditors who tolerate manipulation of their audit procedures face a considerable risk of having to compensate investors.

Relevance to training and awareness

Independence and professional scepticism in auditing

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
s. 277 SFO (Cap. 571) (Auffassung der SFC, von PwC HK nicht anerkannt)
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Other
Published
23 Apr 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.

22 Apr 2026 Keytrade Bank (belgische Zweigniederlassung der Arkea Direct Bank SA)Keytrade Bank: €250,000 for faulty appropriateness warnings in online trading BelgiumOrganisational requirements €250,000

Because of an IT problem, Keytrade Bank displayed the same warning for every order from 27 December 2023 to 13 March 2024, regardless of the complexity of the instrument and the client's known level of knowledge. In the view of the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority), the bank thereby breached the rules on clear client information and on the appropriateness assessment, including for 81,416 transactions in non-complex instruments, 1,081 transactions in complex instruments without asking for knowledge and experience and 4,542 transactions where the required warning of inappropriateness was missing. The bank refunded losses of affected clients and pays 250,000 EUR under the settlement.

What organisations can take from it

Mandatory warnings in online brokerage must differentiate by product and client profile; changes to this logic need testing and ongoing monitoring.

Authority / court
Autorité des services et marchés financiers / Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten (FSMA) – Comité de direction (règlement transactionnel)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 27bis § 1 und Art. 27ter §§ 3 und 5 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002; Art. 71 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
The bank sold affected complex positions, refunded losses and informed the clients.

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.

20 Apr 2026 flatexDEGIRO SEBaFin fines flatexDEGIRO €1m for late ad hoc disclosure of special audit findings GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €1m

On 20 April 2026 BaFin (German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed a fine of 1,000,000 EUR on flatexDEGIRO SE. At the end of 2022, the company had not published the results of a special audit under § 44 KWG (German Banking Act) at flatexDEGIRO Bank AG, in which BaFin had identified deficiencies in business organisation, without delay as an ad hoc announcement, but only later as a press release. The fine is final.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory findings can also be inside information; a press release does not replace an ad hoc announcement.

Relevance to training and awareness

Assessing supervisory audit findings as potential inside information

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Abs. 1 UAbs. 1 MAR (Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
30 Apr 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.

20 Apr 2026 Arrowstreet Capital, Limited PartnershipAFM: €297,000 fine for Arrowstreet Capital over incorrect short position reports NetherlandsDisclosure and reporting obligations €297,000

On 20 April 2026 the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM, Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets) fined the US asset manager Arrowstreet Capital, Limited Partnership 297,000 EUR because, between July 2020 and November 2024, an error in its calculation method led it to report its net short positions in Just Eat Takeaway.com and Galapagos to the AFM too low on 101 occasions, 85 of which also breached the public disclosure obligation. Because the firm reported the error itself, corrected it quickly, cooperated fully and took measures against recurrence, the AFM reduced the base amount by 30%; the simplified settlement brought a further 15% reduction, and the matter is closed.

What organisations can take from it

Calculation methods used for reporting obligations should be validated regularly; self-reporting after discovering an error noticeably lowers the fine.

Relevance to training and awareness

Correct calculation and reporting of net short positions

Authority / court
Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 5 Abs. 1 und Art. 6 Abs. 1 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 236/2012 (Leerverkaufsverordnung, SSR)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Self-reporting, prompt correction, full cooperation and measures against recurrence (−30% on the base amount); simplified settlement (−15%).
Published
22 Apr 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.

20 Apr 2026 Sapia Partners LLPFCA: Public censure for Sapia Partners over lack of segregation for client money United KingdomOrganisational requirements Reprimand or warning

The FCA publicly censured Sapia Partners LLP. Sapia was responsible for client money accounts operated in connection with its appointed representative, a wealth manager, but the FCA found that from 2014 to 2020 it did not ensure effective segregation between those making payments and those reconciling the accounts. About £150 million was deposited into the accounts in that period, exposing clients to a risk of loss. Sapia agreed to a voluntary payment of £19,637,950 to that representative's clients; for this reason the FCA did not impose a fine, which it said would otherwise have been £7,412,000 (after discount).

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
FCA Principle 10; CASS 7.12.2R bzw. CASS 7.3.2R; section 205 FSMA 2000
Action
Reprimand or warning
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

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

15 Apr 2026 Liquidnet Canada Inc.Liquidnet Canada: confidential order data passed on to unauthorised persons Canada, ONOrganisational requirements €369,572

The operator of alternative trading systems passed on confidential order and trading information from its fixed income and equity platforms to unauthorised employees, lacked adequate safeguards and was initially not forthcoming with the regulator. Sanctions: administrative penalty of 600,000 CAD, 75,000 CAD in costs, a reprimand and an external review.

What organisations can take from it

Technically restrict access rights to confidential client data and review them regularly – and make complete reports to the regulator.

