Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by authority- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA) €9.71m 95 % · 1 case
- Financial Services Agency (FSA, 金融庁) auf Empfehlung der Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission (SESC, 証券取引等監視委員会) €511,488 5 % · 1 case
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Anonymised companies €9.71m 95 % · 1 case
- ENECHANGE株式会社 €511,488 5 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 1 | €9.71m |
| 2025 | 0 | – |
| 2026 | 1 | €511,488 |
2 cases
16 Sep 2026 ENECHANGE株式会社ENECHANGE: 91.495 million JPY over overstated revenue in quarterly report and prospectus €511,488
Because revenue had been overstated at the company and its consolidated subsidiary or subsidiaries, the quarterly report for the third quarter of 2023 (filed on 10 November 2023) showed a consolidated loss of 1,382,861 thousand JPY instead of 1,662,516 thousand JPY; the registration statement for a share issue relied on this report, and on 26 February 2024 3,784,200 shares were issued for 3,999,899,400 JPY. After the company admitted the facts and the amount, an administrative monetary penalty (kachōkin) of 91,495,000 JPY was imposed: 1,500,000 JPY for the quarterly report and 89,995,000 JPY for the registration statement.
Revenue recognition at subsidiaries should be scrutinised before any capital increase; an error in a quarterly report becomes many times more expensive through the prospectus.
Correct revenue recognition before capital market transactions
- Authority / court
- Financial Services Agency (FSA, 金融庁) auf Empfehlung der Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission (SESC, 証券取引等監視委員会)
- Area of law
- Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA, 金融商品取引法) Art. 172-4 Abs. 2 a. F., Art. 172-2 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, Art. 185-7 Abs. 1 und 14
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Mitigating circumstances
- Both partial amounts were halved because the company had filed a report for a reduction before the inspection began (Art. 185-7(14) FIEA).
- Published
- 17 Sep 2026
Original amount 91,495,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Sep 2026.
- 金融庁 – 決定要旨 令和８年度（判）第４号 ＥＮＥＣＨＡＮＧＥ株式会社 (Entscheidung vom 16.09.2026) Decision of an authority
- 金融庁 – ＥＮＥＣＨＡＮＧＥ（株）における四半期報告書等の虚偽記載に対する課徴金納付命令の決定について（令和８年９月17日） Press release of an authority
- SESC – ＥＮＥＣＨＡＮＧＥ株式会社における四半期報告書等の虚偽記載に係る課徴金納付命令勧告について（令和８年６月12日） Press release of an authority
- 金融庁 – 令和８年度課徴金納付命令等一覧 Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 May 2024 a Japanese electricity utilityJapanese utility: surcharge for misleading claims of cheaper electricity tariffs €9.71m
From April 2022 to January 2023, the utility claimed on its website and in a brochure that two household tariffs of one of its tariff plans were cheaper than its standard tariff for households using up to, or more than, 400 kWh a month respectively. Because the fuel-cost adjustment in these tariffs turned out higher, this was not true in some cases; following a joint investigation with a regional office of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC, 公正取引委員会), a surcharge of 1,655,940,000 JPY was imposed (1,086,170,000 JPY for one tariff, 569,770,000 JPY for the other).
Tariff comparisons must also take variable price components such as fuel-cost adjustments into account; otherwise 'cheaper' becomes a misleading price claim.
Price and tariff comparisons in advertising
- 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. 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 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
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 28 May 2024
Original amount 1,655,940,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 May 2024.
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 May 2026 · Direct link