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.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by topic- Cartels and collusion €437.5m 100 % · 32 cases
- no topic €70,000 0 % · 1 case
- Abuse of market power – 0 % · 1 case
Who?
by company- Anonymised companies €216.7m 50 % · 12 cases
- Barratt Redrow, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey u. a. (7 Wohnungsbauunternehmen) €113.6m 26 % · 1 case
- AS Asphaltstraßensanierung GmbH, BITUNOVA GmbH, Kutter Spezialstraßenbau GmbH & Co. KG, Possehl Construction GmbH (inkl. VSI), Liesen…alles für den Bau GmbH, OAT GmbH/Otto Alte-Teigeler GmbH €60.3m 14 % · 1 case
- AS Asphaltstraßensanierung, BITUNOVA, Mainka u. a. (Straßenerhaltungskartell, 7 Unternehmen) €10.5m 2 % · 1 case
- Decora S.A., Bel-Pol sp. z o.o. €7.9m 2 % · 1 case
- Tarkus Interiors Pte Ltd; Flex Connect Pte Ltd (vormals Facility Link Pte Ltd) €7.09m 2 % · 1 case
- Retta Isännöinti Oy (Retta-Gruppe), Oulun Kiinteistötieto Oy, REIM Group Oy Ltd u. a. (Verband und 11 Gesellschaften) €6.56m 1 % · 1 case
- ATE, s. r. o.; AŽD Praha s.r.o.; EPLcond a.s.; MONZAS, a.s.; První SaZ Plzeň a.s.; STARMON s.r.o. €6.39m 1 % · 1 case
- Trust-Build Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd., Hunan Fengtian Construction Group Co., Ltd €3.19m 1 % · 1 case
- Strabag AG (Köln); Kemna Bau Andreae GmbH & Co. KG als Kronzeuge ohne Bußgeld €2.79m 1 % · 1 case
- 12 more€2.51m
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 3 | €29.8m |
| 2023 | 5 | €104.7m |
| 2024 | 8 | €92.4m |
| 2025 | 10 | €141.4m |
| 2026 | 8 | €69.3m |
34 cases
24 Sep 2026 M&J GroupCMA: fine against construction firm for concealing evidence during an inspection €29,075
During an inspection as part of an investigation into bid rigging, a work mobile phone and documents were removed from the premises on the instructions of a manager, and possession of a work mobile phone was denied. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a fine of 25,000 GBP on M&J.
Dawn raid training is mandatory: removing mobile phones or documents during an inspection obstructs the investigation, even when acting on instructions.
Correct conduct during inspections (dawn raids), no removal of evidence
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 40A(1) Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 24 Sep 2026
Original amount 25,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Sep 2026.
- CMA, Pressemitteilung zu M&J Group (Entscheidung 2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Sep 2026 Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A.Carioca Engenharia pays 6.13 million BRL in CADE settlement on construction tenders €1.04m
Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A. concluded a single settlement (Termo de Compromisso de Cessação) with the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian competition authority) covering four proceedings concerning alleged collusion in public tenders for infrastructure projects (metro, airports operated by Infraero, the rail company CPTM and the transport authority DNIT). The company admitted its participation, allegedly pays 6,134,676.92 BRL in instalments to the Fund for Diffuse Rights (FDD) and waives court and administrative disputes on these matters. Together with the company’s earlier settlements with CADE, its contributions exceed 90 million BRL.
A settlement covering all pending cartel cases creates legal certainty but requires an admission, payment and full cooperation.
Bid rigging in public construction contracts
- Authority / court
- Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Lei nº 12.529/2011 (Lei de Defesa da Concorrência), Termo de Compromisso de Cessação
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 22 Sep 2026
Original amount 6,134,676.92 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Sep 2026.
- CADE – Cade celebra acordo com construtora em quatro investigações de cartel (22.09.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Aug 2026 Sioux Erosion Control Inc.DOJ: jury convicts erosion control firm of price fixing in Oklahoma road construction –
A jury found Sioux Erosion Control guilty of having fixed prices for erosion control services, allocated contracts regionally and rigged bids on publicly funded road construction projects in Oklahoma (more than 100 million USD) from 2017 to 2023. Sentencing was still pending; the decision is not final.
