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.

87cases from 1 jurisdiction
€940.6mTotal of monetary amounts (62 cases with an amount)
€4.59mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

Where?

by authority
  1. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) €526m 56 % · 52 cases
  2. Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), Bank of England €200.5m 21 % · 8 cases
  3. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) €126.2m 13 % · 1 case
  4. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) und Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) €55.6m 6 % · 1 case
  5. Bank of England €13.8m 1 % · 1 case
  6. Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) für die Gas and Electricity Markets Authority €6.34m 1 % · 1 case
  7. HM Treasury, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) €6.27m 1 % · 6 cases
  8. Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Verfahren der Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)) €4.64m 0 % · 1 case
  9. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) €1.2m 0 % · 14 cases
  10. The Pensions Regulator (TPR), Determinations Panel €120,185 0 % · 1 case
  11. 1 more€0

What for?

by area of law

All areas of law

  1. Money laundering and terrorist financing €355.5m 38 % · 20 cases
  2. Capital markets and financial supervision €340.8m 36 % · 31 cases
  3. Competition law €126.4m 13 % · 2 cases
  4. Information security and cyber €79.4m 8 % · 4 cases
  5. Consumer protection and online retail €31m 3 % · 11 cases
  6. Sanctions and export control €6.27m 1 % · 6 cases
  7. Data protection €1.2m 0 % · 13 cases

Who?

by company
  1. Anonymised companies €538.4m 57 % · 44 cases
  2. Royal Bank of Canada, Morgan Stanley, HSBC u. a. (5 Banken; Deutsche Bank als Kronzeugin bußgeldfrei) €126.2m 13 % · 1 case
  3. Nationwide Building Society €50.4m 5 % · 1 case
  4. Barclays Bank Plc €45.4m 5 % · 1 case
  5. Barclays plc €35.9m 4 % · 1 case
  6. Monzo Bank Limited €24.5m 3 % · 1 case
  7. Metro Bank Plc €20.1m 2 % · 1 case
  8. Macquarie Bank Limited, London Branch €15.6m 2 % · 1 case
  9. Vocalink Limited €13.8m 1 % · 1 case
  10. U K Insurance Limited €12.3m 1 % · 1 case
  11. 34 more€58m

When?

per year, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
20228€214m
202321€163.8m
202423€251.3m
202520€281.1m
202615€30.4m

87 cases

11 Aug 2026 Citibank, N.A., London BranchOFSI imposes 4.7 million GBP on Citibank London over Russia payments United KingdomBreaches of sanctions and embargoes €5.54m

Mainly between February and November 2022, the London branch processed 970 payments totalling around 19.7 million GBP that breached Russia and anti-corruption sanctions. The causes were overloaded alert handling after the wave of designations, delayed escalation and human error; the bank voluntarily disclosed most of the breaches and received a 20% reduction from HM Treasury's Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI).

What organisations can take from it

During waves of designations, alert handling needs additional trained capacity – backlogs and wrong decisions in screening are themselves sanctions breaches.

Relevance to training and awareness

Handling sanctions alerts, escalation and freezing

Authority / court
HM Treasury, Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI)
Area of law
Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes
Legal basis
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019; Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions Regulations 2021; s. 146 Policing and Crime Act 2017
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
Predominantly voluntary disclosure and cooperation (20% reduction); exceptional burden caused by the 2022 sanctions packages taken into account
Published
2 Sep 2026

Original amount 4,732,830.58 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Aug 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

27 Jul 2026 Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited (in liquidation)FCA: Public censure for Equity for Growth (Securities) over misleading minibond promotions United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing Reprimand or warning

The FCA publicly censured the corporate finance firm Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited. The FCA found that between January 2018 and August 2019 the firm approved seven information memoranda for four unregulated minibond issuers as financial promotions. In the FCA's view, these documents omitted key information, such as the level and range of commissions, so investors could not properly assess the risk. Because the firm was wound up by the court in March 2026 on the FCA's petition, no fine was imposed; the FCA stated that it would otherwise have been £386,467 (including disgorgement).

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
COBS 4.2.1(1)R; section 205 FSMA 2000 (Public Censure)
Action
Reprimand or warning
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

16 Jul 2026 HDI Global SEPRA: £4.165m fine on HDI Global SE for inaccurate data on the FSCS compensation scheme United KingdomDisclosure and reporting obligations €4.91m

The PRA fined HDI Global SE, an insurer headquartered in Hanover that operates in the UK through a branch, 4,165,000 GBP. Between August 2021 and August 2024 the firm repeatedly submitted incorrect data on liabilities protected by the FSCS and on the FSCS levy tariff, including in supposedly corrected submissions; it lacked written procedures, clear accountability and internal oversight, and before summer 2023 it did not consult the PRA's rules and guidance.

