Who was sanctioned, and for what?

During an inspection as part of an investigation into bid rigging, a work mobile phone and documents were removed from the premises on the instructions of a manager, and possession of a work mobile phone was denied. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a fine of 25,000 GBP on M&J.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Section 40A(1) Competition Act 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

24 Sep 2026

Original amount 25,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A. concluded a single settlement (Termo de Compromisso de Cessação) with the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian competition authority) covering four proceedings concerning alleged collusion in public tenders for infrastructure projects (metro, airports operated by Infraero, the rail company CPTM and the transport authority DNIT). The company admitted its participation, allegedly pays 6,134,676.92 BRL in instalments to the Fund for Diffuse Rights (FDD) and waives court and administrative disputes on these matters. Together with the company’s earlier settlements with CADE, its contributions exceed 90 million BRL.

Authority / court

Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei nº 12.529/2011 (Lei de Defesa da Concorrência), Termo de Compromisso de Cessação

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

22 Sep 2026

Original amount 6,134,676.92 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

A 24-year-old labourer working as a temporary worker for a scaffolding company fell, in his second week of work on the developer's housing site, through a stairwell opening that was neither securely covered nor guarded, dropping one storey onto concrete and suffering serious spinal injuries. The court found the company guilty on three counts because it had neither adequately planned nor supervised work at height and had not taken suitable measures to prevent falls. Fine of £300,000 plus costs. The company is a micro-enterprise with fewer than 10 employees.

Authority / court

Leeds Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Work at Height Regulations 2005

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

Under 50

Published

21 Sep 2026

Original amount 300,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

In Construction was fined HKD 640,000 for breaches of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and the regulations on lifting appliances and safety management. On a foundation construction site in Tai Po on 30 September 2025, a female worker had been trapped between the rear end of a slewing crawler crane and the railing of a steel platform and later died.

Authority / court

Shatin Magistrates' Courts, Hongkong (Anklage: Labour Department)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance; Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Lifting Appliances and Lifting Gear) Regulations; Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

4 Sep 2026

Original amount 640,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

At the Ladden Garden Village construction site in Yate, a subcontractor washed silt from the site drainage into two brooks over six days in July 2022. The Environment Agency accepted an Enforcement Undertaking: BDW is paying 201,500 GBP to three environmental and charitable projects, bears the investigation costs and had already invested over 180,000 GBP in remediation, training and improved surface water management. According to the annual accounts filed with the UK companies register for financial year 2025, the company had around 5,217 employees.

Authority / court

Environment Agency

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits

Legal basis

Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 (Enforcement Undertaking)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Mitigating circumstances

Acceptance of responsibility, remediation, training of employees and application for a discharge permit.

Published

3 Sep 2026

Original amount 201,500 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

At a site for two-storey residential units in Kelston (Auckland), workers were working on the upper floor without adequate fall protection, and the site also had temporary platforms, partially removed scaffolding and unsecured ladders; WorkSafe (New Zealand's workplace health and safety regulator) therefore prohibited work at height on the second floor by a prohibition notice on 30 August 2024. Because work continued there on 2 and 4 September 2024 nonetheless, the Waitakere District Court imposed a fine of 38,500 NZD on 20 August 2026, plus costs of 1,099.10 NZD.

Authority / court

Waitakere District Court (Anklage: WorkSafe New Zealand)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, s 107(1), (2)(b)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

The prohibition notice had been issued to one of the directors.

Published

4 Sep 2026

Original amount 38,500 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

A jury found Sioux Erosion Control guilty of having fixed prices for erosion control services, allocated contracts regionally and rigged bids on publicly funded road construction projects in Oklahoma (more than 100 million USD) from 2017 to 2023. Sentencing was still pending; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Section 1 Sherman Act

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

20 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Direct link

The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found a cartel in public tenders for mining and construction machinery (price fixing and market sharing, Art. 15 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act, Art. 101 TFEU). Inzhkonsult and Zemekop, as a single undertaking, were exempted from the fine; O-Rent received a sanction of 2,403.07 EUR. All three companies must introduce a competition law compliance programme within 60 days and report on it.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 ZZK; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a und c AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Immunity from fines for two participants (leniency programme)

Published

20 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From around 2010 to September 2019, six suppliers of thin cold-laid asphalt surface layers (Dünne Asphaltdeckschichten in Kaltbauweise, DSK) allocated customers – primarily public contracting authorities – and contracts among themselves nationwide and coordinated prices. Germany's Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) imposed fines of around 60.3 million EUR; all proceedings ended in settlements.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 GWB, Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency bonus for Possehl/VSI, Bitunova, Kutter and AS; settlement

Published

6 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

At roadworks on the R238 in Donegal in August 2020, one wheel of a car dropped onto the unfinished hard shoulder; when the driver steered back, the car slid on the freshly laid surface and went into Lough Foyle; three occupants drowned and one was injured, and appropriate temporary traffic management was lacking. The company pleaded guilty to breaching its duties towards non-employees under s. 12 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and was fined €1,200,000.

Authority / court

Letterkenny Circuit Criminal Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Authority)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

s. 12 i. V. m. s. 77(9)(a) Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

31 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), inspectors found on 21 January and 10 March 2026 at two residential construction sites in Rockledge that employees of the roofing contractor were working on roofs without fall protection; training records, eye protection when using nail guns and ladders extending sufficiently above the roof edge were also missing. The company had been inspected seven times since 2023, each time with citations for fall protection. OSHA proposed penalties of $349,754 (2 violations classified as wilful, 4 as repeat); the violations are alleged and may be contested.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

29 CFR 1926 Subpart M (Fall Protection), Subpart X (Ladders)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Published

23 Jul 2026

Original amount 349,754 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

In 2021 a 35-year-old employee was crushed by a 1.6-tonne concrete weight at the cement bagging plant in Sharpness. A large section of the perimeter fencing had routinely been removed over a prolonged period, leaving dangerous moving parts freely accessible. The company – with 12 employees according to its 2024 annual accounts – was fined 1 million GBP plus 9,621 GBP in costs.

Authority / court

Bristol Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

Under 50

Published

21 Jul 2026

Original amount 1,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

SCS Railways, a joint venture of Skanska, Costain and Strabag on the HS2 rail project, was fined £400,000 and ordered to pay £8,974 in costs. On 27 July 2021 at the Copthall North site near Uxbridge, a 20-tonne tipper truck belonging to a contracted haulage company fell from an excavation ramp and the driver was injured. The Health and Safety Executive found neither signage nor edge protection on the vehicle routes; a traffic route changed on the morning of the incident had left an unprotected edge and had been neither properly planned nor communicated in time.

Authority / court

Uxbridge Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 3(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty plea.

Published

26 Jun 2026

Original amount 400,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) reprimanded Leader Properties Investment Pty Ltd on 9 June 2026 and imposed a monetary penalty of 22,000 AUD because it had locked out a tenant and unlawfully taken possession of the rented home in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. All licensed agents of the company who provide property management must complete tenancy training. Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Authority / court

NSW Fair Trading

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW), s 192(1)(a), (c) und (d); Verstoß gegen den Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

25 Jun 2026

Original amount 22,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In 2019, the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (BlnBDI) had imposed 14.5 million EUR on the housing group because tenant data such as salary statements, bank statements and social security data were held in an archive system with no means of deletion. Following the 2023 CJEU judgment on direct corporate liability, the Berlin Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin I) confirmed on 9 June 2026 infringements of data minimisation and storage limitation; the press release does not state the amount of the fine set by the court.

Authority / court

Landgericht Berlin I (Bußgeldbehörde: Berliner Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

Art. 5, Art. 25 Abs. 1 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

According to the CJEU (C-807/21), a breach of duty by a person in a management position need not be proven for the corporate fine.

