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- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) €26.1m 88 % · 7 cases
- Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) €3.61m 12 % · 1 case
- Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) €56,080 0 % · 1 case
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Credit Suisse Singapore Branch, United Overseas Bank Limited, UBS AG Singapore Branch u. a. (9 Finanzinstitute) €18.3m 61 % · 1 case
- Anonymised companies €5.31m 18 % · 3 cases
- ZGR Global Pte. Ltd.; Hanshan Money Express Pte. Ltd. €3.61m 12 % · 1 case
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. €1.7m 6 % · 1 case
- Remsea Pte Ltd, Arcade Plaza Traders Pte Ltd, J-Dee Remittance Services Pte Ltd u. a. (5 Zahlungsinstitute) €642,871 2 % · 1 case
- Padang Trust Singapore Pte. Ltd. €201,708 1 % · 1 case
- Havenport Investments Pte Ltd €26,855 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 3 | €5.31m |
| 2024 | 1 | €1.7m |
| 2025 | 3 | €22.6m |
| 2026 | 2 | €228,563 |
9 cases
25 May 2026 Padang Trust Singapore Pte. Ltd.MAS: SGD 300,000 against Padang Trust over failures in suspicious transaction reporting €201,708
The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator) allegedly imposed a composition penalty of SGD 300,000 on the licensed trust company Padang Trust Singapore Pte. Ltd. because it failed to inquire into unusual transactions with no apparent economic or lawful purpose and did not file suspicious transaction reports promptly. According to MAS, the causes were inadequate controls, including a lack of scrutiny of unusual transactions and low staff awareness of money laundering and terrorist financing risks and red flags; the company paid the penalty, took remedial action and appointed an independent reviewer to confirm that the measures are effective. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Failing to question unusual transactions and delaying suspicious transaction reports breaches core anti-money laundering duties – staff must know the typical red flags.
Recognising unusual transactions and filing suspicious transaction reports without delay
- Authority / court
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
- Legal basis
- MAS Notice TCA-N03; s 27B(2) Monetary Authority of Singapore Act (Cap. 186); Composition nach s 176(1A) MAS Act 1970
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 25 May 2026
Original amount 300,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 May 2026.
- MAS: MAS Imposes $300,000 Composition Penalty on Padang Trust Singapore Pte. Ltd. for AML/CFT Breaches (25.05.2026) Press release of an authority
- MAS: Enforcement Actions (Verzeichnis, Eintrag 25.05.2026, Action Type Composition) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 May 2026 Havenport Investments Pte LtdMAS: composition fine for Havenport Investments €26,855
The fund manager Havenport Investments Pte Ltd lacked an adequate framework for managing the risks of the assets under its management, breached its base capital requirement without reporting this to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator), and violated conditions of its Capital Markets Services Licence requiring prior approval for a new product and personalised advice from independent financial advisers for retail investors before onboarding. MAS allegedly imposed a composition fine of SGD 40,000; the company has ceased its retail fund management business and has not been allowed to manage retail investors' money since 18 July 2024. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Licence conditions and capital requirements belong in ongoing compliance monitoring by senior management; any shortfall must be reported immediately.
Senior management duties regarding licence conditions, capital requirements and reporting to the regulator
- Authority / court
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
- Area of law
- Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
- Legal basis
- Securities and Futures Act (SFA) und zugehörige Regulations; Auflagen der Capital Markets Services Licence
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 18 May 2026
Original amount 40,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 2026.
- MAS: Enforcement Action against Havenport Investments Pte Ltd for Breaches of MAS Regulations (18.05.2026) Press release of an authority
- MAS: Enforcement Actions (Verzeichnis, Eintrag 18.05.2026) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Jul 2025 ZGR Global Pte. Ltd.; Hanshan Money Express Pte. Ltd.CCCS: 5.37 million SGD against two remittance shops for exchanging exchange rates €3.61m
ZGR Global (formerly Zhongguo Remittance) and Hanshan Money Express, two adjacent leading providers of Chinese yuan remittances in People's Park Complex, shared their current and partly non-public remittance rates with each other daily, often several times a day, from at least January 2016 to February 2022, verbally over the counter, on paper slips or by phone. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) found this to infringe s 34 of the Competition Act and on 31 July 2025 imposed penalties totalling 5,365,007 SGD (ZGR Global 2,793,700, Hanshan 2,571,307 SGD). In addition to its cooperation discount, Hanshan received a further 10% discount for its admission under the Fast Track Procedure.