Relevance to training and awareness

Need-to-know principle and protection of confidential trading data

Authority / court
Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario) auf Antrag der Ontario Securities Commission
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
National Instrument 21-101, s. 5.10(1)-(3); Securities Act (Ontario) ss. 127(1), 127.1
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation, self-report, no prior record

Original amount 600,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Apr 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.

9 Apr 2026 Electro Optic Systems Holdings LimitedElectro Optic Systems: 4 million AUD for late correction of revenue guidance AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €2.41m

The Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed an allegedly agreed penalty of 4 million AUD on the listed manufacturer of defence, space and communications technology. By 25 July 2022 the company knew that its 2022 revenue was likely to fall materially short of its published guidance of at least 212.3 million AUD, but did not correct the guidance until 31 October 2022; the court found a continuing breach of the continuous disclosure obligation.

What organisations can take from it

Once it becomes apparent that published guidance will be materially missed, the correction must be disclosed without delay.

Relevance to training and awareness

Continuous disclosure: handling deviations from guidance and escalating them internally to those responsible for disclosure

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
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 674A(2) i. V. m. s 1317QA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Defence and security
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
9 Apr 2026

Original amount 4,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Apr 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.

9 Apr 2026 Ara 1857 S.p.A.IVASS fines Ara 1857 €900,000 for failing to carry out required remedies ItalyOrganisational requirements €900,000

IVASS (Italian insurance supervisor) imposed a fine of 900,000 EUR on Ara 1857 S.p.A. under Art. 310(1) of the Private Insurance Code (CAP). The company had not adequately implemented the preventive and corrective measures required by the supervisor, so serious shortcomings persisted in corporate governance, remuneration systems, risk management and control, and in the current and forward-looking solvency assessment. According to IVASS sanctions statistics, the company had already received a fine of 380,000 EUR in 2023.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory requirements are not recommendations: failing to make the required corrections is in itself a breach that attracts a heavy sanction.

Relevance to training and awareness

Implementing supervisory remedial measures

Authority / court
IVASS (Istituto per la Vigilanza sulle Assicurazioni)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 188 Abs. 3-bis lit. d, Art. 30, 30-bis, 30-ter, 30-quater, 30-septies und 310 Abs. 1 D.Lgs. 209/2005 (CAP); IVASS-Verordnung 38/2018
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Published
29 May 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.

8 Apr 2026 The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.Goldman Sachs Group: SEK 1.5m for late major shareholding notifications SwedenDisclosure and reporting obligations €139,095

Finansinspektionen (FI, Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed an administrative fine of 1,500,000 SEK on The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. because six crossings of the 5% threshold for shares and voting rights in Lundin Mining Corporation, Samhällsbyggnadsbolaget i Norden AB and Scandic Hotels Group AB were notified between 1 and 104 trading days late; a further transaction (Lundin Mining, 27 March 2025) was closed without sanction. FI took into account that a professional market participant had committed breaches in several issuers and saw no grounds for waiving the fine.

What organisations can take from it

Group-wide shareholding monitoring must detect crossings of national notification thresholds on the day they occur and report them on time.

Relevance to training and awareness

Major shareholding notifications (flagging) when thresholds are crossed

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
6 kap. 3 a § första stycket 4 lagen (1991:980) om handel med finansiella instrument (Flaggningspflicht)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
10 Apr 2026

Original amount 1,500,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Apr 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.

3 Apr 2026 LPP S.A.LPP: PLN 15m for flawed consolidated accounts after the outbreak of war in Ukraine PolandDisclosure and reporting obligations €3.5m

The KNF imposed a fine of PLN 15,000,000 on the listed issuer LPP for breaches of disclosure obligations in its consolidated financial statements for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. LPP had wrongly recognised impairments of PLN 608m on fixed assets and inventories resulting from the Russian attack on Ukraine of 24 February 2022 as an adjusting event in the 2021/2022 statements and did not correct the comparative figures in the following year, although the authority had repeatedly recommended this and the auditor had issued qualifications. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Issuers should promptly act on supervisory recommendations and auditor qualifications on accounting treatment rather than carrying errors forward.

Relevance to training and awareness

Correct accounting for events after the reporting period

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 56 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 lit. a ustawa o ofercie publicznej i. V. m. § 3 Abs. 1 und 3 sowie § 71 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 lit. b Verordnung des Finanzministers über laufende und periodische Informationen; IAS 2, 8, 10 und 36
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 15,000,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Apr 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.

30 Mar 2026 XTB S.A.XTB: PLN 20m for deficient appropriateness checks in CFD sales PolandOrganisational requirements €4.66m

The KNF fined the brokerage XTB PLN 20,000,000 because, between January 2022 and September 2023, it did not properly assess clients' knowledge and experience, did not adequately define the target market for complex instruments such as CFDs, failed to identify possible conflicts of interest arising from the „lista HOT“ distributed to clients and gave clients unreliable information on CFD risks. At XTB's request the KNF reconsidered the case and upheld the decision on 28 August 2026.