Published

10 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The ICO fined Thermotech Wall and Loft Surveys Ltd £240,000 and issued an enforcement notice. After executing a search warrant in April 2025, the regulator found that between October 2024 and March 2025 the company had instigated 575,062 unsolicited marketing calls to numbers that had been on the TPS register for more than 28 days. There were 132 complaints. The legal basis is regulations 21 and 24 of PECR.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulations 21 und 24 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 240,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

In September 2024 three construction companies coordinated their bid prices and decided the winner in a civil engineering tender of the municipality of Ommen, which was awarded for 153,250 EUR. Because of earlier cartel infringements by the companies or their legal predecessors established in 2005, the ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) increased the fines by 20%. In the simplified procedure it imposed allegedly 30,000 EUR on Timmerhuis and allegedly 15,500 EUR on Bouwhuis (45,500 EUR in total); Van Gelder, as first leniency applicant, was not fined.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 Mededingingswet

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

For cooperating in the simplified procedure, the ACM reduced the fines of Bouwhuis and Timmerhuis by 15%, and that of Timmerhuis by a further 5% for evidence provided voluntarily; Van Gelder, as first applicant, received full leniency immunity.

Published

2 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In April 2026 China Harbour Engineering Company Limited was fined 78,000 HKD at the Eastern Magistrates' Courts (a Hong Kong magistrates' court) under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Hong Kong's water pollution law) because the company had discharged waste or polluting matter into a water control zone on 14 July 2025; the prosecution was brought by the Environmental Protection Department (Hong Kong's environmental authority). It was the highest fine among the 40 environmental convictions the department published for April 2026.

Authority / court

Eastern Magistrates' Courts, Hongkong (Anklage: Environmental Protection Department)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits

Legal basis

Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Einleitung von Abfall oder verunreinigenden Stoffen in eine water control zone)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

22 May 2026

Original amount 78,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The manufacturer Decora and the wholesaler Bel-Pol had coordinated prices for vinyl panels, underlays, skirting boards and floor profiles from Decora's range and divided the wholesale market for these products. UOKiK imposed fines of PLN 28,344,000 on Decora and PLN 5,290,000 on Bel-Pol, PLN 33,634,000 in total. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 3 ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a und c AEUV; Art. 106 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2, Art. 113c und Art. 89a ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

As a leniency applicant, Bel-Pol received a 50% reduction of its fine and a further 10% for voluntarily accepting the fine (settlement).

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Original amount 33,634,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Following action by Consumer Affairs Victoria (the consumer protection regulator of the state of Victoria), the Federal Court of Australia ordered White Ray Oakleigh Pty Ltd, former operator of the Ray White Oakleigh agency, to pay 600,000 AUD because between February 2022 and November 2023 it advertised nine properties well below market value and at prices it did not itself expect to achieve (underquoting). According to the regulator, the agency agreements often provided for considerably higher commission on proceeds above the reserve price, and vendors were persuaded to lower their reserves after signing; text messages between the agents showed that they expected considerably higher prices. The court found misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Victoria / Federal Court of Australia

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Irreführendes Verhalten sowie falsche oder irreführende Angaben (Vorschriften in der Mitteilung nicht genannt)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

The company admitted the conduct and cooperated with the regulator in the court proceedings; it has not operated the agency since 2025.

Published

24 Apr 2026

Original amount 600,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 21 April 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement with Gwalimba Construction (Pty) Ltd. Following a complaint by the Department of Home Affairs (home affairs ministry), the Competition Commission (competition authority) had found that Gwalimba and Superway Construction (Pty) Ltd agreed not to compete against each other on certain tenders – including a request for quotes for fire-compliance repair work at a government office in Pretoria. Without admitting liability, Gwalimba allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 50,000 ZAR, will cooperate in the case against Superway and will introduce a competition law compliance programme.

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Section 4(1)(b)(i), (ii) und (iii) Competition Act 89 of 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

According to the parties: cooperation with the authority, a small firm with no previous contraventions, and it did not win the contract.

Published

23 Apr 2026

Original amount 50,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Apr 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The court fined Sun Shine Decoration HKD 500,000 and Wai Tat Aluminium & Glass Engineering HKD 230,000, HKD 730,000 in total, for breaches of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations. The case arose from a fatal accident on 16 May 2025 at a house in Kwu Tung, in which a worker fell into the swimming pool of the neighbouring house while fixing insulation boards on a metal canopy.

Authority / court

Fanling Magistrates' Courts, Hongkong (Anklage: Labour Department)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance; Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

14 Apr 2026

Original amount 730,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Apr 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030 (Spanish Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and 2030 Agenda) imposed fines totalling 3,600,902 EUR (1,000,000, 990,900, three times 500,000, 100,001 and 10,001 EUR) on the rental agency Alquiler Seguro for six very serious and one serious breach of tenants' consumer rights. Among other things, the company had required tenants to pay for a tenant service as management and contract costs, to take out home insurance for the landlord's benefit and to bear debt collection and court costs, used a clause allowing reporting to debtor registers and excluded the right of withdrawal. The clauses must be removed and the sanction published.

Authority / court

Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Verbraucherschutzrecht (in der Pressemitteilung nicht einzeln zitiert); Ley 12/2023, de 24 de mayo, por el derecho a la vivienda (Verbot, Verwaltungs- und Vertragskosten auf Mieter abzuwälzen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

8 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Acting as processor, the property management company sent an owner’s statement of service charges to an unauthorised person. The association considered notification unnecessary because only ‘ordinary’ data of one member were affected, and maintained this position in the proceedings; the UODO (Poland’s data protection authority) imposed 4,852 PLN.

Authority / court

Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)

Area of law

Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations

Legal basis

Art. 33 Abs. 1 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 4,852 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Apr 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The Malaysian subsidiary of Colas Rail paid large, undocumented sums via intermediaries in connection with public contracts for urban rail lines in Kuala Lumpur (Kelana Jaya extension, MRT2). Following an internal investigation, Colas Rail self-reported the matter in 2017; the CJIP (Convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, a French deferred prosecution agreement) provides for a public interest fine of 29,745,974 EUR and a three-year compliance programme monitored by the French Anti-Corruption Agency (AFA) (costs of up to 1.9 million EUR).

Authority / court

Parquet national financier (PNF); Validierung durch den Präsidenten des Tribunal judiciaire de Paris

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials

Legal basis

Art. 41-1-2 Code de procédure pénale (CJIP); Bestechung ausländischer Amtsträger

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

10,000 or more

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Self-report (criminal complaint filed by Colas Rail on 31 May 2017) following an internal forensic investigation.

Liability of senior managers

The CJIP does not address the criminal liability of natural persons.

Published

19 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Chevalier (Construction) was fined HKD 80,000 in January 2026 because on 23 February 2025 the company carried out prescribed construction work in breach of the conditions of its construction noise permit. It was the heaviest single fine among the 34 convictions reported by the Environmental Protection Department for January 2026.

Authority / court

Kwun Tong Magistrates' Courts, Hongkong (Anklage: Environmental Protection Department)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits

Legal basis

Noise Control Ordinance (Bauarbeiten entgegen den Bedingungen einer Construction Noise Permit)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

23 Feb 2026

Original amount 80,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Feb 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

An estate agency (name not published) kept 11,887 brokerage contracts from 2010 to 2019, together with 914 copies of identity cards, passports and bank cards, without a legal basis, although the managing director stated that no card copies were collected. The Croatian data protection authority (Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka, AZOP) also criticised irregular and inadequate data protection training for employees and imposed 100,000 EUR (date of publication; exact date of the decision not stated).

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka (AZOP)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c und e, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 32 Abs. 4 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

No damage to data subjects was found.

Published

19 Feb 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The FCA publicly censured the former construction and services group Carillion plc. The regulator found that between July 2016 and July 2017 the company published misleading information, breaching the prohibition of market manipulation and listing requirements; in July 2017 Carillion had to announce a provision of £845 million. Because the company has been in liquidation since January 2018, no fine was imposed; the FCA stated it would otherwise have been £37.91 million.

Authority / court

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Art. 15 MAR; Listing Rule 1.3.3R; Listing Principle 1; Premium Listing Principle 2; sections 91 und 123 FSMA 2000

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

To secure a share in the Riyadh Metro project, around 31 million USD was paid between 2013 and 2021 to an agent representing a high-ranking member of the Saudi royal family; the agent payments were understated to the export credit insurer Atradius. Strukton accepted a transaction (out-of-court settlement) of 10 million EUR.

Authority / court

Openbaar Ministerie (OM)

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials

Legal basis

Buitenlandse ambtelijke omkoping und valsheid in geschrift (Wetboek van Strafrecht); Transactie nach Art. 74 Sr

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation from mid-2023; compliance programme in place since 2017; the employees involved are no longer with the company.

