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.

2cases from 1 jurisdiction
€2.63mTotal of monetary amounts
€1.8mLargest single case: Westpac New Zealand Limited
€1.32mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

Where?

by authority
  1. High Court (Klage: Commerce Commission) €1.8m 68 % · 1 case
  2. Auckland District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission) €835,189 32 % · 1 case

What for?

by topic
  1. Information duties in online retail €1.8m 68 % · 1 case
  2. Misleading advertising and pricing €835,189 32 % · 1 case

Who?

by company
  1. Westpac New Zealand Limited €1.8m 68 % · 1 case
  2. Kiwibank Limited €835,189 32 % · 1 case

When?

per quarter, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
Q4 20230–
Q1 20240–
Q2 20240–
Q3 20240–
Q4 20241€835,189
Q1 20250–
Q2 20250–
Q3 20250–
Q4 20251€1.8m
Q1 20260–
Q2 20260–
Q3 20260–
Q4 20260–

2 cases

28 Nov 2025 Westpac New Zealand LimitedWestpac NZ: 3.64 million NZD for breaching responsible lending principles New ZealandInformation duties in online retail €1.8m

The bank lacked adequate systems to give borrowers and, in some cases, guarantors the legally required information about their loans, and in some cases did not apply agreed interest rate discounts on home loans; up to 11,398 borrowers and up to 3,012 guarantors were affected. Following a settlement with the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's competition, consumer and credit regulator), the High Court declared breaches of the responsible lending principles (s 9C CCCFA) and imposed an allegedly agreed civil pecuniary penalty of 3.64 million NZD, according to the Commission the highest under the CCCFA so far. Westpac had self-reported the conduct and refunded 2.67 million NZD to those affected.

What organisations can take from it

Lenders must invest in systems and controls that reliably deliver mandatory disclosures and agreed terms; self-reporting does not protect against a high penalty.

Relevance to training and awareness

Mandatory disclosure for loans and applying agreed terms

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
High Court (Klage: Commerce Commission)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
Legal basis
Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 9C(1), 9C(2)(a)(ii), 9C(2)(a)(iii)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Self-report, admission of the breaches before proceedings were filed and refunds of 2.67 million NZD to those affected.
Published
28 Nov 2025

Original amount 3,640,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Nov 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.

26 Nov 2024 Kiwibank LimitedKiwibank: 1.5 million NZD fine for systemically misapplied customer terms New ZealandMisleading advertising and pricing €835,189

The bank pleaded guilty to 21 charges under the Fair Trading Act because for years it had not provided services to customers on the agreed terms, for example discounts and interest-free periods under package agreements, correctly calculated repayments, the switch to principal repayments after interest-only periods and correct fees. Around 35,000 customers were overcharged a total of 6.8 million NZD; on 26 November 2024 the Auckland District Court imposed a fine of 1.5 million NZD. According to the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's consumer and competition regulator), the causes were errors in electronic systems and a lack of quality assurance checks on whether staff knew and followed the processes.

What organisations can take from it

Agreed terms must be correctly set up in systems and monitored through quality assurance; system errors are no excuse.

Relevance to training and awareness

Correctly applying agreed terms in banking processes

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Auckland District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 13(i), 40(1)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
The bank had identified and reported the errors itself and is progressively refunding customers 9.2 million NZD.
Published
27 Nov 2024

Original amount 1,500,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Nov 2024.

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