What organisations can take from it

Experience with simple products is not enough to classify complex leveraged products such as CFDs as appropriate for a client.

Relevance to training and awareness

Appropriateness assessment and product governance for leveraged products

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 34 Abs. 2 lit. a, Art. 48 und Art. 56 Abs. 1 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/565; § 37 Abs. 5 Nr. 6 i. V. m. § 31 Abs. 7 Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 30.05.2018; Art. 83c Abs. 2 und Abs. 4 Nr. 2 ustawa o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 20,000,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Mar 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.

30 Mar 2026 Peken Global Limited (KuCoin)Peken Global (KuCoin): 500,000 USD and ban on US access without CFTC registration USAOrganisational requirements €435,388

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.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone giving US participants direct access to a foreign trading platform needs the appropriate CFTC registration or must effectively block such access.

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

Report an error

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

27 Mar 2026 Oztures Trading Pty Ltd (Binance Australia Derivatives)Binance Australia Derivatives: 10 million AUD for misclassified retail clients AustraliaOrganisational requirements €5.98m

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 10 million AUD because, between July 2022 and April 2023, the provider of crypto derivatives wrongly classified 524 retail clients – more than 85% of its Australian client base – as wholesale clients, depriving them of, among other things, a Product Disclosure Statement, a target market determination and a compliant internal dispute resolution system. The causes were deficient onboarding processes – such as a multiple-choice test that could be retaken without limit – and inadequate training and review; the affected clients suffered 8.66 million AUD in trading losses and paid 3.89 million AUD in fees.

What organisations can take from it

Classifications that remove client protections require robust evidence, trained staff and effective oversight – a knowledge test that can be retaken at will is no substitute for a proper assessment.

Relevance to training and awareness

Client classification (retail or wholesale) and verification of evidence during onboarding

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

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
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 1012B(3)(a)(i) und (iii), 994B(1) und (2)(a), 912A(1)(a), (b), (f) und (g); Geldbuße nach s 1317G
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Full compensation of affected clients (around 13.1 million AUD) overseen by ASIC, cooperation in the investigation and the proceedings, admission of all contraventions; no previous court findings.
Published
27 Mar 2026

Original amount 10,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Mar 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 Mar 2026 Dinosaur Merchant Bank LimitedDinosaur Merchant Bank: 338,000 GBP – CFD trading without market abuse surveillance United KingdomOrganisational requirements €389,760

After a new order management system was introduced in June 2024, CFD transactions with an underlying value of around 3.05 billion USD were not captured by automated trade surveillance. The bank identified the error in October 2024 but only remedied it in May 2025; the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed 338,000 GBP after a 30% cooperation discount.

What organisations can take from it

With every system migration, check whether surveillance systems actually capture the new data flows.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 16 Abs. 2 UK MAR; SYSC 6.1.1R; FCA Principle 3
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation (30% discount); CFD business discontinued in May 2025.

Original amount 338,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Mar 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.

26 Mar 2026 NN Penzijní společnost, a.s.ČNB: CZK 10m fine for NN Penzijní společnost – savers' interest income booked as its own CzechiaOrganisational requirements €408,530

The ČNB (Czech National Bank) fined NN Penzijní společnost 10,000,000 CZK under the supplementary pension savings act. In 2023 the pension company booked interest income totalling 8,060,467.26 CZK earned on savers' money held in collection and payout accounts as its own income instead of allocating it to the participants. In addition, until at least February 2024 it lacked independent ongoing monitoring of investment limits, effective oversight of outsourced activities and adequate procedures for conflicts of interest within the corporate group.

What organisations can take from it

Income generated on client money belongs to the clients; firms that outsource administration need their own independent controls rather than relying on the provider's data.

Relevance to training and awareness

Fiduciary duties towards savers and oversight of outsourced activities

Authority / court
Česká národní banka (ČNB)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
§ 49 lit. a und b, § 50, § 51, § 54 Abs. 1, § 160 Abs. 1 lit. q und u, § 160 Abs. 10 Zákon č. 427/2011 Sb. (ZDPS, Fassung bis 31. 12. 2024)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 10,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Mar 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.

25 Mar 2026 Familiam Asset Management OyFamiliam Asset Management: 70,000 EUR for 2,867 unreported securities transactions FinlandDisclosure and reporting obligations €70,000

Between September 2021 and August 2023, the asset manager failed to report a total of 2,867 transactions to the supervisory authority on time and in 2024 also submitted quarterly reports (FINREP) late. The Finanssivalvonta (Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority, FIN-FSA) imposed a total fine of 70,000 EUR; the admission had a mitigating effect.

What organisations can take from it

Reporting obligations require deadline monitoring with a deputy arrangement – especially in small firms without their own reporting department.