Published

30 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, RE/MAX Twin City Realty Inc. is a real estate brokerage based in Kitchener, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 24,750 on the company on 4 February 2026. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed one violation of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violation concerned assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on RE/MAX Twin City Realty Inc.", published 5 May 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-05-05-1-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(c); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

5 May 2026

Original amount 24,750 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Feb 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

On 30 January 2026 the Perth Magistrates Court convicted Jim's Realty Pty Ltd on 35 charges – client money not credited to the trust account, unlawful withdrawals, improper records and tenancy bonds lodged late or not at all – and fined it 225,000 AUD plus 577.50 AUD in costs. A forensic audit commissioned by Consumer Protection WA (the consumer protection division of Western Australia) had identified 57 unexplained withdrawals totalling more than 334,915 AUD. According to the regulator it is the largest fine ever imposed on an estate agency in Western Australia; the company has been in liquidation since 2024.

Authority / court

Consumer Protection WA (Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety) / Perth Magistrates Court

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA); Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

None; according to the release, the court found no mitigating factors despite the liquidation.

Published

11 Feb 2026

Original amount 225,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

At the Linford plant in 2022 an employee's legs were trapped between metal frames weighing over a tonne because the interlocked access gate did not cut the power to the preceding sections of track. Previous near misses and a risk assessment from years earlier that called for additional control measures were not acted upon; fine of 633,300 GBP plus 5,583 GBP in costs. According to its 2025 annual accounts, the company had an average of 596 employees.

Authority / court

Chelmsford Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

250 to 999

Published

30 Jan 2026

Original amount 633,300 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

During the repair of a tipper truck, a JCB bucket without a quick hitch or retaining pin was used to prop up the raised tipper body; the one-tonne bucket fell and seriously injured a mechanic. The business (11 employees according to its micro-entity accounts) had not used suitable props; fine of 10,000 GBP plus 3,475.90 GBP in costs.

Authority / court

Warrington Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

Under 50

Published

4 Feb 2026

Original amount 10,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Long Island roofing contractor DME Construction Associates entered into a settlement with the US Department of Labor affirming all citations issued after an employee fell to his death through an unprotected skylight in August 2021, including nine wilful violations, eight of them cited per instance for each unprotected employee. The company will pay 600,000 USD and must introduce a written safety plan, ensure sufficient fall protection for all workers, notify OSHA of jobs in advance, allow inspections without a warrant and have supervisors complete a 30-hour course. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Occupational Safety and Health Act (Absturzsicherung im Bauwesen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

26 Jan 2026

Original amount 600,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

After a fatal accident on 19 August 2023 at a construction site in Chek Lap Kok, in which a worker received an electric shock while carrying out electrical work on a false ceiling, Hip Seng Builders had been fined HKD 261,000 on 23 January 2025. On the prosecution's application, the court reviewed the sentence and on 21 January 2026 increased the fines to HKD 521,000. The conviction was under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and two regulations on construction site and electrical safety.

Authority / court

West Kowloon Magistrates' Courts, Hongkong (Anklage: Labour Department)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance; Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations; Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Electricity) Regulations

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

21 Jan 2026

Original amount 521,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

A Bulgarian construction company that worked as a subcontractor for a German firm on a major construction site in the district of Tuttlingen between January and May 2023 paid below the minimum wage, recorded only the duration of working time rather than its start and end, and did not register the posting. Around 215,000 EUR was imposed on the company, corresponding to the economic benefit obtained by paying below the minimum wage; the decision issued in September 2025 has been final since the end of 2025 (date = publication; exact date of the decision not specified).

Authority / court

Hauptzollamt Singen (Finanzkontrolle Schwarzarbeit)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Legal basis

Mindestlohngesetz; Arbeitnehmer-Entsendegesetz (Aufzeichnungs- und Meldepflichten)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

9 Jan 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The Shanghai company of the Stuttgart-based Exyte group caused around 884 US items (flowmeters, pressure transmitters, controllers) worth around 2.85 million USD to be delivered by Chinese suppliers to SMIC Beijing, which is on the Entity List (the US export control list of restricted parties), on 13 occasions in 2021/22. According to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS, the export control agency of the US Department of Commerce), the compliance programme did not recognise that in-country transfers within China also require a licence; Exyte voluntarily disclosed the transactions and admitted them.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods

Legal basis

Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(b), § 744.11

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary self-disclosure, own investigation with external lawyers and investment in the compliance programme.

Published

7 Jan 2026

Original amount 1,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

In February 2024 a flytable was being moved by tower crane at the Oakridge Park construction site; as it was pushed out it accelerated out of the building, fell and fatally struck a worker. WorkSafeBC found that EllisDon, as prime contractor, had not regularly reviewed the subcontractor's safe work procedures, had not confirmed that a risk assessment had been carried out, had not classed the lift as critical, had not ensured written lift plans, had not controlled the exclusion zone on the ground and had not coordinated the health and safety activities of the employers involved. It imposed an administrative penalty of CAD 514,831.53.

Authority / court

WorkSafeBC (Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Arbeitsschutzvorschriften von British Columbia, insbesondere Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (OHSR) – Pflichten des Hauptauftragnehmers (prime contractor) und Anforderungen an kritische Kranhübe; Verwaltungsstrafe (administrative penalty) von WorkSafeBC

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

12 Dec 2025

Original amount 514,831.53 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In February 2024 the formwork contractor was moving a flytable by tower crane at the Oakridge Park construction site when it fell out of the building and fatally struck a worker. WorkSafeBC found, among other things, missing written lift plans for critical lifts, inadequate procedures for corner flytables, a lack of risk assessments and inspections, loads being passed over people and insufficient instruction, training and supervision of workers, and imposed an administrative penalty of CAD 112,624.66.

Authority / court

WorkSafeBC (Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Arbeitsschutzvorschriften von British Columbia, insbesondere Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (OHSR) – Hebepläne, Schalungsarbeiten, Unterweisung und Aufsicht; Verwaltungsstrafe (administrative penalty) von WorkSafeBC

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

12 Dec 2025

Original amount 112,624.66 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, Century 21 Heritage Group Ltd. is a real estate brokerage. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 148,912.50 on the company on 10 December 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed one violation of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violation concerned suspicious transaction reporting. According to FINTRAC, the company has appealed the decision to the Federal Court. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on Century 21 Heritage Group Ltd.", published 10 February 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-02-10-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 7; Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

10 Feb 2026

Original amount 148,912.5 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

OFAC has imposed a penalty of USD 7,139,305 on New York property management company Gracetown, Inc. by way of a Penalty Notice. According to OFAC's findings, between April 2018 and May 2020 Gracetown received 24 payments on behalf of an affiliated company owned by a sanctioned Russian oligarch, although OFAC had previously given it explicit notice of the prohibition. Gracetown also failed to report the blocked property to OFAC for more than 45 months. OFAC regarded the violations as wilful or at least reckless, egregious and not voluntarily self-disclosed; the base penalty equalled the statutory maximum of USD 8,906,358. OFAC's publication does not state whether Gracetown has paid the penalty or challenged it in court. Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), enforcement release "OFAC Imposes $7,139,305 Penalty on Gracetown, Inc. for Violating Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions and Reporting Obligations", 4 December 2025, https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/934796/download?inline; summarised in our own words.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes

Legal basis

Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 589.201; Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 501.603 (Sperrmeldung); Penalty Notice nach den Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

4 Dec 2025

Original amount 7,139,305 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, VIP Realty Inc. is a real estate brokerage based in Ottawa, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 33,000 on the company on 1 December 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed one violation of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violation concerned the prescribed review of the compliance programme. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on VIP Realty Inc.", published 9 July 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-07-09-2-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(f); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

9 Jul 2026

Original amount 33,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

The estate agency in Windsor (Ontario) received a penalty of 107,250 CAD from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) for four violations: no up-to-date, approved compliance policies, no assessment of the money laundering risk, no written ongoing training programme and no effectiveness review of the compliance programme. The company has appealed to the Federal Court.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, Part 1, und zugehörige Verordnungen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

12 Feb 2026

Original amount 107,250 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Nov 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, 1135233 B.C. Ltd. (operating as LeHomes Realty Premier) is a real estate brokerage based in Vancouver, British Columbia. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 149,886 on the company. Published by FINTRAC on 20 November 2025; decision date not published. According to FINTRAC's findings, the company committed 6 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned suspicious transaction reporting, appointing a compliance officer, written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks, the compliance training programme and client identification record keeping. According to FINTRAC, the company will pay the penalty in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on 1135233 B.C. Ltd.", published 20 November 2025, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2025-11-20-3-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 7; PCMLTF Regulations 39(1)(b), 71(1)(a), 71(1)(b), 71(1)(c), 71(1)(d); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

20 Nov 2025

Original amount 149,886 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Nov 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

While re-covering a flat roof on a residential property in England, an employee fell more than three metres through an open skylight opening and needed surgery. The business (a micro-enterprise with fewer than 10 employees) had not planned the work at height and had provided neither a crash deck nor netting; fine of 16,650 GBP plus 7,205 GBP in costs.

