Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific: 1,828 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- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) / Federal Court of Australia €6.12m 58 % · 1 case
- Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC) €4.47m 42 % · 1 case
What for?
by topicWho?
by companyWhen?
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 | 1 | €6.12m |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2026 | 1 | €4.47m |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
2 cases
11 Aug 2026 Fiducian Investment Management Services LimitedFiducian: 7.3 million AUD for misleading ESG claims about an ethical fund €4.47m
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 penalties totalling 7.3 million AUD on the fund manager: 2.3 million AUD for misleading statements (s 12DF ASIC Act) and 5 million AUD for breaching its duty of care and diligence as responsible entity (s 601FC(1)(b) Corporations Act). Between October 2019 and May 2024 the Diversified Social Aspirations Fund, marketed as socially responsible, held through underlying funds interests in companies that derived revenue from fossil fuels, among others, even though the product documents promised certain exclusions and ongoing monitoring; the company did not respond to investor concerns by amending its statements.
A fund's sustainability promises require ongoing checks of its actual holdings; where they diverge, either the holdings or the statements must be changed.
Substantiating ESG and ethical claims in product documents and fund marketing
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) s 12DF (Geldbuße nach s 12GBB); Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 601FC(1)(b) (Geldbuße nach s 1317G)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Admissions, cooperation throughout the proceedings and contrition; since the proceedings began, an independent review of the product documents; no previous court findings.
- Liability of senior managers
- According to the agreed facts, senior management was involved (the company's then Executive Chair and Head of Investments).
- Published
- 12 Aug 2026
Original amount 7,300,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Aug 2026.
- Supreme Court of NSW – In the matter of Fiducian Investment Management Services Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 959 (Decision date 11.08.2026) Court decision
- ASIC 26-191MR – Court orders Fiducian Investment Management Services to pay $7.3 million penalty over operation of ESG fund (12.08.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Mar 2025 LGSS Pty Ltd (Trustee des Active Super Fonds)ASIC: 10.5 million AUD against LGSS (Active Super) for greenwashing on exclusion screens €6.12m
Following proceedings by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, the federal corporate and financial services regulator), the Federal Court of Australia on 18 March 2025 ordered LGSS Pty Ltd, trustee of the Active Super pension fund, to pay 10.5 million AUD and to send a notice of its misconduct to members and publish it on the fund's web pages. The fund had advertised that it excluded investments in, among others, gambling, coal mining and oil tar sands and, after the invasion of Ukraine, Russia, yet held such investments directly or indirectly; the court had found the breaches of the ban on misleading representations in June 2024.
Advertised exclusion criteria must be reflected in all holdings, including indirect ones; deviations must be detected and corrected on an ongoing basis.
Exclusion criteria and sustainability promises in fund marketing
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) / Federal Court of Australia
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12DB(1)(a) und 12DF(1); Strafe nach s 12GBB, Veröffentlichungsanordnung nach s 12GLB
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- The court accepted some contrition, cooperation with ASIC through attendance at voluntary conferences and compliance improvements (including ESG and consumer law training for the board, executive leadership and staff, and an external review of internal controls), but gave less weight to contrition and cooperation because of how the case was defended; the merger with another fund trustee reduced the weight of specific deterrence.
- Liability of senior managers
- LGSS accepted in the proceedings that senior management was ultimately responsible for the absence of properly functioning systems to prevent false ESG representations; the proceedings were brought against the company only.
- Published
- 18 Mar 2025
Original amount 10,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2025.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link