Relevance to training and awareness

Regulatory reporting

Authority / court
Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
MiFIR (VO (EU) 600/2014) Art. 26 Abs. 1; IFR (VO (EU) 2019/2033) Art. 54 Abs. 1; FIN-FSA-Vorschriften 20/2013 (FINREP)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Admission of the failures / cooperation.
Published
25 Mar 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 Mar 2026 The Bank of London Group Limited und Oplyse Holdings Limited (vormals The Bank of London Group Holdings Limited)PRA: £2m fine on The Bank of London and its parent for misleading it about capital United KingdomDisclosure and reporting obligations €2.31m

The PRA fined The Bank of London Group Limited and its financial holding company Oplyse Holdings Limited 2,000,000 GBP. Between October 2021 and May 2024 they failed to meet their capital requirements for an extended period, repeatedly misled the PRA about their actual capital position – including with fabricated documents – and did not properly manage or report a large exposure arising from a loan by the bank to its parent. It was the PRA's first fine for a lack of integrity and its first action against a financial holding company; a penalty of 12 million GBP would have been appropriate.

What organisations can take from it

Only the true capital position counts with the regulator – embellished or fabricated evidence turns a capital problem into an integrity breach.

Relevance to training and awareness

Truthfulness towards the regulator; no embellished capital evidence

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 1, 3, 4 und 7; PRA Rulebook: Reporting (CRR) Part Kap. 3 Art. 5 und Art. 7, Large Exposures (CRR) Part Art. 393–395, Notifications 2.3, Related Party Transaction Risk 2.1 und 2.3, Definition of Capital 7A; ss. 206 und 192Y FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
Because serious financial hardship was demonstrated, the PRA reduced the penalty from 12 million GBP to 2 million GBP; the firms settled with the PRA.
Published
24 Mar 2026

Original amount 2,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Mar 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 Mar 2026 Alecta Tjänstepension ÖmsesidigtAlecta: warning and SEK 50m over risk control in Heimstaden investments SwedenOrganisational requirements €4.67m

Finansinspektionen (FI, Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority) issued the occupational pension provider Alecta a warning and the statutory maximum administrative fine of 50,000,000 SEK. For investments of around 26.5 billion SEK in Heimstaden Bostad AB between October 2019 and August 2023, Alecta had – with the exception of one investment occasion – not sufficiently identified the risk of loss arising from the articles of association and shareholder agreements, nor ensured that it could manage that risk; the assets were therefore not invested in the way that best served the beneficiaries' interests. FI classified the breaches as serious but refrained from revoking the licence in view of the measures taken.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone investing client money must analyse and document the contractual risks (influence, exit, reinvestment obligations) before each tranche.

Relevance to training and awareness

Risk control and prudence in large investments of pension assets

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
6 kap. 20 § försäkringsrörelselagen (2010:2043) in der Fassung vor dem 1.1.2016; 6 kap. 1–3 §§ lagen (2019:742) om tjänstepensionsföretag; 15 kap. 1, 2 och 16 §§ LTF
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Alecta replaced several senior executives, made staffing changes in asset management and strengthened its board; FI therefore considered a warning rather than licence revocation sufficient.
Published
18 Mar 2026

Original amount 50,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Mar 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.

13 Mar 2026 Macquarie Securities (Australia) LimitedMacquarie Securities: 35 million AUD for years of misreported short sales AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €21.5m

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 35 million AUD on the securities dealer because, between December 2009 and February 2024, inadequate systems, processes and controls led it to misreport at least 73 million short sales to the market operator and to omit required regulatory data from orders. The court also found inadequate risk management and misleading conduct, and ordered a compliance programme involving an independent expert.

What organisations can take from it

Regulatory reporting processes need their own regularly tested controls, and individual errors that come to light should be investigated as a possible sign of wider system weaknesses.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accuracy of regulatory reporting (short sale and order data) and escalation of identified reporting errors

Authority / court
Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 798H(1)(b), 912A(1)(h), 1041H(1); ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) 2017; Geldbuße nach s 1317G(1)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
50 to 249
Mitigating circumstances
Early acceptance of the contraventions, sustained cooperation with ASIC and contrition; the errors were reported to ASIC once identified and promptly remediated; no previous court findings of similar conduct.
Liability of senior managers
According to the decision, the errors arose at an operational level; ASIC did not allege any involvement of senior management.
Published
16 Mar 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Mar 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 Mar 2026 U K Insurance LimitedPRA: £10.625m fine on U K Insurance for an incorrect Solvency II balance sheet United KingdomDisclosure and reporting obligations €12.3m

The PRA fined U K Insurance Limited, the principal insurance company of the Direct Line Group (part of Aviva since July 2025), 10,625,000 GBP. Because of ineffective controls and staffing and capability issues in its finance and actuarial functions, its Solvency II balance sheet was miscalculated in 2023 and 2024, so that the firm overstated its solvency to the PRA and the market; the error went undetected for a considerable time. It was the first case under the PRA's Early Account Scheme.

What organisations can take from it

Regulatory metrics such as the solvency ratio need effective preventive and detective controls and sufficiently qualified staff.