Subcontractors in public road construction are also targeted by prosecutors.
Price-fixing and territorial agreements for subcontracted services in road construction
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 1 Sherman Act
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 20 Aug 2026
- U.S. Department of Justice, Pressemitteilung zu Sioux Erosion Control (Entscheidung 2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Direct link
Report an error
13 Aug 2026 „О-Рент“ ЕООД (sowie „Инжконсулт“ ЕООД und „Земекоп“ ЕООД)Construction machinery cartel: fine for O-Rent, compliance programme for all participants €2,403
The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found a cartel in public tenders for mining and construction machinery (price fixing and market sharing, Art. 15 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act, Art. 101 TFEU). Inzhkonsult and Zemekop, as a single undertaking, were exempted from the fine; O-Rent received a sanction of 2,403.07 EUR. All three companies must introduce a competition law compliance programme within 60 days and report on it.
The authority now expressly requires compliance programmes – anyone bidding in tenders should have one before it is ordered.
Competition law in tenders; compliance programme
- Authority / court
- Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 ZZK; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a und c AEUV
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Immunity from fines for two participants (leniency programme)
- Published
- 20 Aug 2026
- КЗК Публичен електронен регистър – Производство (Решение № 797 от 13.08.2026; Volltext als PDF im Register) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Aug 2026 AS Asphaltstraßensanierung GmbH, BITUNOVA GmbH, Kutter Spezialstraßenbau GmbH & Co. KG, Possehl Construction GmbH (inkl. VSI), Liesen…alles für den Bau GmbH, OAT GmbH/Otto Alte-Teigeler GmbHBundeskartellamt: 60.3 million EUR against DSK road repair cartel €60.3m
From around 2010 to September 2019, six suppliers of thin cold-laid asphalt surface layers (Dünne Asphaltdeckschichten in Kaltbauweise, DSK) allocated customers – primarily public contracting authorities – and contracts among themselves nationwide and coordinated prices. Germany's Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) imposed fines of around 60.3 million EUR; all proceedings ended in settlements.
Anyone who "shares out" public contracts regionally risks fines running into millions – calculations and bids must always be prepared independently.
Customer allocation and bid rigging in public contracts
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 GWB, Art. 101 AEUV
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency bonus for Possehl/VSI, Bitunova, Kutter and AS; settlement
- Published
- 6 Aug 2026
- Bußgelder wegen Kartellabsprachen im Bereich Straßenreparatur mit DSK Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 May 2026 Timmerhuis Weg & Waterbouw B.V., Bouwhuis Aannemingsmaatschappij „Bouwmij“ B.V., Aannemingsmaatschappij Van Gelder B.V.ACM: cartel fines on construction firms for bid rigging in an Ommen tender €45,500
In September 2024 three construction companies coordinated their bid prices and decided the winner in a civil engineering tender of the municipality of Ommen, which was awarded for 153,250 EUR. Because of earlier cartel infringements by the companies or their legal predecessors established in 2005, the ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) increased the fines by 20%. In the simplified procedure it imposed allegedly 30,000 EUR on Timmerhuis and allegedly 15,500 EUR on Bouwhuis (45,500 EUR in total); Van Gelder, as first leniency applicant, was not fined.
Bids in procurement procedures must be prepared independently; even agreeing the winner of a small municipal contract is sanctioned.
Bid rigging in public tenders
- Authority / court
- Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 6 Abs. 1 Mededingingswet
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- For cooperating in the simplified procedure, the ACM reduced the fines of Bouwhuis and Timmerhuis by 15%, and that of Timmerhuis by a further 5% for evidence provided voluntarily; Van Gelder, as first applicant, received full leniency immunity.
- Published
- 2 Jun 2026
- ACM – Boetebesluit vervalsing GWW-aanbesteding (Beslisdatum 28-05-2026) Decision of an authority
- ACM – Boetebesluit vervalsing GWW-aanbesteding gemeente Ommen Decision of an authority
- ACM – ACM legt kartelboetes op voor vervalsing GWW-aanbesteding (02-06-2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 May 2026 Decora S.A., Bel-Pol sp. z o.o.Decora and Bel-Pol: PLN 33.6m for price and territory agreements on flooring accessories €7.9m
The manufacturer Decora and the wholesaler Bel-Pol had coordinated prices for vinyl panels, underlays, skirting boards and floor profiles from Decora's range and divided the wholesale market for these products. UOKiK imposed fines of PLN 28,344,000 on Decora and PLN 5,290,000 on Bel-Pol, PLN 33,634,000 in total. The decision is not final.
