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 (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC) €182.1m 95 % · 1 case
- Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC) €10m 5 % · 1 case
What for?
by topic- no topic €182.1m 95 % · 1 case
- Misleading advertising and pricing €10m 5 % · 1 case
Who?
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 | €10m |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | €182.1m |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
2 cases
11 Jun 2026 Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd; Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd (EuropeFX); BrightAU Capital Pty Ltd (TradeFred)Union Standard and two CFD intermediaries: record penalties of AUD 300.2m €182.1m
Between 2018 and 2020 the since-collapsed CFD issuer Union Standard and its two authorised representatives EuropeFX and TradeFred pushed inexperienced and vulnerable customers into trading risky contracts for difference using aggressive sales tactics; customers lost more than AUD 83 million, while in most cases the representatives profited from those losses. The Court imposed AUD 156.7 million on Union Standard, AUD 114.1 million on EuropeFX and AUD 29.4 million on TradeFred, together with a permanent ban on EuropeFX and an obligation for it to refund customers’ net deposits. For the first time a licensee was also penalised for distributing CFDs to customers in China although it knew or ought to have known of their legal risk.
Licensees cannot outsource responsibility for distribution through authorised representatives and must actively monitor their sales practices.
Licensees’ responsibility for authorised representatives and distribution of complex leveraged products to retail clients
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- ASIC Act 2001 (Cth): Verbot von unconscionable conduct und irreführenden Angaben; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Pflicht des Lizenzinhabers zu effizienter, ehrlicher und fairer Leistungserbringung
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 12 Jun 2026
Original amount 300,200,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jun 2026.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Feb 2025 Allianz Australia Insurance Limited; AWP Australia Pty LtdAllianz and AWP: criminal fines of AUD 16.8m over misleading travel insurance information €10m
Between 2016 and 2018 Allianz Australia and AWP, the company marketing and administering travel insurance on Allianz’s behalf, published online information on travel insurance that stated maximum benefits without adequately pointing out sub-limits, conditions and exclusions. The Court convicted Allianz on six counts at AUD 2.25 million each (AUD 13.5 million) and AWP on one count at AUD 3.3 million, in each case after a 25% discount for early guilty pleas. 781 customers had previously received compensation totalling AUD 1,264,864.
Saving on the legal review of web content can cost many times more in fines and compensation; product advertising needs a mandatory sign-off.
Legal review of product information and advertising pages before publication
- Authority / court
- Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- ss 1041E(1), 1311(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, voluntary disclosure, full cooperation with the investigating authorities and compensation of affected customers.
- Liability of senior managers
- In 2016 a General Manager declined an external legal review of the website estimated at AUD 25,000 to 30,000; the Court saw the cause of the offences in an unwillingness to spend money on adequate oversight.
- Published
- 28 Feb 2025
Original amount 16,800,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Feb 2025.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link