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 topicWho?
by company- Stericycle, Inc. €9.23m 75 % · 1 case
- Vier Unternehmen eines Bodenaufbereitungskonzerns aus Barneveld (anonymisiert) €1.13m 9 % · 1 case
- SKM Services Pty Ltd €639,874 5 % · 1 case
- Imerys Minerals Limited €496,364 4 % · 1 case
- GmbH (im Urteil anonymisiert) €375,000 3 % · 1 case
- 11705580 Canada Inc. €311,294 3 % · 1 case
- Anonymised companies €113,203 1 % · 1 case
- 3R Technology UK Ltd €92,442 1 % · 1 case
- Liquipak Ltd €3,182 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | €113,203 |
| 2024 | 0 | – |
| 2025 | 5 | €10.7m |
| 2026 | 3 | €1.59m |
9 cases
5 Aug 2026 GmbH (im Urteil anonymisiert)Illegal dumping of construction waste: company must pay €375,000 forfeiture €375,000
The Oberlandesgericht (OLG, Higher Regional Court) Linz added a forfeiture of 375,000 EUR to the conviction of a limited company under the Verbandsverantwortlichkeitsgesetz (VbVG, Austrian Corporate Criminal Liability Act) for intentionally handling and moving waste in a way that endangered the environment; the suspended corporate fine of 30 daily rates of 500 EUR (15,000 EUR) imposed by the Landesgericht (Regional Court) Salzburg remained in place. From May 2021 to May 2024 and again from May 2025 to February 2026, contrary to the AWG 2002 (Waste Management Act) and partly to an official decision, the company had excavated soil, construction waste, asphalt and concrete rubble accepted for payment and deposited on a plot; removal costs were put at around 3.24 million EUR. Only the forfeiture of EUR 375,000 is recorded as the amount; the corporate fine of EUR 15,000 was conditionally suspended.
Anyone accepting and depositing waste without a permit risks not only a corporate fine but also forfeiture of the fees received for it, which can far exceed the fine.
Waste law and official conditions for excavated soil and construction waste
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Linz (Berufung gegen Urteil des Landesgerichts Salzburg vom 06.03.2026)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- § 181b Abs. 1 und 2 StGB; §§ 3, 4 Abs. 1 und 3, § 6 Abs. 1, § 14 Abs. 1 VbVG; § 20 Abs. 3 StGB; AWG 2002
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- No previous convictions of the company; rather low environmental risk. Further circumstances taken into account by the court concern a natural person and are not reported here.
- Liability of senior managers
- Under the VbVG, the company's liability is linked to the conduct of its managing director.
- OLG Linz, 9 Bs 153/26b vom 05.08.2026 (RIS) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Mar 2026 3R Technology UK Ltd3R Technology UK: penalty for exporting contaminated plastic waste despite prohibition €92,442
From 2022 to 2025, the company exported containers of supposedly clean plastic that was in fact contaminated with electronic waste such as cables and circuit boards; in some cases, the waste was hidden at the back of the container, and further containers were shipped despite prohibition notices from August 2024. The company pleaded guilty and was fined 80,000 GBP; in addition, it was ordered to pay 45,000 GBP in costs and a 2,000 GBP surcharge. According to the annual accounts filed with the UK companies register for financial year 2025, the company had around 19 employees.
Incorrectly declared waste exports are detected during port inspections; those who ignore regulatory prohibitions risk a criminal conviction.
Correct classification and declaration of waste for export
- Authority / court
- Preston Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Environment Agency)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Vorschriften zur grenzüberschreitenden Abfallverbringung (Notifizierung und Zustimmung); Verstoß gegen Untersagungsverfügungen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Employees
- Under 50
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- Guilty plea.
- Published
- 2 Apr 2026
Original amount 80,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Mar 2026.