What organisations can take from it

Returns used to calculate levies need documented calculation procedures and independent review – especially where corrections are submitted.

Authority / court
Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), Bank of England
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
PRA Fundamental Rules 2 und 6; s. 206 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
Detailed account under the Early Account Scheme, settlement with a 30% discount (otherwise 5,950,000 GBP), corrected historical data and additional FSCS levies paid; in the PRA's view the breaches were neither deliberate nor reckless.
Published
20 Jul 2026

Original amount 4,165,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jul 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

30 Jun 2026 Curtis Faraday LimitedFCA bars debt adviser Curtis Faraday from taking new customers over consumer risks United KingdomOrganisational requirements Order

The FCA barred the debt advice firm Curtis Faraday Limited with immediate effect from accepting new customers or referrals for debt, insolvency and IVA-related activities and required it to refer existing customers to other advice providers. Based on file reviews and call recordings, the FCA saw indications that customers' financial information was distorted during the advice process, that the business model, with close links to insolvency service providers, created conflicts of interest and a bias towards commission-generating solutions, that staff circumvented controls and that the firm repeatedly gave the FCA incomplete or inconsistent information.

What organisations can take from it

Debt advice must be impartial: commission incentives and close links to debt solution providers require effective controls against product bias.

Relevance to training and awareness

Impartial advice and handling conflicts of interest

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
s. 55L(3)(a) FSMA 2000; Threshold Conditions nach Schedule 6 FSMA (paras. 2C, 2D, 2E und 2F)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

19 Jun 2026 CACEIS Bank (UK Branch)FCA: public censure for CACEIS UK over deficient checks on a custody client United KingdomCustomer due diligence Reprimand or warning

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a public censure because the London branch opened and operated accounts for the wealth manager WealthTek, although its own register searches showed that it lacked permissions to hold client assets, and overlooked a restriction noted in the register; 16 monitoring alerts were not worked through over two years, and more than £314 million flowed through the accounts. In view of cooperation and a voluntary payment of £31.7 million to WealthTek clients, the FCA refrained from imposing a fine (otherwise £23.1 million after discount).

What organisations can take from it

Anyone who notices a discrepancy in the register must clarify and document it before accounts are activated.

Relevance to training and awareness

Register checks and follow-up on identified KYC gaps

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Section 205 FSMA (Public Censure) wegen Verstoßes gegen FCA Principle 2; Maßstab u. a. SYSC 6.1.1R, 6.3.1R, 6.3.3R und Regulations 18, 27, 28 MLR 2017
Action
Reprimand or warning
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation, acknowledgement of the deficiencies and a voluntary payment of £31,714,068 to those harmed
Published
25 Jun 2026
Sources

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

2 Jun 2026 Euro Exchange Securities UK LtdFCA halts e-money institution Euro Exchange Securities UK over money laundering risks United KingdomInternal controls Order

The FCA barred the e-money institution Euro Exchange Securities UK Ltd with immediate effect from providing any e-money and payment services, prohibited any dealing with customer funds without its consent and required an independent third party to oversee their return. According to the FCA, the reasons were systemic weaknesses in combating financial crime – in customer risk assessment, customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence, screening, transaction monitoring and governance – together with indications that the obligations to safeguard customer funds were not being met. On the FCA's application the court appointed interim managers on 4 June 2026 and confirmed the special administration on 11 June 2026.

What organisations can take from it

Payment institutions must be able to evidence customer due diligence, transaction monitoring and the segregation of customer funds at all times, or face immediate shutdown.

Relevance to training and awareness

Anti-money laundering and safeguarding of customer funds at payment service providers

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
reg. 11(1) Electronic Money Regulations 2011 i. V. m. regs. 6(5)(b), 6(5)(c), 6(6)(d), 20 und 37 EMRs; Money Laundering Regulations 2017
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
5 Jun 2026

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

30 Apr 2026 Deutsche Bank AG London BranchOFSI: GBP 165,000 settlement penalty for Deutsche Bank AG London Branch over payments to an app developer United KingdomBreaches of sanctions and embargoes €190,476

