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: 2,032 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- Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) €10.3m 100 % · 2 cases
- Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) – 0 % · 2 cases
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Tarkus Interiors Pte Ltd; Flex Connect Pte Ltd (vormals Facility Link Pte Ltd) €7.09m 69 % · 1 case
- Trust-Build Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd., Hunan Fengtian Construction Group Co., Ltd €3.19m 31 % · 1 case
- The Management Corporation – Strata Title Plan No. 4599 (The Scotts Tower) – 0 % · 1 case
- The Management Corporation – Strata Title Plan No. 4869 (Riverfront Residences) – 0 % · 1 case
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 1 | €7.09m |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2025 | 2 | €3.19m |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | – |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
4 cases
20 Dec 2024 Tarkus Interiors Pte Ltd; Flex Connect Pte Ltd (vormals Facility Link Pte Ltd)CCCS: 9,999,181 SGD against two interior fit-out firms for bid rigging €7.09m
From August 2016 to August 2021, Flex Connect (formerly Facility Link) and Tarkus Interiors colluded on twelve tenders for interior fit-out works in shops, food and beverage outlets and offices worth around 34.11 million SGD in total: the designated winner gave the other firm its prices and details so that it would submit a higher cover bid. On 20 December 2024 the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) imposed penalties of 5,113,918 SGD on Tarkus and 4,885,263 SGD on Flex Connect, totalling 9,999,181 SGD (the CCCS itself states the total as 9,999,182 SGD); Flex Connect received a leniency discount.
Cover bids remain prohibited collusion even if bidders fear being passed over in future tenders otherwise.
Recognising and refusing bid rigging and cover bids
- Authority / court
- Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Competition Act 2004, s 34
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency discount for Flex Connect.
- Published
- 20 Dec 2024
Original amount 9,999,181 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Dec 2024.
- CCCS: CCCS Penalises Contractors Specialising in Non-Residential Interior Fit-Out Tenders for Bid-Rigging (20.12.2024) Press release of an authority
- CCCS Public Register: CCCS 500-100-2021-001 (Decision Date 20.12.2024) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 Apr 2026 The Management Corporation – Strata Title Plan No. 4869 (Riverfront Residences)MCST 4869: directions over lack of data protection instructions to managing agent Order
The management corporation of the Riverfront Residences condominium had not designated a data protection officer until March 2025, had no data protection policies of its own and had given its managing agent, which acted for it as a data intermediary, no instructions on handling personal data; in April 2025 an employee of the managing agent mistakenly sent the names, addresses and maintenance fee details of two owners to another owner. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) found breaches of the Accountability Obligation and the Protection Obligation; by contrast, it found no breach in the circulation of a requisition for an extraordinary general meeting bearing the names and signatures of 303 owners, because strata management law prevailed. It directed the corporation to introduce, within 90 days, policies and procedures for the processing of data by the managing agent and to communicate them to it; the managing agent itself had given a voluntary undertaking.
Anyone who outsources management to a service provider remains responsible and needs their own data protection officer, their own policies and specific instructions to the provider.
Check recipients before sending, protect sensitive attachments and give service providers clear instructions
- Authority / court
- Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Data processors
- Legal basis
- Sections 11(3) und 12(a) PDPA 2012 (Accountability Obligation); Section 24 i. V. m. Section 4(3) PDPA (Protection Obligation bei Einsatz eines Data Intermediary)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 7 May 2026
- PDPC – Enforcement Decisions: Breach of the Accountability and Protection Obligations by MCST 4869 (veröffentlicht 07.05.2026) Enforcement database of an authority
- PDPC – Decision [2026] SGPDPC 1, The Management Corporation – Strata Title Plan No. 4869, Case No. DP-2503-C3469 (01.04.2026), PDF Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 May 2025 Trust-Build Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd., Hunan Fengtian Construction Group Co., LtdCCCS: SGD 4.64m in penalties on two construction firms for bid-rigging €3.19m
The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS, competition and consumer protection authority) found that Hunan Fengtian Construction Group had prepared the tender documents and prices of Trust-Build Engineering & Construction for three 2022 tenders of the People's Association (works at three community clubs, total value around SGD 56 million), so that the two did not bid independently; the People's Association noticed the possible collusion, reported it and excluded both bidders from the evaluation. Under section 34 of the Competition Act 2004, CCCS imposed financial penalties of SGD 4,295,059 on Trust-Build and SGD 349,350 on Hunan Fengtian, totalling SGD 4,644,409.
Preparing a competitor's bid or knowing its prices is bid-rigging – even if neither party ultimately wins the contract.
Bid-rigging: no coordination of bids with competitors in tenders
- Authority / court
- Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 34 Competition Act 2004; Geldbuße nach s 69(2)(e) Competition Act 2004
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 23 May 2025
Original amount 4,644,409 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 May 2025.
- CCCS: CCCS Imposes A Total Of $4.6m Penalties On Contractors For Rigging Bids In Public Sector Tenders (23.05.2025) Press release of an authority
- CCS Case Register: CCCS 500-100-2023-001, Decision Date 23 May 2025 Enforcement database of an authority
- CCCS Infringement Decision, Construction Tenders, 23 May 2025 (PDF, verlinkt aus dem Case Register) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 May 2025 The Management Corporation – Strata Title Plan No. 4599 (The Scotts Tower)MCST 4599: directions after refused access request for CCTV footage Order
A person involved in a traffic accident next to the condominium requested access to the CCTV footage in April 2024; the security company could not save it for lack of administrator access, the system overwrote it after 17 days, and the management corporation then refused the request, citing other individuals' data and strata management law. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) held that a blanket refusal was not justified (other individuals could have been masked) but, as the footage no longer existed, made no finding on the access obligation, and found a negligent breach of the Accountability Obligation: no data protection officer, no data protection policy of its own (only the managing agent's) and no instructions to the managing agent and security company on handling access requests. It directed the corporation to introduce, within 60 days, policies and a procedure for access requests concerning CCTV footage and to pass them on to the managing agent and contractors.
Access requests for CCTV footage need a set procedure that secures the footage before it is automatically overwritten and masks other individuals instead of refusing outright.
Recognise access requests, secure the relevant data immediately and respond in time
- Authority / court
- Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
- Legal basis
- Sections 11(3) und 12 PDPA 2012 (Accountability Obligation); geprüft auch Sections 21 und 22A PDPA (Auskunft, Aufbewahrung bei Ablehnung)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- The management corporation appointed a data protection officer after the incident.
- Published
- 7 Aug 2025
- PDPC – Enforcement Decisions: Breach of the Accountability Obligation by MCST 4599 (veröffentlicht 07.08.2025) Enforcement database of an authority
- PDPC – Decision 2025 SGPDPC 3, The Management Corporation – Strata Title Plan No. 4599, Case No. DP-2405-C2318 (19.05.2025), PDF Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link