Vertical agreements on prices and territories in wholesale are hardcore restrictions.
Price and territory agreements between manufacturer and wholesaler
- Authority / court
- Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 3 ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a und c AEUV; Art. 106 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2, Art. 113c und Art. 89a ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- As a leniency applicant, Bel-Pol received a 50% reduction of its fine and a further 10% for voluntarily accepting the fine (settlement).
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
Original amount 33,634,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 May 2026.
- UOKiK-Entscheidungsdatenbank: Decyzja DOK-2/2026 (Decora S.A., Bel-Pol sp. z o.o.) Enforcement database of an authority
- Decyzja nr DOK-2/2026 vom 04.05.2026 (öffentliche Fassung) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Apr 2026 Gwalimba Construction (Pty) LtdAlleged collusion on a government job: Gwalimba Construction allegedly pays ZAR 50,000 €2,596
On 21 April 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement with Gwalimba Construction (Pty) Ltd. Following a complaint by the Department of Home Affairs (home affairs ministry), the Competition Commission (competition authority) had found that Gwalimba and Superway Construction (Pty) Ltd agreed not to compete against each other on certain tenders – including a request for quotes for fire-compliance repair work at a government office in Pretoria. Without admitting liability, Gwalimba allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 50,000 ZAR, will cooperate in the case against Superway and will introduce a competition law compliance programme.
Even small construction firms must avoid any coordination with competitors when quoting to public bodies – authorities pursue such arrangements against small firms too.
Bid rigging in public procurement
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 4(1)(b)(i), (ii) und (iii) Competition Act 89 of 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- According to the parties: cooperation with the authority, a small firm with no previous contraventions, and it did not win the contract.
- Published
- 23 Apr 2026
Original amount 50,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Apr 2026.
- Competition Tribunal: Press Release: Tribunal confirms settlement of alleged collusion by Gwalimba Construction in public sector collusive tendering case (23.04.2026) Court press release
- Competition Tribunal, CO107Oct25, Order confirming consent agreement Competition Commission v Gwalimba Construction (Pty) Ltd, decided 21.04.2026 Court decision
- Competition Tribunal case file CO107Oct25 (Order date 2026-04-21; sections 4(1)(b)(i), (ii), (iii)) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Oct 2025 Barratt Redrow, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey u. a. (7 Wohnungsbauunternehmen)CMA: seven housebuilders pay GBP 100m after suspected information exchange €113.6m
The CMA accepted binding commitments from Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry after investigating whether they had exchanged competitively sensitive information such as achieved sale prices. The companies committed to stop sharing such information, introduce compliance measures and annual competition law training, help develop industry guidance and jointly pay GBP 100m to affordable housing programmes; no infringement was found.
Even exchanging current sale prices with competitors can trigger a competition investigation and large payments; contacts with competitors need clear rules and training.
Exchanging pricing and sales information with competitors
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I prohibition Competition Act 1998 (Verdacht); Verpflichtungszusagen nach section 31A Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 30 Oct 2025
Original amount 100,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Oct 2025.
- CMA case page: Investigation into suspected anti-competitive conduct by housebuilders Enforcement database of an authority
- CMA: Decision to accept commitments in relation to suspected anti-competitive conduct by certain housebuilders, Case 51392 (30 October 2025) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Oct 2025 SINOP ALFA, s.r.o.SINOP ALFA: 70,000 EUR for refusing to hand over business mobile phone during inspection €70,000
During an unannounced inspection in the air-conditioning, refrigeration and heat pump services sector, the company repeatedly refused to produce a mobile phone used for business purposes. The Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) regarded this as obstruction of the inspection and imposed 70,000 EUR, around 1% of the previous year’s turnover (not final).
Business smartphones are part of the documents that may be inspected – a dawn raid guide for employees prevents costly wrong reactions.