On 30 April 2026 OFSI imposed a monetary penalty of GBP 165,000 on the London branch of Deutsche Bank AG by way of settlement. According to OFSI's findings, in June and July 2022 the branch processed two payments totalling GBP 635,618.75 for a customer to a Russian app developer owned by a designated entity. According to OFSI, its screening provider's list did not contain ownership information on the designated entity, so the beneficiary was not identified. The bank had voluntarily disclosed the payments on 20 September 2022. After a notice of intent of 12 September 2025, which OFSI upheld on 2 December 2025, the bank requested a ministerial review on 23 January 2026; the proceedings ended in settlement. The publication does not state the amount originally proposed. Source: Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), HM Treasury, "Imposition of Monetary Penalty – Deutsche Bank AG London Branch (“DBLB”)", 19 May 2026, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/imposition-of-monetary-penalty-deutsche-bank-ag-london-branch-dblb. 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
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, reg. 12; Geldbuße nach s. 146 Policing and Crime Act 2017
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
19 May 2026

Original amount 165,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Apr 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

21 Apr 2026 Unternehmen (Anrufe zur Schadensregulierung), UK (anonymisiert)ICO: enforcement notice against a UK company over claims management calls without consent United KingdomMarketing and consent Order

The ICO issued an enforcement notice to a UK company. The ICO found that the company had instigated calls about claims management services without the consent of the people called. Under regulation 21A of PECR such calls are only permitted with prior consent; the ICO also found a breach of regulation 24. The notice is an enforcement notice and does not impose a fine.

Authority / court
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
Area of law
Data protection · Marketing and consent
Legal basis
Regulations 21A und 24 PECR; section 40 DPA 1998
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

20 Apr 2026 Sapia Partners LLPFCA: Public censure for Sapia Partners over lack of segregation for client money United KingdomOrganisational requirements Reprimand or warning

The FCA publicly censured Sapia Partners LLP. Sapia was responsible for client money accounts operated in connection with its appointed representative, a wealth manager, but the FCA found that from 2014 to 2020 it did not ensure effective segregation between those making payments and those reconciling the accounts. About £150 million was deposited into the accounts in that period, exposing clients to a risk of loss. Sapia agreed to a voluntary payment of £19,637,950 to that representative's clients; for this reason the FCA did not impose a fine, which it said would otherwise have been £7,412,000 (after discount).

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
FCA Principle 10; CASS 7.12.2R bzw. CASS 7.3.2R; section 205 FSMA 2000
Action
Reprimand or warning
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

27 Mar 2026 Dinosaur Merchant Bank LimitedDinosaur Merchant Bank: 338,000 GBP – CFD trading without market abuse surveillance United KingdomOrganisational requirements €389,760

After a new order management system was introduced in June 2024, CFD transactions with an underlying value of around 3.05 billion USD were not captured by automated trade surveillance. The bank identified the error in October 2024 but only remedied it in May 2025; the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed 338,000 GBP after a 30% cooperation discount.

What organisations can take from it

With every system migration, check whether surveillance systems actually capture the new data flows.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 16 Abs. 2 UK MAR; SYSC 6.1.1R; FCA Principle 3
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation (30% discount); CFD business discontinued in May 2025.

Original amount 338,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

23 Mar 2026 The Bank of London Group Limited und Oplyse Holdings Limited (vormals The Bank of London Group Holdings Limited)PRA: £2m fine on The Bank of London and its parent for misleading it about capital United KingdomDisclosure and reporting obligations €2.31m

The PRA fined The Bank of London Group Limited and its financial holding company Oplyse Holdings Limited 2,000,000 GBP. Between October 2021 and May 2024 they failed to meet their capital requirements for an extended period, repeatedly misled the PRA about their actual capital position – including with fabricated documents – and did not properly manage or report a large exposure arising from a loan by the bank to its parent. It was the PRA's first fine for a lack of integrity and its first action against a financial holding company; a penalty of 12 million GBP would have been appropriate.

What organisations can take from it

Only the true capital position counts with the regulator – embellished or fabricated evidence turns a capital problem into an integrity breach.

Relevance to training and awareness

Truthfulness towards the regulator; no embellished capital evidence

Authority / court
Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), Bank of England
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
PRA Fundamental Rules 1, 3, 4 und 7; PRA Rulebook: Reporting (CRR) Part Kap. 3 Art. 5 und Art. 7, Large Exposures (CRR) Part Art. 393–395, Notifications 2.3, Related Party Transaction Risk 2.1 und 2.3, Definition of Capital 7A; ss. 206 und 192Y FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
Because serious financial hardship was demonstrated, the PRA reduced the penalty from 12 million GBP to 2 million GBP; the firms settled with the PRA.
Published
24 Mar 2026

Original amount 2,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

20 Mar 2026 Conclusive Financial Limited (auch „PCP Refunds“)FCA orders Conclusive to remove misleading adverts for motor finance claims United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing Order

The FCA directed the claims management company Conclusive Financial Limited, which also trades as “PCP Refunds”, with immediate effect to remove adverts for motor finance compensation claims and to refrain from similar adverts in future. The adverts used, without permission, edited video clips of the founder of a well-known consumer finance website as well as the FCA logo, presented the firm's authorised status as a mark of quality, cited an unsubstantiated average refund of 1,846 GBP and did not adequately explain the fees charged for its “No Win, No Fee” service.