Authority / court

Birmingham Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 3(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

Under 50

Published

25 Nov 2025

Original amount 16,650 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Nov 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The CMA accepted binding commitments from Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry after investigating whether they had exchanged competitively sensitive information such as achieved sale prices. The companies committed to stop sharing such information, introduce compliance measures and annual competition law training, help develop industry guidance and jointly pay GBP 100m to affordable housing programmes; no infringement was found.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Chapter I prohibition Competition Act 1998 (Verdacht); Verpflichtungszusagen nach section 31A Competition Act 1998

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

30 Oct 2025

Original amount 100,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Oct 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

During an unannounced inspection in the air-conditioning, refrigeration and heat pump services sector, the company repeatedly refused to produce a mobile phone used for business purposes. The Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) regarded this as obstruction of the inspection and imposed 70,000 EUR, around 1% of the previous year’s turnover (not final).

Authority / court

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Mitwirkungspflicht bei Nachprüfungen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Published

28 Oct 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

While a high-pressure jetting system was being primed in freezing conditions in 2022, a pressure release occurred and the end of the hose struck a drainage engineer in the face; he died two and a half weeks later. There was no safe system of work, jetting vices were not properly maintained, monitoring was lacking, and information, instruction, training and supervision were insufficient; fine of 800,000 GBP (reduced from 1.2 million GBP for an early guilty plea) plus 8,680 GBP in costs. According to its consolidated accounts (financial year to July 2024), the company employed 2,268 people and the group 3,610.

Authority / court

City of London Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Mitigating circumstances

Early guilty plea (reduction from 1.2 million GBP to 800,000 GBP)

Published

6 Oct 2025

Original amount 800,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Oct 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Bauunternehmung Pusiol GmbH, a subsidiary of Steiner Baugesellschaft m.b.H., allegedly 130,000 EUR for taking part in the construction cartel in Lower Austria from July 2002 to August 2016 (price fixing, market sharing and information exchange in civil engineering tenders). The BWB (Federal Competition Authority) set the fine lower because of the company's limited financial capacity, as it reported annual losses in 2023 and 2024; the company gave a full acknowledgement.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Limited financial capacity (losses in 2023 and 2024); full acknowledgement.

Published

4 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

From 2021 to 2024, two groups of construction companies coordinated in more than 30 public tenders for the construction and repair of utility pipelines: they exchanged sensitive information, determined winners and submitted sham bids. Prompted by information from the contracting entity Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks, the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) imposed a total of 513,508.08 EUR.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Konkurences likums

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

All companies except Infrakom concluded a settlement with the Competition Council, acknowledged the facts and waived an appeal; in return, a 10% fine reduction.

Published

10 Sep 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The ICO fined Home Improvement Marketing Ltd £300,000 and issued an enforcement notice. After executing a search warrant in March 2024, it found that between 31 May and 31 August 2023 the company had instigated 2,449,380 automated marketing calls without prior consent; 274 complaints were received. According to the ICO, the software responded to recipients' answers and offered no way to opt out of further calls. The legal basis is regulations 19 and 24 of PECR.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulations 19 und 24 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 300,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Aug 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The ICO fined Green Spark Energy Ltd £250,000 and issued an enforcement notice. After executing a search warrant in March 2024, the regulator found that from May 2023 to May 2024 the company had instigated 9,587,050 automated calls carrying recorded marketing messages; 497 complaints were received. According to the ICO, the recordings contained misleading statements designed to pressure homeowners, for example about supposed risks of their existing loft insulation. The legal basis is regulations 19 and 24 of PECR.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulations 19 und 24 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 250,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Aug 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Regional suppliers of surface treatments and chip sealing in road maintenance colluded on bids and allocated territories. Switzerland's Competition Commission (Wettbewerbskommission, WEKO) imposed sanctions on Bitusag/Paupe (jointly and severally, CHF 640,000–990,000, exact amount redacted), Wyss Fils (CHF 44,000–74,000), Prodo (CHF 760) and Duckert (CHF 0) and approved amicable settlements; the investigation against Colas Suisse was discontinued.

Authority / court

Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 3 i.V.m. Abs. 1 KG, Art. 49a Abs. 1 KG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Amicable settlements; leniency programme (Duckert free of sanctions)

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Dallas-based supplier of countertops allegedly declared Chinese quartz surface products between 2018 and 2023 as goods subject to lower duties, such as marble or crystallised glass, and evaded anti-dumping and countervailing duties, including by using third parties as importers of record. The settlement of 12.4 million USD (a joint payment with a further settling party) resolves a whistleblower lawsuit.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, und U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Customs

Legal basis

False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 ff. (Vergleich; Haftung nicht festgestellt)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

19 Aug 2025

Original amount 12,400,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Aug 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

On Saturday, 17 December 2022, the management board of a listed real estate company (anonymised in the judgment) approved by email a new share buyback programme including its volume, period and price, but only published it after a formal resolution on Monday, 19 December 2022. Austria's Financial Market Authority (FMA) imposed a penalty of 375,000 EUR; the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) upheld the breach of the ad hoc disclosure obligation but reduced the penalty to 300,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Beschwerde gegen Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht FMA)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Art. 17 Abs. 1 MAR i. V. m. § 156 Abs. 3 Z 2, Abs. 4 BörseG 2018

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

negligent

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The six companies colluded on cover bids, market sharing and prices in 26 contracts awarded by the state railway infrastructure administration (total value over 850 million CZK, 2015–2021). In a settlement procedure, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed a total of 157.693 million CZK at first instance; two companies appealed against the amount.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (Submissionsabsprachen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement (20% reduction, no procurement ban), leniency application by one participant and compliance programmes at two companies.

Published

2 Jul 2025

Original amount 157,693,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Jul 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, 9321-0599 Québec Inc. is a real estate brokerage based in Brossard, Québec. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 23,100 on the company on 2 July 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 2 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures and assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks. According to FINTRAC, the company has appealed the decision to the Federal Court. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on 9321-0599 Québec Inc.", published 20 November 2025, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2025-11-20-1-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

20 Nov 2025

Original amount 23,100 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Jul 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

The Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland) found that the association Suomen Isännöintiliitto ry and six property management companies or groups had unlawfully cooperated on price increases in 2014–2017, and raised the fines imposed by the Markkinaoikeus (Market Court) in December 2022 from a total of 4.93 million EUR to 6,558,000 EUR. Breakdown: Retta Isännöinti Oy, Retta Oy, Retta Group Oy and Retta Holding Oy 4,000,000 EUR; Oulun Kiinteistötieto Oy and Suomen Kiinteistöhallinta Oy 900,000 EUR; REIM Hämeenlinna Oy and REIM Group Oy Ltd 750,000 EUR; Colliers Finland Group Oy and Retta Isännöinti Oy 700,000 EUR; OP Koti Kainuu Oy 75,000 EUR; Suomen Isännöintiliitto ry 73,000 EUR; Kiinteistö-Tahkola Tampere Oy 60,000 EUR. The authority had originally sought 22 million EUR.