Even routinely sharing current prices with the competitor next door is prohibited coordination; prices must be set independently.
No exchange of prices or pricing intentions with competitors
- 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
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- Hanshan: discount for cooperation plus a further 10% for its admission under the Fast Track Procedure.
- Published
- 31 Jul 2025
Original amount 5,365,007 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Jul 2025.
- CCCS: CCCS Penalises Chinese Yuan Remittance Service Providers $5.36 Million for Illegal Information Exchange (31.07.2025) Press release of an authority
- CCCS Public Register: CCCS 500-100-2020-003 (Decision Date 31.07.2025) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Jul 2025 Credit Suisse Singapore Branch, United Overseas Bank Limited, UBS AG Singapore Branch u. a. (9 Finanzinstitute)MAS: SGD 27.45m against nine financial institutions after major money laundering case €18.3m
Following inspections of institutions linked to persons of interest (POIs) in the major money laundering case of August 2023, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator) allegedly imposed composition penalties totalling SGD 27.45 million because existing AML/CFT policies had been implemented poorly or inconsistently – in customer risk assessment, corroboration of source of wealth, transaction monitoring and follow-up after suspicious transaction reports. Breakdown: Credit Suisse Singapore Branch SGD 5.8m, United Overseas Bank SGD 5.6m, UBS AG Singapore Branch SGD 3m, UOB Kay Hian SGD 2.85m, Citibank N.A. Singapore and Citibank Singapore Limited together SGD 2.6m, Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. Singapore Branch SGD 2.4m, Blue Ocean Invest SGD 2.4m, Trident Trust Company (Singapore) SGD 1.8m and LGT Bank (Singapore) SGD 1m. The penalty for Credit Suisse also reflects breaches between November 2017 and October 2023 relating to accounts of certain US customers. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Anti-money laundering policies only protect an institution if relationship managers actually question inconsistencies in the source of wealth and systematically follow up alerts from transaction monitoring.
Recognising and escalating red flags in source of wealth and transaction patterns (relationship managers as the first line of defence)
- Authority / court
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
- Legal basis
- MAS Notices 626, 1014, SFA04-N02 und TCA-N03; s 27B(2) Monetary Authority of Singapore Act 1970 bzw. s 16(4) Financial Services and Markets Act 2022; Composition nach s 176(1A) MAS Act 1970 bzw. s 177(1) FSMA 2022
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 4 Jul 2025
Original amount 27,450,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Jul 2025.
- MAS: MAS Takes Regulatory Actions against 9 Financial Institutions for AML-Related Breaches (04.07.2025) Press release of an authority
- MAS: Enforcement Actions (Verzeichnis, Eintrag 04.07.2025, Action Type Composition) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Jun 2025 Remsea Pte Ltd, Arcade Plaza Traders Pte Ltd, J-Dee Remittance Services Pte Ltd u. a. (5 Zahlungsinstitute)MAS: 960,000 SGD against five remittance providers for AML failings €642,871
In examinations of five licensed payment institutions providing cross-border money transfers, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator) found failings in customer due diligence, such as missing residential addresses, no inquiry into beneficial owners, no screening of customers against money laundering risk information sources, unverified authority of persons acting for customers and missing originator or beneficiary information on cross-border wire transfers. On 27 June 2025 it allegedly imposed composition penalties totalling 960,000 SGD: Remsea 280,000, Arcade Plaza Traders 260,000, J-Dee Remittance Services 170,000, Mobile Community Tech 140,000 and OxPay SG 110,000 SGD. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Payment institutions offering cross-border transfers must check customers, representatives and beneficial owners and attach complete originator and beneficiary data to every cross-border transfer.
Customer due diligence and complete information on cross-border transfers
- Authority / court
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
- Legal basis
- MAS Notice PSN01; s 27B(2) Monetary Authority of Singapore Act bzw. s 16(4) Financial Services and Markets Act 2022; Composition nach s 176(1A) MAS Act 1970 bzw. s 177(1) FSMA 2022
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 27 Jun 2025
Original amount 960,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jun 2025.
- MAS: MAS Imposes Composition Penalties against Five Major Payment Institutions (27.06.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
2 Dec 2024 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.MAS: SGD 2.4m civil penalty on JPMorgan over excessive bond spreads €1.7m
Relationship managers at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. misrepresented or incompletely disclosed price components in 24 over-the-counter bond transactions between November 2018 and September 2019, so that clients paid spreads above those agreed (in breach of s 201(c) and (d) SFA, the Securities and Futures Act). The bank admitted liability under s 236C SFA because, lacking adequate processes and controls, it had neither prevented nor detected the misconduct; it allegedly paid the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator) a civil penalty of SGD 2.4 million and refunded the overcharged fees to clients. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
A firm that gives relationship managers discretion over pricing must systematically check compliance with agreed terms – otherwise the institution is liable for their misconduct.