Relevance to training and awareness

Controls, capability and training in finance and actuarial functions

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

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 Rule 6; Notifications 6.1; Reporting 2.4 und 3.2 (PRA Rulebook); s. 206 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
Participation in the Early Account Scheme with early admissions: 50% discount (otherwise 21.25 million GBP); after discovery management notified the PRA without delay, corrected the published figures and remedied the causes; in the PRA's view the breaches were neither deliberate nor reckless.
Published
11 Mar 2026

Original amount 10,625,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Mar 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 Mar 2026 Barclays PLCBaFin fines Barclays €1.65m over 26 late voting rights notifications GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €1.65m

On 10 March 2026 BaFin (German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed a fine of 1,650,000 EUR on Barclays PLC. Between June 2022 and March 2023 the company had failed in 26 cases to submit voting rights notifications concerning the same issuer on time; the fine punished a breach of the duty of supervision because adequate organisational measures were lacking. The fine is final.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone holding positions in German issuers needs reliable threshold monitoring, or many missed notifications turn into a high fine.

Relevance to training and awareness

Monitoring voting rights thresholds and notifying on time

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
§ 130 Abs. 1 OWiG i. V. m. § 33 Abs. 1 S. 1, § 34 Abs. 1 S. 1, § 38 Abs. 1 S. 1 und § 39 Abs. 1 WpHG
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Liability of senior managers
The fine punished a breach of the duty of supervision under § 130 OWiG (German Administrative Offences Act): the company had not taken adequate organisational measures to prevent the breaches or make them significantly more difficult.
Published
27 Mar 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.

4 Mar 2026 Santander Bank Polska S.A. (heute Erste Bank Polska S.A.)Santander Bank Polska: PLN 21.1m for failings in securities and treasury business PolandOrganisational requirements €4.95m

The KNF imposed eight fines totalling PLN 21,100,000, among other things for cooperating with unauthorised third parties in client transactions (PLN 2m and 4m), transactions with clients outside the target market (PLN 2.5m), missing cost information on currency hedging transactions (PLN 1m), a non-compliant remuneration system (PLN 0.5m), the execution of orders relating to „Oprocentowanie Nie Wyższe Niż“ (PLN 7m), ineffective internal control and compliance functions (PLN 4m) and failure to archive client correspondence (PLN 0.1m). Following a request for reconsideration, the KNF upheld the fines on 28 August 2026; an action before the administrative court is possible.

What organisations can take from it

Banks must verify the authority of persons acting for clients and equip their compliance function so that it actually detects such gaps.

Relevance to training and awareness

An effective compliance function and dealing with client representatives in treasury business

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 83b Abs. 3, Art. 83c Abs. 1 und 4, Art. 83e Abs. 1 ustawa o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi; § 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. § 26 Nr. 1 Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 24.09.2012; Art. 9c Abs. 1 Nr. 4 und Art. 88k Abs. 6a Prawo bankowe
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 21,100,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Mar 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.

4 Mar 2026 Schaeffler AGSchaeffler: deviation of quarterly figures from market expectations disclosed too late GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €180,000

The automotive supplier's business figures for the first quarter of 2024 deviated significantly from market expectations; this inside information was not disclosed without delay by means of an ad hoc announcement. BaFin imposed a fine.

What organisations can take from it

Make a comparison of internal figures with the analyst consensus a fixed part of the quarterly process, so that significant deviations are immediately assessed for ad hoc disclosure obligations.

Relevance to training and awareness

Recognising inside information in deviations from market expectations (controlling/IR)

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Abs. 1 UAbs. 1 MAR
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Automotive
Published
26 Mar 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 Mar 2026 John Wood Group PLCJohn Wood Group: incorrect financial results published – almost 13 million GBP United KingdomDisclosure and reporting obligations €14.9m

The energy services company published incorrect results for the 2022 and 2023 financial years and for the first half of 2024; accounting judgements were influenced by the desire to maintain previously reported figures, and systems and controls were inadequate. The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed a fine of 12,993,700 GBP (18,562,500 GBP without the 30 % discount).

What organisations can take from it

Accounting judgements must not be geared to figures already communicated – this is a control failure, not a calculation error.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Listing Rule 1.3.3R; Listing Principle 1
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Energy and utilities
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
30 % discount for early settlement and acceptance of the findings
Published
4 Mar 2026

Original amount 12,993,700 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Mar 2026.

Sources

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.

20 Feb 2026 BofA Securities Europe SABofA Securities Europe: €6.2m ECB penalty for misreporting market risk EU levelDisclosure and reporting obligations €6.2m

According to the ECB decision, BofA Securities Europe SA reported risk-weighted assets for market risk that were too low, and hence incorrect capital ratios, for six quarters (31 December 2022 to 31 March 2024), because it used its internal model for sovereign bond options although its permission did not cover them. The ECB classified the breach as intentional and severe and took remedial action into account as mitigating.

What organisations can take from it

Internal models may only be used within the approved scope; extensions must be applied for with the supervisor in advance.