Authority / court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus (KHO) auf Antrag des Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto (KKV)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Kilpailulaki (948/2011) 5 § und 12 §

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

26 Jun 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, Pacesetter Marketing Ltd. is a real estate brokerage based in Vancouver, British Columbia. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 41,085 on the company on 24 June 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 3 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks and the prescribed review of the compliance programme. According to FINTRAC, the company is paying the penalty in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on Pacesetter Marketing Ltd.", published 20 November 2025, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2025-11-20-2-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c), 156(1)(f), 156(3); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

20 Nov 2025

Original amount 41,085 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Jun 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined MAGEBA Gesellschaft m.b.H. 400,000 EUR because, from November 2017 to December 2018, it shared customers for road expansion joints and bridge bearings in Austria with a competitor and exchanged information on pricing behaviour. Against Maurer SE and Maurer Söhne Ges. mbH the court merely declared the infringement because of their leniency status. A compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation was taken into account in mitigation, and intent in a hardcore restriction as an aggravating factor.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a KartG; § 28 Abs. 1 und 1a Z 1 KartG (Feststellung gegenüber Kronzeugin)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Only five projects over about 13 months, no enrichment established, low-level information exchange, the group's economic difficulties, compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation.

Published

18 Nov 2025

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company concerned is a real estate brokerage based in Calgary, Alberta; its name is not given here. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 117,975 on the company on 29 May 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 5 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks, the compliance training programme, the prescribed review of the compliance programme and record keeping. According to FINTRAC, the policies were a generic template not tailored to the business; the account number was missing in all ten receipt of funds records reviewed. FINTRAC originally set the penalty at CAD 117,975. According to the regulator, the company appealed to the Federal Court; on 28 February 2026 the appeal was resolved, the company paid CAD 63,987.50 and the case is closed. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 6, 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 58(1)(a), 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c), 156(1)(d), 156(1)(e), 156(1)(f); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

20 Nov 2025

Original amount 63,987.5 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 May 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Direct link

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.

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.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, HomeLife New World Realty Inc. is a real estate brokerage based in Toronto and Richmond Hill, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 36,135 on the company on 21 May 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 3 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks and record keeping. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on HomeLife New World Realty Inc.", published 20 November 2025, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2025-11-20-4-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 6, 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b), 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c), 156(2); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

20 Nov 2025

Original amount 36,135 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 May 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

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.

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

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

From 2016 to 2019, seven road repair companies allocated contracting authorities regionally, determined in advance who should win the contract and set each other minimum prices for cover bids. The Bundeskartellamt imposed fines of 10.5 million EUR; BITUNOVA cooperated as leniency applicant, and all proceedings ended in settlements. Addressees: AS Asphaltstraßensanierung GmbH, bausion Strassenbau-Produkte GmbH, BITUNOVA GmbH, Gerhard Herbers GmbH, Liesen … alles für den Bau GmbH, Mainka GmbH Straßenunterhaltung, MOT Müritzer Oberflächentechnik GmbH.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 GWB

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency programme (BITUNOVA), settlement

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

13 May 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The Californian importer of multilayered wood flooring allegedly provided false information on the manufacturer and country of origin from 2019 to 2022, thereby evading anti-dumping, countervailing and Section 301 duties on Chinese goods. The settlement of 8.1 million USD is a joint payment by all settling parties and is based on the ability to pay.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, und U.S. Attorney’s Office Central District of California

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Customs

Legal basis

False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 ff. (Vergleich; Haftung nicht festgestellt)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement amount based on the ability to pay of the settling parties.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

25 Mar 2025

Original amount 8,100,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Mar 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Miami real estate company Family International Realty LLC is paying USD 1,076,923 jointly with a further settling party under a settlement with OFAC (joint payment) for 73 apparent violations of the Ukraine-/Russia-related sanctions. According to OFAC's findings, between 2018 and 2023 the company, in a wilful evasion scheme, transferred nominal ownership of three luxury condominiums belonging to two sanctioned Russian oligarchs to non-sanctioned relatives and their shell companies and continued to rent them out; the company earned around USD 182,442 in commissions and reimbursements. OFAC treated the apparent violations as egregious and not voluntarily self-disclosed; the base penalty equalled the statutory maximum of USD 30,080,709. USD 182,442 is deemed satisfied by a forfeiture payment to the DOJ. Source: OFAC enforcement release of 16 January 2025, https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/933941/download?inline; summarised in our own words.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes

Legal basis

E.O. 13685 §§ 2(a), 5(a), 6(a) (73 mutmaßliche Verstöße); Vergleich nach den Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

16 Jan 2025

Original amount 1,076,923 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jan 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 5 · Direct link

The Saxony State Directorate (Landesdirektion Sachsen), as anti-money laundering supervisor for the non-financial sector, imposed a fine of 800 EUR on an estate agent, announced in anonymised form, for breach of the due diligence obligations under the German Money Laundering Act (GwG). The list of announcements shows numerous further fines and reprimands against agents ranging from 50 to 5,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Landesdirektion Sachsen (Geldwäscheaufsicht Nichtfinanzsektor)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

Geldwäschegesetz (Sorgfaltspflichten); Bekanntmachung nach § 57 GwG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Because of vandalism, the operator of the City2 shopping centre had installed cameras in toilet areas; one camera in the men’s toilets also captured the area in front of the urinal despite a black masking, and there were no signs. The court followed the Danish Data Protection Agency (Datatilsynet) and the public prosecutor and imposed 350,000 DKK for breach of the data minimisation principle.

Authority / court

Retten i Glostrup (auf Anzeige der Datatilsynet)

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c; databeskyttelsesloven § 41; tv-overvågningsloven

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 350,000 DKK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Dec 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

An estate agency (name redacted in the publication) continuously filmed workstations and break areas with image and sound, accessible via a smartphone app, and used the software Time Doctor to record keyboard and mouse activity as well as screenshots of the computers; several people accessed this data via the administrator account of one of them. The French data protection authority (CNIL) found infringements of data minimisation, legal basis, information, security and the obligation to carry out an impact assessment, and imposed 40,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL)

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c, Art. 6, 12, 13, 32, 35 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The construction company coordinated its bids with a competitor in tenders run by the NZ Transport Agency (national transport authority; Northern Corridor Improvement Project) and Auckland Transport (refurbishment of the Middlemore Bridge). After guilty pleas to four charges of price fixing, the High Court in Auckland imposed a fine of 500,000 NZD on 18 December 2024 in the country's first criminal cartel prosecution; without the mitigating factors, around 1 million NZD would have been appropriate according to the court.

Authority / court

High Court Auckland (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Commerce Act 1986, s 30 (Kartellverbot, seit 8. April 2021 strafbewehrt)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas; the court took account of several mitigating factors, without which around 1 million NZD would have been appropriate.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

18 Dec 2024

Original amount 500,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2024.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The Openbaar Ministerie (OM, Dutch Public Prosecution Service) imposed a penalty order of 30,000 EUR on BAM International B.V. for forgery (valsheid in geschrift): on a completed project in Africa, so-called facilitation payments had been made to officials in connection with a tax dispute, and not all of them were recorded transparently in the accounts. The company had discovered the payments in its own investigation and reported them itself; the amount reflects the OM guideline on self-reporting, cooperation and internal investigation. The OM dropped separate proceedings for bribery of public officials on other projects for lack of evidence.

Authority / court

Openbaar Ministerie (OM), Functioneel Parket

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials

Legal basis

Valsheid in geschrift (Urkundenfälschung nach niederländischem Strafrecht); Strafbefehl des OM

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Self-reporting, own investigation and cooperation with the investigation.

Published

17 Dec 2024

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The landlord monitored a multi-family building in Malmö around the clock with cameras at entrances, lifts, flat doors, in the stairwell, the basement and the refuse room, without any legal basis for doing so; the signs did not name the controller. The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) imposed 200,000 SEK and ordered the landlord to stop the surveillance except in the garage and to supplement the signs.