- Lancashire company and director fined for illegal exports Press release of an authority
- Companies House: Registereintrag 3R Technology UK Limited (11188539) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 5 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Mar 2026 Vier Unternehmen eines Bodenaufbereitungskonzerns aus Barneveld (anonymisiert)OM: €1.125m against four soil firms from Barneveld over environmental fraud €1.13m
The Openbaar Ministerie (OM, Dutch Public Prosecution Service) imposed penalty orders totalling 1,125,000 EUR on four companies from Barneveld that belonged to the same group at the time and are not named in the releases, consisting of 660,000 EUR in fines and 465,000 EUR in confiscation of unlawfully obtained gains. According to the OM, between 2013 and 2016 the firms accepted excessively contaminated sand, cleaned it inadequately or incorrectly and deliberately mixed it with cleaner sand for reuse, in breach of permit conditions and the Wet milieubeheer (Environmental Management Act) and involving forgery. The companies initially lodged an objection (verzet) but withdrew it, so the penalty orders are final (release of 2 July 2026).
In certified recycling chains no stage may bypass acceptance or testing criteria; mixing to conceal contamination turns a permit breach into environmental fraud.
Integrity in certified recycling chains for soil and waste
- Authority / court
- Openbaar Ministerie (OM), Functioneel Parket
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Vorschriften der Umgebungsgenehmigungen (omgevingsvergunningen); Wet milieubeheer; valsheid in geschrift; Strafbefehle des OM
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- The companies have adapted or ceased their activities, and measures have been taken within the group.
- Published
- 10 Mar 2026
- OM: Verzet tegen boetes van 1.125.000 euro voor milieufraude met verontreinigde zandgrond Press release of an authority
- OM: Boetes van in totaal 1.125.000 euro voor milieufraude met verontreinigde grond na intrekken verzet Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Sep 2025 Imerys Minerals LimitedImerys Minerals: £430,000 enforcement undertaking over china clay discharges €496,364
The Environment Agency accepted an enforcement undertaking from Imerys Minerals: the company pays £430,000 to Westcountry Rivers Trust and covers the agency's costs. Between September 2021 and July 2023, china clay effluent had been discharged without a permit at six sites in Cornwall.
Unauthorised discharges at several sites can together lead to a substantial payment.
Permit requirements for discharges from mineral extraction
- Authority / court
- Environment Agency
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
- Legal basis
- Reg. 38(1) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010/2016
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
Original amount 430,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Sep 2025.
- Environment Agency: Enforcement undertakings accepted by the Environment Agency (Eintrag EU867) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Aug 2025 11705580 Canada Inc.Illegal construction waste dumping: CAD 500,000 fine for 11705580 Canada Inc. €311,294
In 2020 the company rented two acres of land in Essa Township, presented to the owners as a site for receiving wood to be turned into landscaping material; from April to August 2020, however, hundreds of truckloads of construction and demolition waste were dumped there, and by April 2023 there was still no confirmation that the ordered clean-up had taken place. The court convicted the company under the Environmental Protection Act of depositing waste at an unapproved site and fined it CAD 500,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of CAD 125,000. Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Anyone renting land for supposed recycling projects is liable, together with its management, if waste is dumped there without approval.
Waste disposal and approvals for waste sites
- Authority / court
- Gericht in Barrie (Ermittlung und Anklage: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Environmental Protection Act (Ontario), RSO 1990, c E.19 – Ablagerung von Abfällen auf einem nicht zugelassenen Abfallstandort
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 11 Feb 2026
Original amount 500,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Aug 2025.
- Ontario Newsroom, Court Bulletin (MECP): Company and Directors Fined $1,025,000 for Environmental Protection Act Violations, 11.02.2026 Press release of an authority
- Ontario Newsroom API: Court Bulletin 1007029 (maschinenlesbare Fassung) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Apr 2025 SKM Services Pty LtdSKM Services: 1.14 million AUD after major 2017 fire at Coolaroo recycling plant €639,874
A County Court jury convicted SKM Services Pty Ltd of aggravated pollution – having negligently caused or allowed an environmental hazard that created a considerable risk of serious danger to public health – and of three counts of air pollution; the company was fined 1.14 million AUD. The 2017 fire at the recycling plant in Coolaroo had spread through stockpiles of cardboard and other recyclables, burned for more than a week and led to evacuations in the neighbourhood; according to the court's findings, the company and its director contributed to the extent of the pollution by increasing the volumes stored although an earlier fire had reduced the processing capacity. Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Stockpiles of combustible recyclables and waste must be matched to actual processing capacity, especially after disruptions such as an earlier fire.