Relevance to training and awareness

Using internal models only within the approved scope

Authority / court
Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 430 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 575/2013 (CRR); Art. 18 Abs. 1 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial action to prevent future breaches.
Published
27 Mar 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.

17 Feb 2026 REGIS-TR S.A.Trade repository REGIS-TR: deficiencies in organisation and data protection – 1.37 million EUR EU levelOrganisational requirements €1.37m

The Luxembourg trade repository lacked adequate compliance procedures and an appropriate organisational structure, failed to identify operational risks and did not adequately protect the confidentiality and integrity of the reported data. ESMA imposed fines totalling 1,374,000 EUR for negligent infringements under EMIR and SFTR; the case is under appeal.

What organisations can take from it

Market infrastructures must manage operational risks and data access as strictly as banks manage their credit risks.

Authority / court
Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 648/2012 (EMIR), Art. 65, 73, Anhang I; Verordnung (EU) 2015/2365 (SFTR), Art. 9
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
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.

16 Feb 2026 Carillion plc (in liquidation)FCA: Public censure for Carillion plc over misleading market information United KingdomMarket abuse and insider dealing Reprimand or warning

The FCA publicly censured the former construction and services group Carillion plc. The regulator found that between July 2016 and July 2017 the company published misleading information, breaching the prohibition of market manipulation and listing requirements; in July 2017 Carillion had to announce a provision of £845 million. Because the company has been in liquidation since January 2018, no fine was imposed; the FCA stated it would otherwise have been £37.91 million.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Art. 15 MAR; Listing Rule 1.3.3R; Listing Principle 1; Premium Listing Principle 2; sections 91 und 123 FSMA 2000
Action
Reprimand or warning
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Construction and real estate

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

Report an error

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

10 Feb 2026 J.P. Morgan SEJ.P. Morgan SE: €12.18m ECB penalty for misreporting risk-weighted assets EU levelDisclosure and reporting obligations €12.2m

The ECB imposed two penalties on J.P. Morgan SE: 10,150,000 EUR because the bank misclassified corporate exposures in 15 quarterly reports (end-2019 to mid-2023) and reported risk-weighted assets for credit risk that were too low, and 2,030,000 EUR because it wrongly excluded transactions from the calculation of credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk in 21 reporting periods (2019 to 2024). The ECB regarded both as seriously negligent, caused by evident deficiencies in internal processes; as a result, the reported capital ratios were too high.

What organisations can take from it

Classification of exposures for regulatory reporting needs effective controls; otherwise incorrect capital ratios become a sanctions risk.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accuracy of supervisory reporting

Authority / court
Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 430 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 575/2013 (CRR); Art. 18 Abs. 1 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
The bank identified and reported the breaches itself, cooperated and took remedial action.
Published
19 Feb 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.

9 Feb 2026 Kylin International (HK) Co., LimitedSFC: HKD 9m fine for Kylin International over fund management failures Hong KongOrganisational requirements €968,909

The SFC publicly reprimanded Kylin International (HK) and fined it HKD 9 million for failures as investment manager or consultant of six sub-funds of a Cayman Islands fund from August 2018. The SFC found that conflicts of interest arising from six loans by the firm or a director to four sub-funds were neither managed nor disclosed, reconciliations, valuations and audits were missing, investors were wrongly told that the suitability requirement did not apply, KYC and suitability controls were inadequate and anti-money laundering records were missing. The firm ceased its regulated activities at the end of 2023; its licence was revoked at its request in January 2025.

What organisations can take from it

Loans from a manager or its senior management to funds under management are a conflict of interest that must be managed and disclosed to investors.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest and investor information in private fund management

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)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial measures after an SFC review in late 2020, cessation of regulated activities and an otherwise clean disciplinary record.
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
9 Feb 2026

Original amount 9,000,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Feb 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.

3 Feb 2026 Rangecourt SA (vormals Banque Havilland SA)Upper Tribunal: £4m penalty on former Banque Havilland over plan to manipulate the Qatari riyal United KingdomMarket abuse and insider dealing €4.64m

In 2017 staff at the London branch of the Luxembourg private bank Banque Havilland SA (now Rangecourt SA) prepared a paper setting out manipulative trading strategies intended to put pressure on the Qatari riyal and its peg to the US dollar; it was meant for a UAE sovereign wealth fund. On 3 February 2026 the Upper Tribunal upheld the breach of Principle 1 (integrity) but reduced the penalty of 10,000,000 GBP set by the FCA in its Decision Notice of 17 January 2023 to 4,000,000 GBP.

What organisations can take from it

Offering clients strategies that amount to market manipulation breaches a firm's duty of integrity, even if none of it is ever carried out.

Relevance to training and awareness

Integrity: no market manipulation concepts for clients or prospects

Authority / court
Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Verfahren der Financial Conduct Authority (FCA))
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Principle 1 der FCA Principles for Businesses; s. 206 FSMA 2000; Entscheidung nach s. 133 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
reduced
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
According to the findings the paper was not passed on and the strategy was never implemented; the bank itself reported the matter to the Luxembourg supervisor CSSF and to the FCA, cooperated, had it investigated at its own cost of around £2.5m, and the employees involved had left the bank.
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
3 Feb 2026

Original amount 4,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Feb 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.