Authority / court

Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY)

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

12 Dec 2024

Original amount 200,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Dec 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company concerned is a real estate brokerage based in Laval, Quebec; its name is not given here. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 107,250 on the company on 20 November 2024. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 4 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks, the compliance training programme and the prescribed review of the compliance programme. Specifically, FINTRAC found five gaps in the policies, including on beneficial ownership, third-party determination and politically exposed persons; the risk assessment consisted of a generic form without risk levels or mitigation measures. According to FINTRAC, the company has appealed the decision to the Federal Court. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c), 156(1)(e), 156(1)(f), 156(2), 156(3); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

1 May 2025

Original amount 107,250 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Nov 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Direct link

In the tender for the refurbishment of the Zoobrücke bridge in Cologne in early 2017, employees agreed that one company would submit a cover bid so that the other would win the contract, in return for a later compensation payment. According to the Bundeskartellamt's findings, Strabag received a fine of 2.79 million EUR in a settlement procedure; the proceedings against Kemna were discontinued as it was the leniency applicant.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 GWB

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement

Liability of senior managers

Bid rigging is also a criminal offence for the individuals involved under Section 298 StGB (German Criminal Code); their prosecution is a matter for the public prosecutor.

Published

6 Nov 2024

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

According to OSHA, in May 2024 inspectors saw carpenters of the Crystal Lake company working on residential buildings in Elburn at heights of over 6 feet without fall protection three times within one month; training records and forklift certifications were also missing, and rigging equipment was damaged. The company had already been cited in 2022 and 2023. OSHA proposed penalties of $287,465; the violations are alleged and may be contested.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

29 CFR 1926 Subpart M (Fall Protection) u. a.

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Published

6 Nov 2024

Original amount 287,465 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Nov 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

From February 2011 to October 2016, a construction and furniture joinery anonymised in the decision (together with its general partner GmbH) participated in agreements on successful bidders, cover bids, market sharing and information exchange in tenders in Lower Austria and Vienna. The Cartel Court imposed a fine of 55,000 EUR only for 26 infringements up to June 2016; the OGH upheld the appeals of the BWB and the Federal Cartel Prosecutor and set a fine of 65,000 EUR on a joint and several basis for the entire period.

Authority / court

Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs 1 KartG 2005, §§ 28, 29 KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to the FTC, the large US landlord of single-family homes advertised monthly rents without mandatory additional fees (for example for smart home technology or utility management), which could add up to more than 1,700 USD a year and only appeared in the lease; further allegations concerned withheld security deposits and evictions. Under the settlement, the landlord is paying 48 million USD for refunds and must include mandatory fees in the advertised price.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Published

24 Sep 2024

Original amount 48,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Sep 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Sep 2026 · Direct link

On 29 August 2024 OFSI imposed a monetary penalty of GBP 15,000 on a UK concierge and property services company. According to OFSI's findings, the small property management company made or received 26 payments totalling GBP 15,487.30 in 2022 and 2023 in connection with a property owned by a designated person, thereby dealing with frozen funds or making funds available for that person's benefit. Other payments were covered by a general licence, but the company failed to make the reports the licence required; OFSI treated this as a further breach and as an aggravating factor but did not impose a separate penalty for it. The company had not disclosed the breaches voluntarily. It made no representations and did not request a ministerial review. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/).

Authority / court

HM Treasury, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI)

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes

Legal basis

regulations 11(1) and 13(1) of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019; Geldbuße nach section 146 Policing and Crime Act 2017

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

26 Sep 2024

Original amount 15,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 Aug 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 29 Aug 2026 · Direct link

On 20 August 2024 the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) fined a Dutch financial holding company, mainly active in real estate, EUR 3 million for market manipulation. The holding company held a large stake in a listed Dutch company; on 20 September 2022 it instructed its bank to sell up to 1.2 million shares off-market and at the same time bought small quantities at high limits on three trading days, pushing the share price up. The AFM rejected the objection on 17 April 2025; the holding company lodged an appeal with the competent court on 28 May 2025.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Art. 15 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (Marktmissbrauchsverordnung, MAR)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

20 Dec 2024

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 20 Aug 2026 · Direct link

On 15 August 2024 the ICO fined a UK windows and conservatories company GBP 40,000 and served an enforcement notice on the same day. According to the ICO's findings, between 1 January and 1 June 2023 the company made 18,280 unsolicited marketing calls to lines that had been on the TPS or CTPS opt-out registers for at least 28 days, without the subscribers having agreed to such calls; eight complaints resulted. The ICO treated this as a breach of regulation 21(1)(b) of PECR. Under the notice, payment by 16 September 2024 reduced the fine to GBP 32,000.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulation 21(1)(b) PECR; section 55A DPA 1998 (Geldbuße); section 40 DPA 1998 (Enforcement Notice)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 40,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Aug 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 15 Aug 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company is a real estate brokerage based in Quebec. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 36,360 on the company on 17 July 2024. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 4 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, the compliance training programme and client identification. According to FINTRAC, the company is paying the penalty in full and the case is closed. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 6; PCMLTF Regulations 64.2, 65(4), 71(1)(b), 71(1)(d); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

6 May 2025

Original amount 36,360 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Jul 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 17 Jul 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company is a real estate brokerage based in North York, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 57,750 on the company on 27 June 2024. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination in 2022, the company committed 3 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks and the prescribed review of the compliance programme. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTF Regulations 71(1)(b), 71(1)(c), 71(1)(e); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

24 Sep 2024

Original amount 57,750 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jun 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Jun 2026 · Direct link

As operator, the company placed pine plywood from Russia on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 6 Jun 2026 · Direct link

The Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) sanctioned four cartels in the sale of precast concrete products which, depending on the objection, lasted from 2008 or 2011 to 2017/2018; eleven manufacturers took part, one of them together with a subsidiary. The highest fines were imposed on three manufacturers (EUR 25.45 million, EUR 19.04 million and EUR 10.99 million); the amount for a further manufacturer includes EUR 75,000 for obstructing the investigation. The practices were uncovered through criminal proceedings, after which the two most heavily fined manufacturers applied for leniency.

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. L. 420-1 Code de commerce; Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV (nicht für alle Beschwerdepunkte)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency: fine reductions for the two most heavily fined manufacturers.

Published

3 Jun 2024

Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Version 2 · Company name anonymised since 21 May 2026 · Direct link

A gravel extraction joint venture, the largest gravel and landfill pit in its region, and its shareholders coordinated through the joint venture's board, granted the shareholders cheaper gravel prices and transport subsidies, undertook not to extract gravel themselves in the joint venture's area and for a time tied the dumping of excavated material to gravel purchases. The Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) imposed sanctions totalling CHF 5,303,750: CHF 3,131,100 on the joint venture, CHF 383,150 on a first shareholder group of three companies, CHF 304,150 on a second group of three companies, CHF 460,750 on a third group of two companies, CHF 242,500 on a gravel works, CHF 387,100 on a fourth group of two companies and CHF 395,000 on a fifth group of two companies, together with conduct requirements concerning the joint venture's board and management. With the exception of individual points, the ruling is under appeal before the Federal Administrative Court (as of December 2025).

Authority / court

Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 49a Abs. 1 i.V.m. Art. 5 Abs. 1, 3 und 4 KG; bei KAGA zusätzlich Art. 7 Abs. 1 i.V.m. Abs. 2 KG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Several parties concluded amicable settlements with the WEKO secretariat, which WEKO approved.

Published

27 Aug 2024

Original amount 5,303,750 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 May 2024.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 21 May 2026 · Direct link

Acting on information from the Centrālā finanšu un līgumu aģentūra (CFLA, Central Finance and Contracting Agency), the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) found that two construction companies exchanged confidential bid information and allocated among themselves who would win which project in tenders by homeowners’ associations in Saldus for energy-efficiency renovation of apartment buildings. After a settlement with a 10 % reduction, the first company pays 53,506.52 EUR and the second 54,965.84 EUR, totalling 108,472.36 EUR.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsgesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Both companies acknowledged the infringement and undertook not to challenge the decision; in return the fines were reduced by 10 %. The first company had previously received an additional 5 % reduction because it provided further information on its own initiative and committed to measures ensuring future compliance.