Accurate and complete disclosure of prices and spreads to clients
- Authority / court
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
- Area of law
- Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
- Legal basis
- ss 201(c), 201(d), 232 und 236C Securities and Futures Act (SFA)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 2 Dec 2024
Original amount 2,400,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Dec 2024.
- MAS: MAS Imposes Civil Penalty of $2.4 Million on JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for Misconduct by its Relationship Managers (02.12.2024) Press release of an authority
- MAS: Enforcement Actions (Verzeichnis, Eintrag 02.12.2024, Action Type Civil Penalty) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Dec 2023 a Swiss major bankSwiss major bank: 3.9 million SGD as relationship managers concealed excessive spreads €2.66m
Relationship managers at the Singapore branch gave clients false or incomplete post-trade disclosures on 39 over-the-counter bond transactions, so that the clients paid spreads above the agreed rates. On 28 December 2023 the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator) imposed a civil penalty of 3.9 million SGD on the bank because it lacked adequate controls, such as post-trade monitoring, to prevent or detect the misconduct. The bank admitted liability, paid immediately and separately compensated the affected clients.
Banks must monitor their relationship managers' post-trade pricing disclosures, or they will be liable themselves for the misconduct.
Fair and transparent pricing disclosures in private banking
- Authority / court
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
- Area of law
- Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
- Legal basis
- Securities and Futures Act 2001, s 236C i. V. m. ss 201(c), 201(d); Civil Penalty nach s 232 SFA
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Liability admitted, penalty paid immediately, affected clients compensated and internal controls strengthened.
- Published
- 28 Dec 2023
Original amount 3,900,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Dec 2023.
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 Dec 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Sep 2023 a Singapore leasing providerLeasing provider: 82,000 SGD after a ransomware attack €56,080
In June 2022 the leasing and hire-purchase provider discovered that ransomware had encrypted seven servers and six employee computers holding data of numerous individuals (customers, guarantors and employees), including identity, income and bank details. On 4 September 2023 the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) found a breach of the Protection Obligation because a patch for the exploited vulnerability in its VPN device had been available for two years and nine months without being installed and administrator accounts had no multi-factor authentication, and imposed 82,000 SGD.
Install security updates promptly and protect administrator accounts with multi-factor authentication: both are regarded as minimum standards.
Patch management and multi-factor authentication for administrator accounts
- Authority / court
- Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Data breaches and data security
- Legal basis
- Personal Data Protection Act 2012, s 24 (Protection Obligation); s 48J PDPA ([2023] SGPDPC 9)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- Cooperation, prompt remediation and voluntary acceptance of responsibility under the expedited procedure.
- Published
- 10 Nov 2023
Original amount 82,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Sep 2023.
- PDPC, Enforcement Decisions (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 4 Sep 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Jun 2023 three banks and a life insurer in SingaporeMAS: 3.8 million SGD against three banks and an insurer after accounting-scandal review €2.59m
In examinations following the irregularities in the financial statements of a German payment services provider, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS, Singapore's central bank and financial regulator) found inadequate anti-money laundering controls at four institutions in dealings with persons who had transactions with, or links to, the payment services provider or its related parties: beneficial owners wrongly identified or not questioned, source of wealth not corroborated and unusually large transactions not examined. It imposed composition penalties totalling 3.8 million SGD: bank A 2.6 million, bank B 600,000, bank C 400,000 and the insurer 200,000 SGD; all institutions accepted. MAS found no wilful misconduct by staff.
Where ownership structures are complex and large transactions look unusual, banks must ask questions and require evidence instead of accepting customer statements unchecked.
Checking beneficial owners and source of wealth in complex corporate structures
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
- Legal basis
- MAS Notice 626 (Banken) und MAS Notice 314 (Lebensversicherer); s 27B(2) Monetary Authority of Singapore Act; Composition nach s 176(1A) MAS Act 1970
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- No wilful misconduct by staff; prompt remediation through improved procedures and training to raise staff vigilance.
- Published
- 21 Jun 2023
Original amount 3,800,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jun 2023.
- Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 21 Jun 2025 · Direct link