Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific: 1,838 cases from 37 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- Auckland District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission) 1 case 25 % · €835,189
- Auckland District Court (Anklage: Department of Internal Affairs) 1 case 25 % · €589,190
- Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) 1 case 25 % ·
- High Court (Klage: Commerce Commission) 1 case 25 % · €1.8m
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by companyWhen?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 1 | €835,189 |
| Q1 2025 | 1 | – |
| Q2 2025 | 1 | €589,190 |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 1 | €1.8m |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
4 cases
28 Nov 2025 Westpac New Zealand LimitedWestpac NZ: 3.64 million NZD for breaching responsible lending principles €1.8m
The bank lacked adequate systems to give borrowers and, in some cases, guarantors the legally required information about their loans, and in some cases did not apply agreed interest rate discounts on home loans; up to 11,398 borrowers and up to 3,012 guarantors were affected. Following a settlement with the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's competition, consumer and credit regulator), the High Court declared breaches of the responsible lending principles (s 9C CCCFA) and imposed an allegedly agreed civil pecuniary penalty of 3.64 million NZD, according to the Commission the highest under the CCCFA so far. Westpac had self-reported the conduct and refunded 2.67 million NZD to those affected.
Lenders must invest in systems and controls that reliably deliver mandatory disclosures and agreed terms; self-reporting does not protect against a high penalty.
Mandatory disclosure for loans and applying agreed terms
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- High Court (Klage: Commerce Commission)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 9C(1), 9C(2)(a)(ii), 9C(2)(a)(iii)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- Self-report, admission of the breaches before proceedings were filed and refunds of 2.67 million NZD to those affected.
- Published
- 28 Nov 2025
Original amount 3,640,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Nov 2025.
- Commerce Commission: Westpac NZ penalised $3.64 million for not being a responsible lender (28.11.2025) Press release of an authority
- Commerce Commission, Case register: Westpac New Zealand Limited (PRJ0048364) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Apr 2025 Qian DuoDuo LimitedQian DuoDuo: 1,125,000 NZD – transfers of over 19 million NZD not reported €589,190
Between June 2018 and September 2019 the Auckland money remitter and foreign exchange provider (trading as Lidong Foreign Exchange) failed to report 197 transfers to China totalling more than 19.14 million NZD: 26 suspicious activities (4.72 million NZD) and 171 prescribed transactions (14.42 million NZD); it checked the source of funds of the two individuals through whom the transactions were conducted only on the basis of questionable documents. On 28 April 2025 the Auckland District Court imposed a fine of 1,125,000 NZD. The company has appealed the decision. The decision is not final.
Suspicious activity reports and prescribed transaction reports are subject to deadlines – failing to verify the source of funds robustly risks penalties running into millions.
Suspicious activity reporting and source-of-funds checks
- Authority / court
- Auckland District Court (Anklage: Department of Internal Affairs)
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
- Legal basis
- AML/CFT Act 2009, ss 48A(1), 97 (Meldung vorgeschriebener Transaktionen) und s 92(1)(b)(i) (Verdachtsmeldung)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- intentional
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 5 Jun 2025
Original amount 1,125,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Apr 2025.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Mar 2025 NZForex LimitedNZForex: formal warning over 3,182 unreported transactions Reprimand or warning
The company disclosed to the DIA (Department of Internal Affairs, New Zealand's AML/CFT supervisor) that, because of a system error in its prescribed transaction reporting, 3,182 transactions not denominated in New Zealand dollars had not been reported to the Police Financial Intelligence Unit between November 2017 and February 2024. On 18 March 2025 the DIA issued a formal warning under the AML/CFT Act 2009 and, given the prompt voluntary disclosure, refrained from more serious action; NZForex must provide the final report of an independent audit and report on its remediation.
Reporting processes for prescribed transactions need regular reconciliation so that system errors do not go unnoticed for years; early self-reporting can substantially reduce the sanction.
Complete reporting of prescribed transactions to the FIU
- Authority / court
- Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing
- Legal basis
- Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Meldung vorgeschriebener Transaktionen)
- Action
- Reprimand or warning
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- Prompt voluntary disclosure, admission of fault, fixing the system error, reporting all outstanding transactions and a voluntary independent audit.
- Published
- 18 Mar 2025
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Nov 2024 Kiwibank LimitedKiwibank: 1.5 million NZD fine for systemically misapplied customer terms €835,189
The bank pleaded guilty to 21 charges under the Fair Trading Act because for years it had not provided services to customers on the agreed terms, for example discounts and interest-free periods under package agreements, correctly calculated repayments, the switch to principal repayments after interest-only periods and correct fees. Around 35,000 customers were overcharged a total of 6.8 million NZD; on 26 November 2024 the Auckland District Court imposed a fine of 1.5 million NZD. According to the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's consumer and competition regulator), the causes were errors in electronic systems and a lack of quality assurance checks on whether staff knew and followed the processes.
Agreed terms must be correctly set up in systems and monitored through quality assurance; system errors are no excuse.
Correctly applying agreed terms in banking processes
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Auckland District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 13(i), 40(1)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- The bank had identified and reported the errors itself and is progressively refunding customers 9.2 million NZD.
- Published
- 27 Nov 2024
Original amount 1,500,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Nov 2024.
- Commerce Commission: Systemic breaches of consumer law lead to $1.5million fine for Kiwibank (27.11.2024) Press release of an authority
- Commerce Commission, Case register: Kiwibank Limited (Fair Trading Act 1986 ss 13(i), 40(1)) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link