Published

7 May 2024

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 26 Apr 2026 · Direct link

The ICO issued a reprimand to a Scottish charitable social landlord with around 4,700 properties. According to the ICO's findings, a new customer portal went live on 14 July 2022 with a configuration error that gave residents with an ongoing anti-social behaviour case access to other residents' documents. 139 people were affected, 62 of whom the association considered at high risk; the data remained visible for five days because a first report from a resident was not escalated. According to the association, testing before launch had only checked functionality, not data protection. The ICO found this breached Article 5(1)(f) UK GDPR. The reprimand is undated; the date follows the ICO case page.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

Art. 5(1)(f) UK GDPR; Verwarnung nach Art. 58(2)(b) UK GDPR

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 9 Apr 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company is a real estate brokerage based in Toronto, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 107,827.50 on the company on 13 March 2024. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination in 2022, the company committed 6 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks, the compliance training programme, the prescribed review of the compliance programme, record keeping and client identification. Specifically, FINTRAC criticised among other things a risk assessment based on a generic checklist, incomplete records and 14 cases in which identification details were missing for persons who provided funds for real estate transactions. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

PCMLTF Regulations 39(1), 64.2, 71(1)(b), 71(1)(c), 71(1)(d), 71(1)(e); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

29 Oct 2024

Original amount 107,827.5 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Mar 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 13 Mar 2026 · Direct link

The holding company of a homebuilding group and four group companies advertised custom-built homes in 2022 and 2023 on websites, in social media posts and in flyers as 'No. 1' in three categories, such as the range of building plots on offer and 'high quality at low cost'. The underlying survey only asked for impressions of selected providers' websites and did not check whether respondents knew the services; on 29 February 2024 a cease-and-desist order was issued against each of the five companies.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

1 Mar 2024

Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 Feb 2026 · Direct link

In the tender for the design of a school playground in Roermond, a construction company passed its bid on in advance to a co-bidder, which then deliberately bid higher (cover pricing). The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) imposed a fine of 59,000 EUR on the company that passed on its bid; the co-bidder escaped a fine as the first to come forward.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 6 Mededingingswet (Kartellverbot)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency programme (co-bidder 100 %), fine reduction for the company that passed on its bid for cooperation and acknowledgement

Published

7 Mar 2024

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 28 Feb 2026 · Direct link

On 11 January 2024 the ICO fined the company GBP 100,000 and served an enforcement notice on the same day. According to the ICO's findings, between 2 March and 31 May 2022 the company instigated 614,342 unsolicited marketing calls to numbers that had been registered with the TPS for more than 28 days; complainants said the calls promoted energy grants for resin driveways. The people called were also not given the caller information required by law. The ICO treated this as a breach of regulations 21 and 24 of PECR. Under the notice, payment by 13 February 2024 reduced the fine to GBP 80,000.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulation 21 und 24 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998 (Geldbuße); section 40 DPA 1998 (Enforcement Notice)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 100,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jan 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 11 Jan 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company is a real estate brokerage based in West Vancouver, British Columbia. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 83,655 on the company on 8 January 2024. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination in 2021, the company committed 5 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks, the prescribed review of the compliance programme, record keeping and client identification. Specifically, FINTRAC found among other things that no third-party determination had been documented, that three of 25 client records reviewed were incomplete and that identification details were missing for two persons who provided funds. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

PCMLTF Regulations 39(1)(b), 64.2, 71(1)(b), 71(1)(c), 71(1)(e); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

16 Jul 2024

Original amount 83,655 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Jan 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 8 Jan 2026 · Direct link

In December 2020, part of a new building collapsed while concrete was being poured on the roof level; two workers died and four were seriously injured. The manufacturer of the structural steel system had not ensured its load-bearing capacity, and the concrete firm had not adequately instructed its workers on correct measuring procedures. Fines of CA$260,000 (steel fabricator) and CA$140,000 (concrete firm).

Authority / court

Ontario Court of Justice London (Ermittlung: Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 25(1)(e)(iii) und Section 25(2)(a) Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ontario)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas by both companies.

Published

5 Jan 2024

Original amount 400,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Dec 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 15 Dec 2025 · Direct link

The DSB (Datenschutzbehörde, Austrian data protection authority) fined a non-profit housing company limited by shares 10,000 EUR because it left several requests for comments in a complaint procedure between November 2021 and June 2022 unanswered, thereby breaching its duty to cooperate with the supervisory authority. The cause was internal failings in forwarding official letters; the DSB found conditional intent. Mitigating factors were the confession, the absence of previous infringements and a new control system for official mail together with staff training.

Authority / court

Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)

Area of law

Data protection

Legal basis

Art. 31 iVm Art. 58 Abs. 1 lit. a und e DSGVO; Art. 83 Abs. 4 lit. a DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

No previous infringements; cooperation, insight and confession; new control system for official documents and internal data protection training.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 7 Dec 2025 · Direct link

The engineering firm undertook to pay a public interest fine of 14,600,000 EUR under a CJIP (convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, French deferred prosecution agreement) concluded on 29 November 2023 and validated on 4 December 2023. The investigation, including for bribery of foreign public officials, stemmed from a criminal complaint through which the company itself had passed audit reports and an anonymous letter to the judicial authorities in 2013.

Authority / court

Parquet national financier (PNF); Validierung durch den Präsidenten des Tribunal judiciaire de Paris

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials

Legal basis

Art. 41-1-2 Code de procédure pénale (corruption d'agent public étranger)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

4 Dec 2023

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 4 Dec 2025 · Direct link

Employees of the Californian construction company regularly worked 45 to 68 hours a week without being paid for overtime; there was also no paid sick leave and no proper wage statements. The California Labor Commissioner’s Office concluded a settlement with the company of more than 1 million USD for the benefit of 249 construction workers.

Authority / court

California Labor Commissioner's Office (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Working time

Legal basis

California Labor Code (Überstunden, Paid Sick Leave, Lohnabrechnung)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 21 Nov 2025 · Direct link

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) imposed a fine of 9.8 million EUR, jointly and severally, on an Austrian construction holding company and two construction companies for taking part in the construction cartel from July 2002 to October 2017. Because of their significant role in Lower Austria and Styria they were treated as main participants; collusion also concerned individual projects in other federal provinces. The acknowledgement given in the consensual termination of the proceedings and a certified compliance management system were taken into account in mitigation.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Consensual termination of the proceedings with a full acknowledgement; certified compliance management system.

Published

5 Mar 2024

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 15 Nov 2025 · Direct link

The ICO issued a reprimand to a UK supplier of construction materials. According to the ICO, on 11 March 2022 a threat actor gained access to the network, deployed ransomware and exfiltrated data, including personal data of 2,022 current and former UK employees (among other things identity documents, bank details and HR records). According to the ICO's findings, access was gained through a subsidiary's remote desktop service that had no multi-factor authentication; in addition, the company had carried out no formal security testing such as vulnerability scanning or penetration testing before the incident, and the attacker exploited a vulnerability that had been public for more than two years. The ICO found infringements of Article 32(1), 32(1)(b) and 32(1)(d) UK GDPR. The reprimand is undated; the date follows the ICO case page.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Information security and cyber · Security measures and risk management

Legal basis

Art. 32(1), 32(1)(b) und 32(1)(d) UK GDPR; Verwarnung nach Art. 58(2)(b) UK GDPR

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 14 Nov 2025 · Direct link

As operator, the company placed plywood from China, Russia and Turkey on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 24 Oct 2025 · Direct link

On 22 September 2023 the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM, Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets) imposed two fines on the listed property company: 2 million EUR because it did not publish until September 2021 the sale of ten plots in Noordwijk for 60 million EUR agreed in November 2020 (Art. 17(1) MAR), and 3 million EUR because interim publications, including the 2020 annual report, contained misleading statements about it (Art. 15 MAR). The objection failed; on 20 August 2025 the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Rotterdam District Court) reduced each fine by 2,500 EUR, solely because the proceedings had taken unreasonably long, to a total of 4,995,000 EUR. The company appealed against this judgment to the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal) on 29 September 2025.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Art. 17 Abs. 1 und Art. 15 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (Marktmissbrauchsverordnung, MAR)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction of 2,500 EUR per fine by the District Court because the proceedings took unreasonably long.