2 Feb 2026 Ark Capital Management (Dubai) LimitedDFSA: allegedly USD 504,000 on Ark Capital Management over market abuse controls United Arab EmiratesMarket abuse and insider dealing €425,676

The investment firm did not review alerts from its surveillance system adequately or promptly, so at least ten suspicious trading instances were not reported or reported late; it also failed to notify an agreed, potentially staged change in control. After a 30% settlement discount the DFSA allegedly imposed USD 504,000 (otherwise USD 720,000).

What organisations can take from it

A surveillance system only helps if its alerts are reviewed promptly – and a staged acquisition of shares must still be notified.

Relevance to training and awareness

Consistently working through trade surveillance alerts

Authority / court
Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Art. 90(2) Regulatory Law 2004 (DIFC); GEN Rules 11.10.12A, 5.3.20(a), 11.8.11(2), 4.2.3, 4.2.10 DFSA Rulebook
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement (30% discount); USD 720,000 without settlement.
Published
6 Feb 2026

Original amount 504,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Feb 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.

2 Feb 2026 Ed Broking (MENA) LimitedDFSA: USD 455,176 on reinsurance broker Ed Broking (MENA) for deceptive conduct United Arab EmiratesCapital markets and financial supervision €384,439

The reinsurance broker gave cedent insurers and reinsurers different premiums for the same placement, misled reinsurers about deductions and brokerage, and misled a client about the brokerage earned on 121 placements, partly using altered documents. In a settlement the DFSA allegedly imposed USD 455,176: USD 175,343 disgorgement (including interest) and a USD 279,833 penalty (USD 575,104 without settlement). The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

Undisclosed brokerage and inconsistent premium figures given to the contracting parties amount to deception – an early self-report reduces the consequences.

Relevance to training and awareness

Transparency on brokerage and premiums in insurance distribution

Authority / court
Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Self-report to the DFSA, internal investigation and restitution to clients; settlement (reduction from USD 575,104).
Published
2 Feb 2026

Original amount 455,176 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Feb 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 Jan 2026 Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM)ADM: embellished segment results in Nutrition – 40 million USD penalty USADisclosure and reporting obligations €33.5m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Intra-group transfer prices and retroactive segment adjustments require independent control when segments are publicly promoted as growth drivers.

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

Report an error

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

8 Jan 2026 Wealthface LimitedADGM: Wealthface gives enforceable undertaking after capital and reporting breaches United Arab EmiratesOrganisational requirements Other

The FSRA (Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the financial regulator of Abu Dhabi Global Market, ADGM) accepted an enforceable undertaking from the wealth manager and robo-adviser after its investigation found that between January 2023 and March 2025 the firm held insufficient liquid assets for most of the period and insufficient capital resources at the end of 2023 and 2024, calculated its capital requirement for three quarters of 2024 on an understated expenditure figure, did not prepare its 2023 financial statements under IFRS and filed them late, had no office in ADGM since the end of 2023 and paid supervision fees late. The firm admitted the alleged contraventions and undertook, among other things, to appoint an independent director within 60 days, to close any capital shortfall, to re-establish its head office and registered office in ADGM and to report monthly on its capital and liquid assets for one year. The undertaking contains no financial penalty.

What organisations can take from it

Capital and liquidity requirements must be calculated continuously and on correct input figures, not only at the reporting date.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ongoing monitoring of capital and liquidity

Authority / court
Financial Services Regulatory Authority (ADGM)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 235 FSMR 2015; PRU Rules 3.2.4(a), 3.7.2, 3.7.4(1); GEN Rules 4.5.1(1), 6.2.2, 6.6.2; FEES Rule 1.2.2
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation with the investigation; some of the contraventions (capital calculation and resources, IFRS accounts, office in ADGM) were already being remediated.

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.

6 Jan 2026 Saxo Capital Markets HK LimitedSaxo Capital Markets HK: HKD 4m fine over crypto products sold to retail clients Hong KongOrganisational requirements €438,731

Saxo Capital Markets HK was publicly reprimanded and fined 4,000,000 HKD because between November 2018 and November 2022 retail clients, too, could trade on its online trading platform 32 complex virtual asset-related products which under the regulators' circulars were reserved for professional investors (1,446 transactions by 130 retail clients and six professional investors). The firm neither assessed clients' knowledge nor provided sufficient information and warnings; the detection rules adopted from its parent group had not identified the products as crypto-related.

What organisations can take from it

Group-wide product filters do not replace a firm's own local product due diligence, especially for crypto products subject to distribution restrictions.

