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 authority- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC) €14.7m 55 % · 2 cases
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) / Federal Court of Australia €6.12m 23 % · 1 case
- Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC) €4.47m 17 % · 1 case
- Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA Victoria) €639,874 2 % · 1 case
- NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) €527,610 2 % · 2 cases
- NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) / Land and Environment Court of NSW €424,524 2 % · 2 cases
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) €34,248 0 % · 1 case
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | €34,248 |
| 2023 | 0 | – |
| 2024 | 2 | €14.7m |
| 2025 | 3 | €6.97m |
| 2026 | 4 | €5.22m |
10 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
7 May 2026 Sydney Water CorporationSydney Water: AUD 240,000 penalty after sewage overflow in Carramar €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.
Operators of sewerage networks must ensure their plant is maintained and respond promptly to regulators’ information requests.
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.
- EPA NSW: Sydney Water cops $240,000 penalty over Carramar sewage spill (7 May 2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Mar 2026 Forestry Corporation of NSWForestry Corporation of NSW: AUD 450,000 over illegally felled giant and hollow trees €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.
Anyone contracting out forestry work remains responsible for identifying protected trees and must align planning and training accordingly.
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
20 Feb 2026 Clarence Colliery Pty LtdClarence Colliery: 543,500 AUD after mine water entered the Wollangambe River €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.
Pollution incident response plans must be tested regularly; here the failure was penalised separately for the first time.
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
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
31 Mar 2025 Cadia Holdings Pty LtdCadia Holdings: 350,000 AUD for excessive dust emissions from a mine €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.
Emission-relevant equipment such as exhaust fans must be operated and monitored so that limits are also met in day-to-day operation.
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
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
Report an error
25 Sep 2024 an Australian fund managerAustralian fund manager: 12.9 million AUD for misleading ESG screens €7.93m
The Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 12.9 million AUD because the fund manager claimed in product documents, on its website, in a media release and in online appearances that an ethically oriented global bond index fund excluded issuers with significant business activities in, among others, fossil fuels. According to the court, around 74% of the fund's securities by market value had in fact not been screened against the ESG criteria; the court had already found liability on 28 March 2024.
ESG exclusions may only be advertised if they are actually applied to, and checked against, the entire portfolio.
ESG screening and product claims: aligning marketing with the actual index methodology
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (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) ss 12DF(1), 12DB(1)(a) und (e); Geldbuße nach ss 12GBA/12GBB
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- The company had identified the matter itself, reported it to ASIC and cooperated fully; the court applied a 25% discount for this.
- Published
- 25 Sep 2024
Original amount 12,900,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Sep 2024.
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
2 Aug 2024 an Australian superannuation trusteeSuperannuation trustee: AUD 11.3m penalty for misleading sustainability claims €6.8m
On its website the superannuation trustee promoted seven investment options of its superannuation fund marketed as sustainable as excluding companies involved in carbon-intensive fossil fuels, alcohol production and gambling; in fact six of the seven options held interests in such companies. Following admissions, the Court imposed AUD 11.3 million and ordered a court-prescribed notice on the website for six months. It was ASIC’s first greenwashing case before the Federal Court.
Marketing claims about exclusion criteria need a control process that continuously checks actual portfolio holdings against the promises made.
Review and sign-off of sustainability claims in marketing and on websites
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- ss 12DB(1)(a), 12DF(1) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Early admission, full cooperation with ASIC, removal of the statements and clearer disclosure in an information booklet from April 2023.
- Liability of senior managers
- According to the Court’s findings, persons at senior management level were involved; there were no mandatory sign-off processes for website content.
- Published
- 2 Aug 2024
Original amount 11,300,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Aug 2024.
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 2 Aug 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Oct 2022 an Australian listed energy companyAustralian energy company: four infringement notices totalling 53,280 AUD for greenwashing €34,248
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator) issued four infringement notices of 13,320 AUD each (53,280 AUD in total) to the listed energy company on 18 October 2022 over allegedly false or misleading sustainability statements in two announcements to the Australian Securities Exchange in October 2021, for example on carbon-neutral electricity, approval and capacity for solar power, and a low-emission gas-to-power project. It was ASIC's first action against greenwashing; the company paid on 25 October 2022, which does not constitute an admission of liability.
Climate-related statements in stock exchange announcements need a sound, documented basis at the time they are published.
Substantiating sustainability and climate claims in investor relations
- Authority / court
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) s 12DB(1)(a); Infringement Notices nach s 12GX
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Published
- 27 Oct 2022
Original amount 53,280 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Oct 2022.
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 18 Oct 2024 · Direct link