Published

11 Dec 2023

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 22 Sep 2025 · Direct link

Providers of road markings and traffic signs shared out regional and national tenders between 2011 and 2015, coordinated prices and exchanged sensitive information. The GVH (Gazdasági Versenyhivatal, Hungarian Competition Authority) imposed fines totalling HUF 284,840,000 on the individual companies, including 76.72m, 59.62m, 46.5m, 21.95m, 16.57m, 14m, 10.4m, 6.84m, 6m, 5.86m, 5.15m, 4.1m, 3.9m, 3.75m, 3m, 0.25m and 0.23m. One further company was ordered to introduce an internal compliance procedure and another to maintain its compliance programme for two years.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 11 Abs. 2 lit. a und d Tpvt. (ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz); Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

5 Oct 2023

Original amount 284,840,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Sep 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 14 Sep 2025 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company is a real estate brokerage based in Kelowna, British Columbia. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 156,750 on the company on 28 August 2023. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination in 2021, the company committed one violation of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violation concerned suspicious transaction reporting. According to FINTRAC, the company has appealed the decision to the Federal Court. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 7; Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

27 Oct 2023

Original amount 156,750 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Aug 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 28 Aug 2025 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company is a real estate brokerage based in Mississauga, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 132,000 on the company on 18 August 2023. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination in 2021, the company committed 5 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned appointing a compliance officer, written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks, the compliance training programme and the prescribed review of the compliance programme. According to FINTRAC, the company had appointed a person responsible for compliance, but that person did not implement a compliance programme; documented policies, a risk assessment, a training programme and a review were entirely absent. According to FINTRAC, the company has appealed the decision to the Federal Court. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTF Regulations 71(1)(a), 71(1)(b), 71(1)(c), 71(1)(d), 71(1)(e); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

17 Jan 2024

Original amount 132,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Aug 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 18 Aug 2025 · Direct link

As operator, the company placed okoumé timber from Gabon on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 8 Aug 2025 · Direct link

As operator, the company placed plywood from the Republic of the Congo on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 8 Aug 2025 · Direct link

According to WEKO's findings, the operator of a landfill in the canton of Basel-Landschaft abused its dominant position (Art. 7 para. 2 lit. b KG (Swiss Cartel Act), discrimination against trading partners). The sanction is between CHF 762,048 and 1,143,072 (exact amount redacted in the published version); in addition, there are procedural costs of CHF 196,530.

Authority / court

Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 7 Abs. 1 und Abs. 2 lit. b KG, Art. 49a Abs. 1 KG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 3 Jul 2025 · Direct link

A New Jersey building products manufacturer is paying USD 660,594 under a settlement with OFAC for three apparent violations of the Iran sanctions by its UAE subsidiary According to OFAC's findings, the subsidiary imported building materials from the United States and knowingly re-exported them to Iran; group policy was disregarded and trade documents were falsified. The parent company reported the matter after an internal review. OFAC treated the apparent violations as egregious and voluntarily self-disclosed; the base penalty was USD 1,100,991. OFAC signed the settlement agreement on 27 June 2023 and published it on 16 August 2023. Summarised in our own words.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes

Legal basis

Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 560.215 (drei mutmaßliche Verstöße); Vergleich nach den Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

16 Aug 2023

Original amount 660,594 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jun 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 5 · Company name anonymised since 27 Jun 2025 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, the company is a real estate brokerage based in Vancouver, British Columbia. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 57,915 on the company on 23 May 2023. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination in 2019, the company committed 6 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned appointing a compliance officer, written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks, the compliance training programme, the prescribed review of the compliance programme and record keeping. According to FINTRAC, the case is closed. Summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTF Regulations 39(1)(b), 71(1)(a), 71(1)(b), 71(1)(c), 71(1)(d), 71(1)(e); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

10 Aug 2023

Original amount 57,915 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 May 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 23 May 2025 · Direct link

On 18 May 2023 the ICO fined the company GBP 130,000 and served an enforcement notice on the same day. According to the ICO, the case formed part of Operation Tinago, which analysed complaints in the energy and home improvement sector. According to the ICO's findings, between 4 January and 11 November 2021 the company made 503,445 unsolicited marketing calls to numbers registered with the TPS, among other things about double glazing and free energy checks, resulting in 37 complaints. The ICO treated this as a breach of regulation 21 of PECR. Under the notice, early payment reduced the fine to GBP 104,000. The ICO published the case on 8 June 2023.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulation 21 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998 (Geldbuße); section 40 DPA 1998 (Enforcement Notice)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 130,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 18 May 2025 · Direct link

The two companies of a French construction group undertook, in a CJIP (convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, French deferred prosecution agreement), to pay a public interest fine totalling 7,964,000 EUR and to implement a three-year compliance programme under the supervision of the Agence française anticorruption (French anti-corruption agency), the costs of which the construction company bears up to 1,337,000 EUR. The investigation opened in 2021 concerned, among other things, favouritism in public procurement (favoritisme) and active and passive bribery of public officials; validated on 17 May 2023.

Authority / court

Parquet national financier (PNF); Validierung durch den Präsidenten des Tribunal judiciaire de Paris

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials

Legal basis

Art. 41-1-2 Code de procédure pénale (favoritisme, corruption d'agent public)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

17 May 2023

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 17 May 2025 · Direct link

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) imposed a fine of 27.15 million EUR, jointly and severally, on three Austrian construction companies for taking part in the Austrian construction cartel. From at least July 2002 to October 2017, prices were fixed, markets shared and information exchanged in public and private tenders for building and civil engineering across large parts of Austria, partly through unlawful consortia and bidding groups. Reductions were granted for cooperation as leniency applicant, the acknowledgement, a certified compliance system and a reorganisation.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation as leniency applicant (§ 11b WettbG, Austrian Competition Act), consensual termination with acknowledgement, certified compliance system, reorganisation.

Published

21 Mar 2024

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 27 Mar 2025 · Direct link

From 2013 to 2018, ten demolition and asbestos removal companies rigged tenders for 19 contracts worth more than 150 million GBP by means of sham bids; in some cases, winners made compensation payments and disguised them with false invoices. Highest fines: 17.57 million GBP and 16 million GBP.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Chapter I Competition Act 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement by eight companies; leniency for two companies

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

23 Mar 2023

Original amount 59,334,957 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Mar 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 5 · Company name anonymised since 23 Mar 2025 · Direct link

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer and trade regulator of New South Wales) cancelled the contractor licence of the construction company on 28 February 2023 and permanently disqualified it from holding any authority under the Home Building Act 1989 because it was no longer considered fit. This followed a conviction under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 with a fine of 900,000 AUD: in 2019 an overloaded facade scaffold, from which most ties had been removed, collapsed; one worker died and another was seriously injured. Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Authority / court

NSW Fair Trading

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Home Building Act 1989 (NSW), s 62(1)(f) und s 62(g)(i); vorausgehende Verurteilung nach s 32 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

4 Jun 2023

Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 Feb 2025 · Direct link

As operator, the company placed plywood from Malaysia on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 13 Feb 2025 · Direct link

Following an investigation by SafeWork NSW, the District Court of NSW fined the road construction company 340,000 AUD for a breach of ss 32/19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. In August 2019, a fire or explosion on a road crack sealing machine had caused a worker serious burns to his face, neck and ears.

Authority / court

SafeWork NSW

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) ss 32/19(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Original amount 340,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Dec 2022.

Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 9 Dec 2024 · Direct link

The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) fined four construction companies from the same city a total of almost 1 million EUR. Between January 2012 and February 2018 (one of the companies until summer 2017) they had agreed at recurring meetings, for several hundred road-works tenders issued by the city (contract volume around 18 million EUR), which of them would submit the lowest bid while the others bid higher. The fining decisions were issued between September and December 2022 by way of settlement and are final; a further road construction company, as leniency applicant, was granted immunity from fines.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

All four companies cooperated in the investigation and agreed to a settlement.

Published

15 Feb 2023

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 7 Dec 2024 · Direct link

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined four Austrian construction firms 26.33 million EUR. From July 2002 to October 2017 they took part in price fixing, market sharing and information exchange in building and civil engineering tenders in seven federal provinces, partly through unlawful consortia and bidding groups. The fine was based on a settlement; the Cartel Court rejected a later application by the companies to correct the decision, and the Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH, Supreme Court) upheld that ruling.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Consensual termination of the proceedings (with a smaller reduction because the proceedings were already pending), group-wide compliance management system, organisational separation of asphalt mixing plants, additional internal checks before forming consortia.

Published

25 Jul 2023

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 23 Nov 2024 · Direct link