Relevance to training and awareness

Distribution of complex crypto products via online platforms

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
s. 194 SFO (Cap. 571); Code of Conduct; Guidelines on Online Distribution and Advisory Platforms; SFC-Rundschreiben vom 01.11.2018 und HKMA/SFC-Rundschreiben vom 28.01.2022
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Self-report, voluntary compensation of clients, cessation of regulated activities, cooperation and acceptance of the findings, otherwise clean disciplinary record.
Published
6 Jan 2026

Original amount 4,000,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Jan 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.

19 Dec 2025 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group LimitedANZ: AUD 135m penalty over conduct in a government bond issue and false reporting AustraliaMarket abuse and insider dealing €76.1m

In April 2023, as a bank managing a AUD 14 billion government bond issue for the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), ANZ sold large volumes of bond futures around the time of pricing without informing the AOFM of its outstanding sales, and from 2021 to 2023 reported inflated secondary market turnover in government bonds to it. The Court imposed AUD 135 million: AUD 85 million for the bond issue (including AUD 80 million for unconscionable conduct) and AUD 50 million for the inaccurate turnover reporting, together with a compliance programme at its own cost. In three retail matters a further AUD 115 million was imposed on the same day in a separate judgment.

What organisations can take from it

A bank managing an issue for a client must disclose its own hedging activity and must not report embellished figures to authorities.

Relevance to training and awareness

Transparency and conflicts of interest in proprietary trading around client transactions; accuracy of reports to authorities

Authority / court
Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
ss 12CB(1), 12DB(1)(a) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth); ss 912A(1)(a), (ca), (f), (5A), 912DAA, 1041H(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
Constructive engagement with ASIC and admissions at the earliest available opportunity.
Published
19 Dec 2025

Original amount 135,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Dec 2025.

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 Dec 2025 CACEIS BankAMF: €3.5m against CACEIS Bank for control failures as depositary of the H2O funds FranceOrganisational requirements €3.5m

As depositary of the H2O funds, CACEIS Bank, a subsidiary of the Crédit Agricole group, had, according to the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers, French financial markets authority) Enforcement Committee, not sufficiently verified the manager's procedures for monitoring investment ratios and valuing unlisted securities, and had not effectively checked compliance with investment limits (including for debt securities, currency swaps and the issuer limit for bonds). The Committee imposed 3,500,000 EUR and a warning; the allegation concerning total return swaps was rejected. The bank has appealed to the Conseil d'État.

What organisations can take from it

Depositaries must actually verify fund managers' investment and valuation processes rather than rely on the managers' own statements.

Relevance to training and awareness

Oversight duties of depositaries towards fund managers

Authority / court
Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Commission des sanctions
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 3, 6 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2016/438; Art. L. 214-10-5 Code monétaire et financier; Art. 323-19 Règlement général de l'AMF
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
18 Dec 2025

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.

17 Dec 2025 Juventus Football Club S.p.A.CONSOB fines Juventus €190,000 for market manipulation through its accounts ItalyMarket abuse and insider dealing €190,000

The CONSOB (Italian securities regulator) imposed a fine of EUR 190,000 on Juventus Football Club S.p.A. under Art. 187-quinquies of the Consolidated Law on Finance (TUF) because market manipulation within the meaning of Art. 187-ter TUF and Art. 15 MAR committed in its interest was attributed to it. According to the findings, the financial statements for 30 June 2020 and 30 June 2021 and the related announcements contained false or misleading information, including on gains from reciprocal player transfers, on deferred salary payments and on buy-back agreements. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Dressing up financial figures through reciprocal deals or side agreements is market manipulation, for which the company itself is also liable.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accounting for transfer deals and market manipulation

Authority / court
CONSOB (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Art. 187-ter und 187-quinquies Abs. 1 lit. a D.Lgs. 58/1998 (TUF); Art. 15 Verordnung (EU) 596/2014 (MAR); Art. 6 Abs. 3 Gesetz 689/1981
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Other
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
The CONSOB noted that the company had strengthened its internal control system after the breaches.
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not reported here.
Published
2 Jan 2026
Sources

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.

16 Dec 2025 Bank Dierickx Leys NVBank Dierickx Leys: €350,000 for inadequate market abuse surveillance BelgiumMarket abuse and insider dealing €350,000

Bank Dierickx Leys, which focuses on asset management and investment advice, did not submit a single suspicious transaction and order report (STOR) between 3 July 2016 and 25 March 2025. In the view of the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority), its systems did not monitor all relevant orders, relied on undocumented assessments by traders and were insufficiently documented and reviewed, its training did not fully cover the MAR obligations, and the bank could not rely on an external service provider's system without a delegation agreement. Under the settlement the bank pays 350,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone executing client orders needs complete, documented market abuse surveillance with trained staff; relying on third-party systems does not replace it.

Relevance to training and awareness

Detecting and reporting suspicious orders and transactions (STOR) under MAR

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten / Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA) – Directiecomité (minnelijke schikking)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Art. 16 Abs. 2 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (MAR); Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2016/957; Art. 71 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial measures in 2024: new MAR policy, new monitoring system and specific market abuse training.

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.

Load 20 more of 203

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