Conduct during inspections (dawn raids), handing over mobile devices
- Authority / court
- Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)
- Area of law
- Competition law
- Legal basis
- Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Mitwirkungspflicht bei Nachprüfungen)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Published
- 28 Oct 2025
- KARTELY: PMÚ uložil pokutu za nespoluprácu počas inšpekcie Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Sep 2025 Bauunternehmung Pusiol GmbHConstruction cartel: €130,000 on civil engineering firm Pusiol, losses considered €130,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Bauunternehmung Pusiol GmbH, a subsidiary of Steiner Baugesellschaft m.b.H., allegedly 130,000 EUR for taking part in the construction cartel in Lower Austria from July 2002 to August 2016 (price fixing, market sharing and information exchange in civil engineering tenders). The BWB (Federal Competition Authority) set the fine lower because of the company's limited financial capacity, as it reported annual losses in 2023 and 2024; the company gave a full acknowledgement.
Collusion from long ago is still punished; a strained financial position can reduce the fine but cannot avert it.
Bid rigging in tenders
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Limited financial capacity (losses in 2023 and 2024); full acknowledgement.
- Published
- 4 Mar 2026
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 Sep 2025 SIA "SILTUMTEHSERVISS", SIA "Apkure IM", SIA "ADAPTERIS", SIA "Alpex", SIA "Infrakom"Bid-rigging cartel in pipeline construction contracts – five construction firms pay 513,508 EUR €513,508
From 2021 to 2024, two groups of construction companies coordinated in more than 30 public tenders for the construction and repair of utility pipelines: they exchanged sensitive information, determined winners and submitted sham bids. Prompted by information from the contracting entity Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks, the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) imposed a total of 513,508.08 EUR.
Jointly preparing bids with competitors – even where the work is later carried out jointly – is a cartel; tender teams must know this.
Competition law in tenders
- Authority / court
- Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 11 Abs. 1 Konkurences likums
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- All companies except Infrakom concluded a settlement with the Competition Council, acknowledged the facts and waived an appeal; in return, a 10% fine reduction.
- Published
- 10 Sep 2025
- KP atklāj karteli inženierkomunikāciju būvdarbu iepirkumos (10.09.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Aug 2025 PAUPE HOLDING SA, Bitusag S.A., Bitusag Neuchâtel SA, Wyss Fils SA, Prodo SA, Duckert SAWEKO fines road maintenance firms in Jura/Neuchâtel over bid rigging Fine
Regional suppliers of surface treatments and chip sealing in road maintenance colluded on bids and allocated territories. Switzerland's Competition Commission (Wettbewerbskommission, WEKO) imposed sanctions on Bitusag/Paupe (jointly and severally, CHF 640,000–990,000, exact amount redacted), Wyss Fils (CHF 44,000–74,000), Prodo (CHF 760) and Duckert (CHF 0) and approved amicable settlements; the investigation against Colas Suisse was discontinued.
Small regional road builders are also sanctioned – cover bids and territorial protection must disappear from corporate culture.
Cover bids and territorial agreements in regional road construction
- Authority / court
- Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 5 Abs. 3 i.V.m. Abs. 1 KG, Art. 49a Abs. 1 KG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Amicable settlements; leniency programme (Duckert free of sanctions)
- Enduits superficiels et gravillonnage : Décision du 25 août 2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
2 Jul 2025 ATE, s. r. o.; AŽD Praha s.r.o.; EPLcond a.s.; MONZAS, a.s.; První SaZ Plzeň a.s.; STARMON s.r.o.Railway signalling: 157.7 million CZK against six companies for bid rigging €6.39m
The six companies colluded on cover bids, market sharing and prices in 26 contracts awarded by the state railway infrastructure administration (total value over 850 million CZK, 2015–2021). In a settlement procedure, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed a total of 157.693 million CZK at first instance; two companies appealed against the amount.
A cover bid submitted ‘as a favour’ is bid rigging – sales and costing teams must be aware of this.
Cover bids and collusion in public tenders
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (Submissionsabsprachen)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement (20% reduction, no procurement ban), leniency application by one participant and compliance programmes at two companies.
- Published
- 2 Jul 2025
Original amount 157,693,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Jul 2025.
