Who was sanctioned, and for what?

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed penalties totalling 7.3 million AUD on the fund manager: 2.3 million AUD for misleading statements (s 12DF ASIC Act) and 5 million AUD for breaching its duty of care and diligence as responsible entity (s 601FC(1)(b) Corporations Act). Between October 2019 and May 2024 the Diversified Social Aspirations Fund, marketed as socially responsible, held through underlying funds interests in companies that derived revenue from fossil fuels, among others, even though the product documents promised certain exclusions and ongoing monitoring; the company did not respond to investor concerns by amending its statements.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) s 12DF (Geldbuße nach s 12GBB); Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 601FC(1)(b) (Geldbuße nach s 1317G)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Admissions, cooperation throughout the proceedings and contrition; since the proceedings began, an independent review of the product documents; no previous court findings.

Liability of senior managers

According to the agreed facts, senior management was involved (the company's then Executive Chair and Head of Investments).

Published

12 Aug 2026

Original amount 7,300,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Aug 2026.

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

The Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 20.5 million AUD on the exchange operator because a market announcement of 10 February 2022 stated that the project to replace its CHESS clearing and settlement system was progressing well. About six weeks later ASX announced a likely delay and paused the project in November 2022; in June 2026 it admitted contraventions of ss 12DA and 12DB of the ASIC Act.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) und (e)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

3 Jul 2026

Original amount 20,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Jul 2026.

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

HSBC admitted that from May 2023 to May 2024 it lacked adequate controls against unauthorised payments via its internal transfer channel, that from January 2020 it handled scam reports under the ePayments Code too slowly (144 days on average) and without applying the liability rules, and that until April 2024 it gave affected customers no orderly way back into their accounts. The Court imposed AUD 35 million (AUD 10 million for the fraud controls, AUD 22.5 million for the contraventions relating to the ePayments Code, AUD 2.5 million for restoring account access) and ordered notices on the website, in the app and in letters to customers.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

s 912A(1)(a), (5A) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); s 47(1)(a), (4) National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Admissions and jointly proposed penalty; remediation programme with payments of AUD 27,915,700.56 by 21 May 2026; no previous contraventions of a similar nature.

Liability of senior managers

According to the agreed facts, senior management was also aware before May 2023 of heightened fraud risks and gaps in the controls.

Published

18 Jun 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Jun 2026.

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

Between 2018 and 2020 the since-collapsed CFD issuer Union Standard and its two authorised representatives EuropeFX and TradeFred pushed inexperienced and vulnerable customers into trading risky contracts for difference using aggressive sales tactics; customers lost more than AUD 83 million, while in most cases the representatives profited from those losses. The Court imposed AUD 156.7 million on Union Standard, AUD 114.1 million on EuropeFX and AUD 29.4 million on TradeFred, together with a permanent ban on EuropeFX and an obligation for it to refund customers’ net deposits. For the first time a licensee was also penalised for distributing CFDs to customers in China although it knew or ought to have known of their legal risk.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth): Verbot von unconscionable conduct und irreführenden Angaben; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Pflicht des Lizenzinhabers zu effizienter, ehrlicher und fairer Leistungserbringung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

12 Jun 2026

Original amount 300,200,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jun 2026.

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

ASIC issued an infringement notice because on 208 business days between October 2024 and August 2025 Deutsche Bank had not accurately reported the “direction” fields for 20,483 outstanding and 244,091 terminated or matured OTC derivative transactions, mostly foreign exchange trades, to trade repositories. The bank allegedly paid AUD 2 million under the infringement notice; payment is not an admission of guilt.

Authority / court

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Rule 2.2.6 ASIC Derivative Transaction Rules (Reporting) 2024; reg 7.5A.104 Corporations Regulations 2001

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation with ASIC and measures to prevent further reporting errors.

Published

13 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jun 2026.