What organisations can take from it

Financial promotions must not borrow trust from celebrities or regulators' logos, nor promise unsubstantiated average amounts.

Relevance to training and awareness

Compliant advertising on social media; no use of celebrities or regulators' logos

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
s. 137S FSMA 2000; CMCOB 3.2.1R, 3.2.7R und 3.2.9R
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
14 Apr 2026

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

10 Mar 2026 U K Insurance LimitedPRA: £10.625m fine on U K Insurance for an incorrect Solvency II balance sheet United KingdomDisclosure and reporting obligations €12.3m

The PRA fined U K Insurance Limited, the principal insurance company of the Direct Line Group (part of Aviva since July 2025), 10,625,000 GBP. Because of ineffective controls and staffing and capability issues in its finance and actuarial functions, its Solvency II balance sheet was miscalculated in 2023 and 2024, so that the firm overstated its solvency to the PRA and the market; the error went undetected for a considerable time. It was the first case under the PRA's Early Account Scheme.

What organisations can take from it

Regulatory metrics such as the solvency ratio need effective preventive and detective controls and sufficiently qualified staff.

Relevance to training and awareness

Controls, capability and training in finance and actuarial functions

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), Bank of England
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
PRA Fundamental Rule 6; Notifications 6.1; Reporting 2.4 und 3.2 (PRA Rulebook); s. 206 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
Participation in the Early Account Scheme with early admissions: 50% discount (otherwise 21.25 million GBP); after discovery management notified the PRA without delay, corrected the published figures and remedied the causes; in the PRA's view the breaches were neither deliberate nor reckless.
Published
11 Mar 2026

Original amount 10,625,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

3 Feb 2026 Rangecourt SA (vormals Banque Havilland SA)Upper Tribunal: £4m penalty on former Banque Havilland over plan to manipulate the Qatari riyal United KingdomMarket abuse and insider dealing €4.64m

In 2017 staff at the London branch of the Luxembourg private bank Banque Havilland SA (now Rangecourt SA) prepared a paper setting out manipulative trading strategies intended to put pressure on the Qatari riyal and its peg to the US dollar; it was meant for a UAE sovereign wealth fund. On 3 February 2026 the Upper Tribunal upheld the breach of Principle 1 (integrity) but reduced the penalty of 10,000,000 GBP set by the FCA in its Decision Notice of 17 January 2023 to 4,000,000 GBP.

What organisations can take from it

Offering clients strategies that amount to market manipulation breaches a firm's duty of integrity, even if none of it is ever carried out.

Relevance to training and awareness

Integrity: no market manipulation concepts for clients or prospects

Authority / court
Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (Verfahren der Financial Conduct Authority (FCA))
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Principle 1 der FCA Principles for Businesses; s. 206 FSMA 2000; Entscheidung nach s. 133 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
reduced
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
According to the findings the paper was not passed on and the strategy was never implemented; the bank itself reported the matter to the Luxembourg supervisor CSSF and to the FCA, cooperated, had it investigated at its own cost of around £2.5m, and the employees involved had left the bank.
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
3 Feb 2026

Original amount 4,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Feb 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

15 Jan 2026 Allay Claims LtdICO: £120,000 fine for Allay Claims over marketing texts about PPI tax refunds United KingdomMarketing and consent €138,344

The ICO fined Allay Claims Ltd £120,000 and issued an enforcement notice. The ICO found that the company had sent a large volume of unsolicited text messages promoting services to reclaim tax on PPI refunds; the enforcement notice gives the period as 1 February 2023 to 13 February 2024. The ICO found a serious breach of regulation 22 of PECR (electronic marketing without consent).

Authority / court
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
Area of law
Data protection · Marketing and consent
Legal basis
Regulation 22 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 120,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jan 2026.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

17 Dec 2025 BeAccount Ltd (Handelsname Payine)FCA bars e-money institution BeAccount from business over customer due diligence failings United KingdomCustomer due diligence Order

The FCA barred BeAccount Ltd (trading as Payine), an authorised e-money institution, with immediate effect from all e-money and payment services, including taking on new customers and new customer funds, and required it to return customer funds and to inform customers and the public. After reviewing client files, the FCA had serious concerns that the institution was not complying with the money laundering rules – on risk assessment, internal policies, customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence for politically exposed persons – and was not managing its risks effectively.