- Office Fines Major Cartel in Railway Construction Sector More Than CZK 150 million Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Jun 2025 Retta Isännöinti Oy (Retta-Gruppe), Oulun Kiinteistötieto Oy, REIM Group Oy Ltd u. a. (Verband und 11 Gesellschaften)Finnish property management cartel: Supreme Administrative Court raises fines to EUR 6.558m €6.56m
The Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland) found that the association Suomen Isännöintiliitto ry and six property management companies or groups had unlawfully cooperated on price increases in 2014–2017, and raised the fines imposed by the Markkinaoikeus (Market Court) in December 2022 from a total of 4.93 million EUR to 6,558,000 EUR. Breakdown: Retta Isännöinti Oy, Retta Oy, Retta Group Oy and Retta Holding Oy 4,000,000 EUR; Oulun Kiinteistötieto Oy and Suomen Kiinteistöhallinta Oy 900,000 EUR; REIM Hämeenlinna Oy and REIM Group Oy Ltd 750,000 EUR; Colliers Finland Group Oy and Retta Isännöinti Oy 700,000 EUR; OP Koti Kainuu Oy 75,000 EUR; Suomen Isännöintiliitto ry 73,000 EUR; Kiinteistö-Tahkola Tampere Oy 60,000 EUR. The authority had originally sought 22 million EUR.
Trade associations must not circulate price recommendations, and competitors should never discuss their own prices in association bodies.
Price discussions and price recommendations in trade associations
- Authority / court
- Korkein hallinto-oikeus (KHO) auf Antrag des Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto (KKV)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Kilpailulaki (948/2011) 5 § und 12 §
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 26 Jun 2025
- KKV: Korkein hallinto-oikeus määräsi Isännöintiliitolle ja alan yrityksille 6,56 miljoonan euron sakot (26.06.2025) Press release of an authority
- Korkein hallinto-oikeus, päätös 26.6.2025, taltionumero 1486 (ECLI:FI:KHO:2025:T1486) Court decision
- KHO 26.6.2025/1486 – Kilpailuasiaa koskevat valitukset (hintayhteistyö isännöintialalla) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Jun 2025 MAGEBA Gesellschaft m.b.H.; Maurer SE, Maurer Söhne Ges. mbH (nur Feststellung)Bridge component suppliers: €400,000 fine on MAGEBA, leniency applicant Maurer not fined €400,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined MAGEBA Gesellschaft m.b.H. 400,000 EUR because, from November 2017 to December 2018, it shared customers for road expansion joints and bridge bearings in Austria with a competitor and exchanged information on pricing behaviour. Against Maurer SE and Maurer Söhne Ges. mbH the court merely declared the infringement because of their leniency status. A compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation was taken into account in mitigation, and intent in a hardcore restriction as an aggravating factor.
The first to report a cartel can escape a fine entirely, while those who wait pay; this argues for internal reporting channels and quick decisions on a leniency application.
Customer allocation and the leniency programme
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a KartG; § 28 Abs. 1 und 1a Z 1 KartG (Feststellung gegenüber Kronzeugin)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Only five projects over about 13 months, no enrichment established, low-level information exchange, the group's economic difficulties, compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation.
- Published
- 18 Nov 2025
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 May 2025 Trust-Build Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd., Hunan Fengtian Construction Group Co., LtdCCCS: SGD 4.64m in penalties on two construction firms for bid-rigging €3.19m
The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS, competition and consumer protection authority) found that Hunan Fengtian Construction Group had prepared the tender documents and prices of Trust-Build Engineering & Construction for three 2022 tenders of the People's Association (works at three community clubs, total value around SGD 56 million), so that the two did not bid independently; the People's Association noticed the possible collusion, reported it and excluded both bidders from the evaluation. Under section 34 of the Competition Act 2004, CCCS imposed financial penalties of SGD 4,295,059 on Trust-Build and SGD 349,350 on Hunan Fengtian, totalling SGD 4,644,409.
Preparing a competitor's bid or knowing its prices is bid-rigging – even if neither party ultimately wins the contract.
Bid-rigging: no coordination of bids with competitors in tenders
- Authority / court
- Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 34 Competition Act 2004; Geldbuße nach s 69(2)(e) Competition Act 2004
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 23 May 2025
Original amount 4,644,409 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 May 2025.