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

The Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 10 million AUD because, between July 2022 and April 2023, the provider of crypto derivatives wrongly classified 524 retail clients – more than 85% of its Australian client base – as wholesale clients, depriving them of, among other things, a Product Disclosure Statement, a target market determination and a compliant internal dispute resolution system. The causes were deficient onboarding processes – such as a multiple-choice test that could be retaken without limit – and inadequate training and review; the affected clients suffered 8.66 million AUD in trading losses and paid 3.89 million AUD in fees.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 1012B(3)(a)(i) und (iii), 994B(1) und (2)(a), 912A(1)(a), (b), (f) und (g); Geldbuße nach s 1317G

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Full compensation of affected clients (around 13.1 million AUD) overseen by ASIC, cooperation in the investigation and the proceedings, admission of all contraventions; no previous court findings.

Published

27 Mar 2026

Original amount 10,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Mar 2026.

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

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 35 million AUD on the securities dealer because, between December 2009 and February 2024, inadequate systems, processes and controls led it to misreport at least 73 million short sales to the market operator and to omit required regulatory data from orders. The court also found inadequate risk management and misleading conduct, and ordered a compliance programme involving an independent expert.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 798H(1)(b), 912A(1)(h), 1041H(1); ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) 2017; Geldbuße nach s 1317G(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

50 to 249

Mitigating circumstances

Early acceptance of the contraventions, sustained cooperation with ASIC and contrition; the errors were reported to ASIC once identified and promptly remediated; no previous court findings of similar conduct.

Liability of senior managers

According to the decision, the errors arose at an operational level; ASIC did not allege any involvement of senior management.

Published

16 Mar 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Mar 2026.

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

The Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 2.5 million AUD on the fixed-income specialist because between March 2019 and June 2023 it lacked adequate cyber security measures, resources and risk management systems – among other things, there was no multi-factor authentication for remote access, no regular penetration testing and no mandatory security awareness training. In a 2023 attack around 385 GB of confidential data were stolen and some 18,000 clients were notified; the court also ordered a compliance programme with an independent expert.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Information security and cyber · Security measures and risk management

Legal basis

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 912A(1)(a), (d) und (h) i. V. m. s 912A(5A)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Full cooperation, admissions and an agreed statement of facts; no previous contraventions; the known financial losses (remediation costs of around 1.5 million AUD) were largely borne by the company itself.

Published

9 Feb 2026

Original amount 2,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Feb 2026.

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

In April 2023, as a bank managing a AUD 14 billion government bond issue for the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), ANZ sold large volumes of bond futures around the time of pricing without informing the AOFM of its outstanding sales, and from 2021 to 2023 reported inflated secondary market turnover in government bonds to it. The Court imposed AUD 135 million: AUD 85 million for the bond issue (including AUD 80 million for unconscionable conduct) and AUD 50 million for the inaccurate turnover reporting, together with a compliance programme at its own cost. In three retail matters a further AUD 115 million was imposed on the same day in a separate judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

ss 12CB(1), 12DB(1)(a) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth); ss 912A(1)(a), (ca), (f), (5A), 912DAA, 1041H(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Constructive engagement with ASIC and admissions at the earliest available opportunity.

Published

19 Dec 2025

Original amount 135,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Dec 2025.

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

On an application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the Federal Court of Australia allegedly imposed civil penalties totalling 925,000 AUD: 575,000 AUD on the licensee R M Capital and 350,000 AUD on its authorised representative The SMSF Club. Between November 2014 and July 2016 SMSF Club accepted referral fees totalling 135,863.65 AUD (excluding GST) on 52 occasions from a property provider that referred clients to it, who then set up self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) with its help and used them to buy property from that provider; the court treated this as prohibited conflicted remuneration, and R M Capital, as licensee, had through gross negligence failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Both companies must provide ASIC with an independent expert's report on their compliance arrangements within six months; R M Capital lodged an appeal on 15 January 2026. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (Verfahren der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Gifts, hospitality and benefits

Legal basis

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 963F, s 963G(1), s 1317G(1E), s 1101B(1)(a)(i)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

For SMSF Club, ASIC and the company submitted as mitigating that it ended the referral arrangement immediately after ASIC raised concerns in 2016, cooperated and agreed to resolve the matter, that these were the first contraventions alleged against it and that no client loss was alleged; the court allegedly approved the jointly proposed penalty.

Published

19 Dec 2025

Original amount 925,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2025.