What organisations can take from it

Customer risk ratings must be maintained transparently and reviewed regularly; treating high-risk customers as low risk puts the authorisation at stake.

Relevance to training and awareness

Customer due diligence and customer risk rating

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
reg. 11(1) Electronic Money Regulations 2011; Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (regs. 18, 19, 27, 28 und 35)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

11 Dec 2025 Nationwide Building SocietyFCA: £44 million against Nationwide over financial crime controls United KingdomCustomer due diligence €50.4m

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) imposed £44,078,500 (after a 30% discount) because, from October 2016 to July 2021, the building society had no effective systems to keep due diligence and risk assessments for personal customers up to date, and did not identify personal accounts used for business purposes. As a result, one customer received 24 fraudulent Covid furlough payments totalling £27.3 million.

What organisations can take from it

Keep customer profiles continuously up to date – anyone who postpones known weaknesses for years ends up paying for the abuse.

Relevance to training and awareness

Identifying personal accounts used for business purposes

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
FCA Principle 3; SYSC 6.1.1R und 6.3.1R
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
30% settlement discount
Published
12 Dec 2025

Original amount 44,078,500 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Dec 2025.

Sources

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

10 Nov 2025 Bank of Scotland PLCOFSI: GBP 160,000 penalty for Bank of Scotland over payments through a designated person's account United KingdomBreaches of sanctions and embargoes €182,274

On 10 November 2025 OFSI imposed a monetary penalty of GBP 160,000 on Bank of Scotland PLC; without the 50 per cent discount for voluntary disclosure it would have been GBP 320,000, according to OFSI. According to OFSI's findings, between 8 and 24 February 2023 the bank processed 24 payments totalling GBP 77,383.39 through the account of a person designated under Russia sanctions, including credits of GBP 76,000. According to OFSI, screening failed to pick up a variant of the name, and a human error occurred during a PEP review on 20 February 2023. The notice of intent of 28 August 2025 had proposed GBP 175,000. The bank did not request a ministerial review. Source: Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), HM Treasury, "Imposition of monetary penalty: Bank of Scotland PLC", 26 January 2026, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/imposition-of-monetary-penalty-bank-of-scotland-plc. 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
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, reg. 11, 12; Geldbuße nach s. 146 Policing and Crime Act 2017
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
26 Jan 2026

Original amount 160,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Nov 2025.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

24 Oct 2025 Verus Financial Services LimitedFCA strips Verus Financial Services of permissions after deliberate breach of restriction United KingdomOrganisational requirements Order

The FCA removed all regulated activities from the permission of the financial intermediary Verus Financial Services Limited with immediate effect and imposed an asset restriction. By its own admission the firm had repeatedly and deliberately breached a restriction it had voluntarily accepted in September 2023, which prohibited payments above 5,000 GBP without the FCA's consent, had failed to comply with a Financial Ombudsman Service decision of 30 June 2024 in favour of a customer and, in the FCA's view, had not been open and cooperative.

What organisations can take from it

Restrictions voluntarily agreed with the regulator are binding – deliberately breaching them quickly leads to loss of permission.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
ss. 55J(2)(a)(ii) und 55L(3)(a) FSMA 2000; Threshold Condition para. 2E Schedule 6 FSMA; DISP 3.7.12R; Principles 6 und 11 der FCA Principles for Businesses
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

13 Oct 2025 BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLPFCA: Public censure for BlueCrest over conflicts between internal and external funds United KingdomOrganisational requirements Reprimand or warning

The FCA publicly censured BlueCrest Capital Management (UK) LLP. Between October 2011 and December 2015 BlueCrest managed external funds for investors as well as an internal fund open only to partners and staff. The FCA found that portfolio managers were moved from the external to the internal fund without the resulting conflict of interest being managed adequately, leaving external investors with an inferior service. Instead of a fine, the FCA took into account BlueCrest's agreement to pay USD 101 million in redress to non-US investors.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
FCA Principle 8 (Interessenkonflikte); section 205 FSMA 2000; section 55L(5) FSMA 2000 (Entschädigungsauflage)
Action
Reprimand or warning
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text, no contact details and no IP address.

Load 20 more of 67

Ready for training that actually lands?

Try the combination for free: automated administration for you, learning formats that fit your team, with no minimum or credit card.

Start 14-day free trial