- CCCS: CCCS Imposes A Total Of $4.6m Penalties On Contractors For Rigging Bids In Public Sector Tenders (23.05.2025) Press release of an authority
- CCS Case Register: CCCS 500-100-2023-001, Decision Date 23 May 2025 Enforcement database of an authority
- CCCS Infringement Decision, Construction Tenders, 23 May 2025 (PDF, verlinkt aus dem Case Register) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
13 May 2025 AS Asphaltstraßensanierung, BITUNOVA, Mainka u. a. (Straßenerhaltungskartell, 7 Unternehmen)Bundeskartellamt: 10.5 million EUR against seven road repair companies €10.5m
From 2016 to 2019, seven road repair companies allocated contracting authorities regionally, determined in advance who should win the contract and set each other minimum prices for cover bids. The Bundeskartellamt imposed fines of 10.5 million EUR; BITUNOVA cooperated as leniency applicant, and all proceedings ended in settlements. Addressees: AS Asphaltstraßensanierung GmbH, bausion Strassenbau-Produkte GmbH, BITUNOVA GmbH, Gerhard Herbers GmbH, Liesen … alles für den Bau GmbH, Mainka GmbH Straßenunterhaltung, MOT Müritzer Oberflächentechnik GmbH.
Cover bids are not only subject to fines but, for the employees involved, a criminal offence of bid rigging.
Cover bids and territorial agreements in tenders
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 GWB
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency programme (BITUNOVA), settlement
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 13 May 2025
- Kartellabsprachen zwischen Straßenreparatur-Unternehmen Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
20 Dec 2024 Tarkus Interiors Pte Ltd; Flex Connect Pte Ltd (vormals Facility Link Pte Ltd)CCCS: 9,999,181 SGD against two interior fit-out firms for bid rigging €7.09m
From August 2016 to August 2021, Flex Connect (formerly Facility Link) and Tarkus Interiors colluded on twelve tenders for interior fit-out works in shops, food and beverage outlets and offices worth around 34.11 million SGD in total: the designated winner gave the other firm its prices and details so that it would submit a higher cover bid. On 20 December 2024 the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) imposed penalties of 5,113,918 SGD on Tarkus and 4,885,263 SGD on Flex Connect, totalling 9,999,181 SGD (the CCCS itself states the total as 9,999,182 SGD); Flex Connect received a leniency discount.
Cover bids remain prohibited collusion even if bidders fear being passed over in future tenders otherwise.
Recognising and refusing bid rigging and cover bids
- Authority / court
- Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Competition Act 2004, s 34
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency discount for Flex Connect.
- Published
- 20 Dec 2024
Original amount 9,999,181 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Dec 2024.
- CCCS: CCCS Penalises Contractors Specialising in Non-Residential Interior Fit-Out Tenders for Bid-Rigging (20.12.2024) Press release of an authority
- CCCS Public Register: CCCS 500-100-2021-001 (Decision Date 20.12.2024) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Dec 2024 MaxBuild LimitedMaxBuild: 500,000 NZD in New Zealand's first criminal cartel case €273,179
The construction company coordinated its bids with a competitor in tenders run by the NZ Transport Agency (national transport authority; Northern Corridor Improvement Project) and Auckland Transport (refurbishment of the Middlemore Bridge). After guilty pleas to four charges of price fixing, the High Court in Auckland imposed a fine of 500,000 NZD on 18 December 2024 in the country's first criminal cartel prosecution; without the mitigating factors, around 1 million NZD would have been appropriate according to the court.
Cover bids in favour of a competitor have been a criminal offence in New Zealand since 2021 – tender teams must never coordinate prices with competitors.
Bid rigging and cover pricing in public tenders
- Authority / court
- High Court Auckland (Anklage: Commerce Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Commerce Act 1986, s 30 (Kartellverbot, seit 8. April 2021 strafbewehrt)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- Guilty pleas; the court took account of several mitigating factors, without which around 1 million NZD would have been appropriate.
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 18 Dec 2024
Original amount 500,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2024.
- Commerce Commission: “Cheating the system” – sentencing in country’s first criminal cartel case (18.12.2024) Press release of an authority
- Commerce Commission: Cheating the system: Bid-rigging of roading contracts sees firm fined (23.10.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link