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.

7cases from 1 jurisdiction
€12.2mTotal of monetary amounts
€325,508Median per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

Where?

by authority
  1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) / Federal Court of Australia €6.12m 50 % · 1 case
  2. Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC) €4.47m 37 % · 1 case
  3. Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA Victoria) €639,874 5 % · 1 case
  4. NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) €527,610 4 % · 2 cases
  5. NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) / Land and Environment Court of NSW €424,524 3 % · 2 cases

What for?

by topic
  1. Misleading environmental and sustainability claims €10.6m 87 % · 2 cases
  2. Emissions and permits €952,134 8 % · 4 cases
  3. Waste and hazardous substances €639,874 5 % · 1 case

Who?

by sector

All sectors

  1. Financial services and insurance €10.6m 87 % · 2 cases
  2. Other €639,874 5 % · 1 case
  3. Energy and utilities €473,483 4 % · 2 cases
  4. Public sector €276,549 2 % · 1 case
  5. Steel and metals €202,102 2 % · 1 case

When?

per quarter, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
Q4 20230–
Q1 20240–
Q2 20240–
Q3 20240–
Q4 20240–
Q1 20252€6.33m
Q2 20251€639,874
Q3 20250–
Q4 20250–
Q1 20262€602,057
Q2 20261€147,975
Q3 20261€4.47m
Q4 20260–

7 cases

11 Aug 2026 Fiducian Investment Management Services LimitedFiducian: 7.3 million AUD for misleading ESG claims about an ethical fund AustraliaMisleading environmental and sustainability claims €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.

What organisations can take from it

A fund's sustainability promises require ongoing checks of its actual holdings; where they diverge, either the holdings or the statements must be changed.

Relevance to training and awareness

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.

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.

7 May 2026 Sydney Water CorporationSydney Water: AUD 240,000 penalty after sewage overflow in Carramar AustraliaEmissions and permits €147,975

In two incidents in July and August 2022 around 423,000 litres of untreated sewage escaped in Carramar because plant had not been properly maintained, affecting a residential property, a sports field, bushland and Prospect Creek. After a guilty plea, the Land and Environment Court convicted Sydney Water and imposed AUD 225,000 for breaching its environment protection licence and AUD 15,000 for failing without lawful excuse to provide CCTV footage requested by the EPA.

What organisations can take from it

Operators of sewerage networks must ensure their plant is maintained and respond promptly to regulators’ information requests.

Relevance to training and awareness

Maintenance of wastewater plant and cooperation with regulatory information requests

Authority / court
NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) / Land and Environment Court of NSW
Area of law
Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
Legal basis
Bedingungen der Environment Protection Licence; Pflicht zur Vorlage von Informationen und Unterlagen gegenüber der EPA NSW
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Energy and utilities
Mitigating circumstances
25% discount for an early guilty plea.
Published
7 May 2026

Original amount 240,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 May 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 Mar 2026 Forestry Corporation of NSWForestry Corporation of NSW: AUD 450,000 over illegally felled giant and hollow trees AustraliaEmissions and permits €276,549

In June and July 2020 contractors of the state-owned forestry corporation felled six giant trees and three hollow-bearing trees in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest near Coffs Harbour that should have been retained under the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operation Approval. On the EPA’s prosecution, the Land and Environment Court convicted the corporation and found harm to koala habitat and cultural harm to the Gumbaynggirr people; following a restorative justice conference, the AUD 450,000 penalty goes to the Yurruungga Aboriginal Corporation for remediation projects. The corporation must also commission an independent audit of its procedures and publish the conviction.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone contracting out forestry work remains responsible for identifying protected trees and must align planning and training accordingly.

Relevance to training and awareness

Marking and protecting trees to be retained in forestry work carried out by contractors

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) / Land and Environment Court of NSW
Area of law
Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
Legal basis
Coastal Integrated Forestry Operation Approval (NSW)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Public sector
Repeat case
yes
Published
16 Mar 2026

Original amount 450,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 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.

20 Feb 2026 Clarence Colliery Pty LtdClarence Colliery: 543,500 AUD after mine water entered the Wollangambe River AustraliaEmissions and permits €325,508

Clarence Colliery Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Centennial Coal Company, was sentenced by the Land and Environment Court of NSW after pleading guilty to five offences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, after untreated mine water with elevated nickel and zinc levels from the coal mine near Lithgow entered the Wollangambe River in December 2023 and April 2024. The offences comprised two water pollution offences, a licence breach, non-compliance with a prevention notice and a pollution incident response plan that had not been tested for 269 days. The court imposed fines totalling 543,500 AUD and ordered 86,500 AUD for rehabilitation of Long Swamp; in addition, the EPA's legal and investigation costs of 170,000 AUD and 15,548 AUD are payable.

What organisations can take from it

Pollution incident response plans must be tested regularly; here the failure was penalised separately for the first time.

Relevance to training and awareness

Regularly testing pollution incident response plans

Authority / court
NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW)
Area of law
Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
Legal basis
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) s 120(1) (zwei Fälle), s 64(1), s 97(1), s 153E; Zahlungsanordnung nach s 250(1)(e)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Energy and utilities
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
Early guilty pleas (25% discount).
Published
23 Feb 2026

Original amount 543,500 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 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.

16 Apr 2025 SKM Services Pty LtdSKM Services: 1.14 million AUD after major 2017 fire at Coolaroo recycling plant AustraliaWaste and hazardous substances €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.

What organisations can take from it

Stockpiles of combustible recyclables and waste must be matched to actual processing capacity, especially after disruptions such as an earlier fire.

Relevance to training and awareness

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.

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.

31 Mar 2025 Cadia Holdings Pty LtdCadia Holdings: 350,000 AUD for excessive dust emissions from a mine AustraliaEmissions and permits €202,102

Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd, a Newmont Mining company (formerly Newcrest Mining), was sentenced by the Land and Environment Court of NSW after pleading guilty to three offences under s 128(1)(b) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, because poorly operated mine exhaust fans exceeded the concentration limit for solid particles three times between November 2021 and May 2023. The court imposed fines totalling 350,000 AUD and ordered a payment of 61,500 AUD to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) for a new dust monitor in the Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network; in addition, the company must pay the EPA's costs and publish notices in three newspapers.

What organisations can take from it

Emission-relevant equipment such as exhaust fans must be operated and monitored so that limits are also met in day-to-day operation.

Relevance to training and awareness

Dust emissions and limits in mining

Authority / court
NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW)
Area of law
Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
Legal basis
Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) s 128(1)(b); Zahlungsanordnung nach s 250(1)(e)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Steel and metals
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity (25% discount); no prior convictions, good character and a low risk of reoffending (further 5% discount).
Published
2 Apr 2025

Original amount 350,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Mar 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.

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 AustraliaMisleading environmental and sustainability claims €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.

What organisations can take from it

Advertised exclusion criteria must be reflected in all holdings, including indirect ones; deviations must be detected and corrected on an ongoing basis.

Relevance to training and awareness

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

Report an error

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

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