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

The Markets Disciplinary Panel (MDP) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator) allegedly issued an infringement notice for 3,880,100 AUD to the second-largest participant on the ASX 24 futures market because, between May 2023 and February 2024, it allowed 33 orders from two clients in electricity and wheat futures, placed shortly before market close, which it should have suspected were intended to create a false or misleading appearance in the market ('marking the close', Rule 3.1.2(1)(b)(iii) of the Market Integrity Rules). The MDP considered the conduct reckless after repeated contact from ASIC and treated the firm's compliance culture as an aggravating factor; payment is not an admission of liability.

Authority / court

Markets Disciplinary Panel (MDP) der Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Futures Markets) 2017, Rule 3.1.2(1)(b)(iii); Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 798H(1); Infringement Notice nach reg 7.2A.04 Corporations Regulations 2001

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

2 Sep 2025

Original amount 3,880,100 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jul 2025.

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

Following proceedings by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, the federal corporate and financial services regulator), the Federal Court of Australia on 18 March 2025 ordered LGSS Pty Ltd, trustee of the Active Super pension fund, to pay 10.5 million AUD and to send a notice of its misconduct to members and publish it on the fund's web pages. The fund had advertised that it excluded investments in, among others, gambling, coal mining and oil tar sands and, after the invasion of Ukraine, Russia, yet held such investments directly or indirectly; the court had found the breaches of the ban on misleading representations in June 2024.

Authority / court

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) / Federal Court of Australia

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12DB(1)(a) und 12DF(1); Strafe nach s 12GBB, Veröffentlichungsanordnung nach s 12GLB

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

The court accepted some contrition, cooperation with ASIC through attendance at voluntary conferences and compliance improvements (including ESG and consumer law training for the board, executive leadership and staff, and an external review of internal controls), but gave less weight to contrition and cooperation because of how the case was defended; the merger with another fund trustee reduced the weight of specific deterrence.

Liability of senior managers

LGSS accepted in the proceedings that senior management was ultimately responsible for the absence of properly functioning systems to prevent false ESG representations; the proceedings were brought against the company only.

Published

18 Mar 2025

Original amount 10,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2025.

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

Between 2016 and 2018 Allianz Australia and AWP, the company marketing and administering travel insurance on Allianz’s behalf, published online information on travel insurance that stated maximum benefits without adequately pointing out sub-limits, conditions and exclusions. The Court convicted Allianz on six counts at AUD 2.25 million each (AUD 13.5 million) and AWP on one count at AUD 3.3 million, in each case after a 25% discount for early guilty pleas. 781 customers had previously received compensation totalling AUD 1,264,864.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

ss 1041E(1), 1311(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, voluntary disclosure, full cooperation with the investigating authorities and compensation of affected customers.

Liability of senior managers

In 2016 a General Manager declined an external legal review of the website estimated at AUD 25,000 to 30,000; the Court saw the cause of the offences in an unwillingness to spend money on adequate oversight.

Published

28 Feb 2025

Original amount 16,800,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Feb 2025.

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

From July 2013 to March 2023 the trustee of Australia’s largest superannuation fund did not merge the duplicate accounts of around 90,700 members, although s 108A of the SIS Act requires this; members lost around AUD 69 million through duplicate fees, insurance premiums and lost earnings. The Court found a breach of fundamental trustee obligations and imposed AUD 27 million; all affected members have been remediated.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

ss 52, 108A Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Self-report of potential breaches to ASIC in December 2021; remediation of all affected members.

Liability of senior managers

According to the judgment, issues were not escalated and senior management oversight was absent; under-resourcing delayed the remedy.

Published

21 Feb 2025

Original amount 27,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Feb 2025.

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

From October 2021 Bit Trade offered more than 1,100 Australian customers a “margin extension” product, which the Court classified as a credit facility, without having made the required target market determination. Customers paid more than USD 7 million in fees and interest and suffered trading losses of more than USD 5 million. The Court imposed AUD 8 million; it was the first penalty for a missing target market determination.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Design and Distribution Obligations des Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Pflicht zur Target Market Determination)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

12 Dec 2024

Original amount 8,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Dec 2024.

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