Fire safety when storing recyclables and waste
- Authority / court
- Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA Victoria)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic): schwere Umweltverschmutzung (aggravated pollution), Luftverschmutzung
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- negligent
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 16 Apr 2025
Original amount 1,140,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Apr 2025.
- EPA Victoria: Company and Director fined $1.28m for 2017 Coolaroo fire (16.04.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Jan 2025 Stericycle, Inc.Stericycle: USD 9.5m over failures in hazardous waste transport and manifests €9.23m
Under a court settlement (Stipulation and Order of Settlement) with the US Department of Justice and the EPA, Stericycle will pay a civil penalty of 9,500,000 USD for RCRA violations in its hazardous waste transport, storage and disposal business, which it operated until April 2020. The company lost track of shipments, delivered waste without the required manifests or to facilities not chosen by the customer, stored it too long at transfer facilities and failed to submit thousands of manifests to the EPA's e-Manifest system on time. According to the EPA, it is the first judicial action to enforce the e-Manifest requirements. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.
Complete manifests and timely electronic reporting are separate, enforceable duties for hazardous waste, not mere formalities.
Manifests and record-keeping duties for hazardous waste
- Authority / court
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 ff., e-Manifest-Vorschriften
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 17 Jan 2025
Original amount 9,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Jan 2025.
- EPA: Stericycle, Inc. RCRA Settlement Summary Press release of an authority
- EPA News Release, 17.01.2025: DOJ and EPA Announce $9.5M Settlement with Stericycle, Inc. Press release of an authority
- Stipulation and Order of Settlement, United States v. Stericycle, Inc., 25 Civ. 498 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 17.01.2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Jan 2025 Liquipak LtdBleach into surface water drain: more than 800 dead fish – packing company convicted €3,182
After a wooden pallet collapsed in 2021, sodium hypochlorite (bleach) ran into a manhole that the specialist packing company believed led to the foul sewer; in fact it discharged into the River Holme, and more than 800 fish died. Fine of 2,666.67 GBP after an early guilty plea, 8,973.67 GBP in total including costs and victim surcharge. According to its annual accounts, the business had an average of 25 employees.
If you store chemicals, know where every drain leads – a drainage plan is basic equipment.
Knowledge of site drainage and reporting of spills
- Authority / court
- Kirklees Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Environment Agency)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Regulation 12(1)(b) und 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Employees
- Under 50
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Early guilty plea, full cooperation, clean-up and new storage and handling procedures
- Published
- 24 Jan 2025
Original amount 2,666.67 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jan 2025.
- Yorkshire company fined for polluting river with bleach (Environment Agency) Press release of an authority
- Companies House: Registereintrag Liquipak Limited (10691734) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Oct 2023 a Japanese fishing bait manufacturerBait manufacturer: surcharge for unsubstantiated 'biodegradable' claims for fishing bait €113,203
The bait manufacturer advertised four ranges of artificial fishing bait on packaging, its website and in promotional material – in some cases from April 2016 to February 2023 – as biodegradable even when left behind in the water after use. The company provided no substantiation for this biodegradability; following a cease-and-desist order of 19 December 2022, a surcharge of 17,740,000 JPY was imposed on 5 October 2023.
Environmental claims such as 'biodegradable' only hold with evidence for the specific environment in which the product actually ends up.
Greenwashing: substantiating environmental claims
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- Art. 8 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 5 Oct 2023
Original amount 17,740,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Oct 2023.
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 5 Oct 2025 · Direct link