Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific: 1,838 cases from 37 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 authority- Federal Court of Australia (Verfahren der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC) €521,597 100 % · 1 case
What for?
by action- Fine €521,597 100 % · 1 case
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 1 | €521,597 |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
1 case
18 Dec 2025 R M Capital Pty Ltd; The SMSF Club Pty LtdR M Capital and SMSF Club: 925,000 AUD over accepted referral fees €521,597
On an application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the Federal Court of Australia allegedly imposed civil penalties totalling 925,000 AUD: 575,000 AUD on the licensee R M Capital and 350,000 AUD on its authorised representative The SMSF Club. Between November 2014 and July 2016 SMSF Club accepted referral fees totalling 135,863.65 AUD (excluding GST) on 52 occasions from a property provider that referred clients to it, who then set up self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) with its help and used them to buy property from that provider; the court treated this as prohibited conflicted remuneration, and R M Capital, as licensee, had through gross negligence failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Both companies must provide ASIC with an independent expert's report on their compliance arrangements within six months; R M Capital lodged an appeal on 15 January 2026. The decision is not final.
Advisers must not accept commissions from product providers that could influence their recommendations – and licensees must actively check for such arrangements by their representatives and provide training on them.
Commissions and benefits from product providers to financial advisers
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (Verfahren der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Bribery and corruption · Gifts, hospitality and benefits
- Legal basis
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 963F, s 963G(1), s 1317G(1E), s 1101B(1)(a)(i)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- For SMSF Club, ASIC and the company submitted as mitigating that it ended the referral arrangement immediately after ASIC raised concerns in 2016, cooperated and agreed to resolve the matter, that these were the first contraventions alleged against it and that no client loss was alleged; the court allegedly approved the jointly proposed penalty.
- Published
- 19 Dec 2025
Original amount 925,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2025.
- ASIC 25-313MR: Federal Court orders $925,000 in penalties against RM Capital and SMSF Club for conflicted remuneration breaches (19.12.2025) Press release of an authority
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v R M Capital Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] FCA 1634, Urteil vom 18.12.2025 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link