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.

652cases from 44 jurisdictions
€8.46bnTotal of monetary amounts (573 cases with an amount)
€1.6bnLargest single case: a major US bank
€1.05mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

Where?

by region

All jurisdictions

  1. USA €4.79bn 57 % · 95 cases
  2. EU €1.56bn 18 % · 255 cases
  3. United Kingdom €940.6m 11 % · 87 cases
  4. Australia €426.4m 5 % · 20 cases
  5. South Korea €235.2m 3 % · 9 cases
  6. Brazil €151.1m 2 % · 11 cases
  7. Canada €144.6m 2 % · 43 cases
  8. United Arab Emirates €73.2m 1 % · 34 cases
  9. Switzerland €41.6m 0 % · 20 cases
  10. Singapore €29.8m 0 % · 9 cases
  11. 7 more€71m

What for?

by area of law

All areas of law

  1. Consumer protection and online retail €2.32bn 27 % · 47 cases
  2. Money laundering and terrorist financing €1.98bn 23 % · 217 cases
  3. Capital markets and financial supervision €1.73bn 20 % · 224 cases
  4. Sanctions and export control €1.24bn 15 % · 34 cases
  5. Competition law €400m 5 % · 15 cases
  6. Other €281.5m 3 % · 2 cases
  7. Information security and cyber €209.8m 2 % · 30 cases
  8. Bribery and corruption €108.9m 1 % · 6 cases
  9. Data protection €102.7m 1 % · 64 cases
  10. Environment and sustainability €63.3m 1 % · 7 cases
  11. 2 more€17.9m

Who?

by company
  1. Anonymised companies €5.37bn 63 % · 260 cases
  2. HSBC Bank plc €267.5m 3 % · 1 case
  3. GVA Capital Ltd. €186.3m 2 % · 1 case
  4. Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd; Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd (EuropeFX); BrightAU Capital Pty Ltd (TradeFred) €182.1m 2 % · 1 case
  5. KB Kookmin Bank, Shinhan Bank, Woori Bank, Hana Bank €158.2m 2 % · 1 case
  6. Royal Bank of Canada, Morgan Stanley, HSBC u. a. (5 Banken; Deutsche Bank als Kronzeugin bußgeldfrei) €126.2m 1 % · 1 case
  7. UBS Financial Services Inc. €115.3m 1 % · 2 cases
  8. Xeltox Enterprises Ltd. (Cryptomus) €108.1m 1 % · 1 case
  9. Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Crédit Agricole CIB) €88.2m 1 % · 1 case
  10. Two Sigma Investments LP und Two Sigma Advisers LP €87.6m 1 % · 1 case
  11. 370 more€1.77bn

When?

per year, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
202244€2.5bn
2023125€2.14bn
2024150€1.05bn
2025202€1.55bn
2026131€1.23bn

652 cases

22 Sep 2026 OTC Link LLCOTC Link: 575,000 USD – security policies never completed despite examination findings USACritical infrastructure €501,614

From 2016 to 2025, the operator of the OTC Link ATS trading system lacked complete policies on systems security, access control and vulnerability management as required under Regulation SCI. Although the examiners of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had criticised the gaps in several examinations, drafts remained unfinished; the SEC issued a censure and imposed 575,000 USD.

What organisations can take from it

Track supervisory examination findings with a deadline and a responsible person – points that remain open repeatedly become expensive.

Authority / court
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Area of law
Information security and cyber · Critical infrastructure
Legal basis
Regulation SCI, Rule 1001(a)(1)–(3)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes

Original amount 575,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Sep 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.

17 Sep 2026 FleetCor Technologies Inc. (heute Corpay Inc.)FleetCor/Corpay pays 100 million USD over hidden fees on fuel cards USAMisleading advertising and pricing €87.1m

In 2023, a federal court found by way of summary judgment that the fuel card provider had charged its predominantly small business customers hidden or unauthorised fees and misrepresented savings; an appeals court upheld this in 2026. According to the FTC, the fees added up to hundreds of millions of dollars, and late fees were also charged despite punctual payment. Under the settlement resolving the administrative proceedings, FleetCor and a further settling party are jointly paying 100 million USD for refunds; the order is not yet final.

What organisations can take from it

Fees hidden behind links or in account documents are deemed not to have been disclosed – including vis-à-vis business customers.

Authority / court
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
Section 5 FTC Act
Action
Disgorgement of profits
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not reported here.
Published
17 Sep 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 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.

17 Sep 2026 PFC Technologies Co., Ltd. (vormals PeopleFund Company)P2P lending platform shared customer data without consent: FSS sanctions PFC South KoreaData protection €45,990

According to the sanctions disclosure of the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS, Korea's financial supervisor), the online lending platform PFC Technologies transferred the resident registration numbers of 8,497 customers to a third party without their consent on 28 September 2022 in order to calculate the error rate of a new service for mortgage customers, and received credit information on the same customers from that third party, likewise without consent (such as the address and official value of their properties); in addition, when the inspection began it had not implemented password rules against easily guessed numbers. The sanction of 17 September 2026 comprises an institutional warning, an administrative fine (과태료) of KRW 24 million and a penalty surcharge (과징금) of KRW 49 million, KRW 73 million in total.

What organisations can take from it

Even for internal tests and quality measurements, customer data may only be passed to third parties with consent or a clear legal basis.

Relevance to training and awareness

Consent for sharing credit data and password rules

Authority / court
Financial Supervisory Service (FSS)
Area of law
Data protection
Legal basis
Art. 19, 32 und 34 Credit Information Use and Protection Act; Art. 16, 28 und 29 Durchführungsverordnung
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
17 Sep 2026

Original amount 73,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

16 Sep 2026 AIFM Capital ABAIFM Capital: 2 million SEK for inadequate selection and oversight of fund managers SwedenOrganisational requirements €177,187

As a so-called fund hotel, the company had its funds managed by other firms, but examined these delegation agreements only insufficiently, did not take the related decisions properly and did not monitor the funds’ returns in relation to risk closely enough. The Swedish financial supervisory authority Finansinspektionen (FI) issued a remark and imposed 2 million SEK; no damage to investors was established.

What organisations can take from it

Outsourcing tasks does not outsource responsibility: document the selection of service providers, the decisions taken and ongoing oversight.

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Schwedisches Fondsrecht – Regeln zur Delegation der Fondsverwaltung und deren Überwachung
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
No established damage to investors; remedial measures already taken during the investigation.
Published
16 Sep 2026

Original amount 2,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Sep 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.

16 Sep 2026 Wallester ASFinancial supervisor orders Wallester to remedy governance and AML deficiencies EstoniaInternal controls Order

Following an on-site inspection, the Finantsinspektsioon (Estonian Financial Supervision Authority) issued an order requiring the payment institution Wallester to remedy, by 31 December, deficiencies in governance and control functions (separation of the lines of defence, internal rules), in safeguarding customer funds and in the staffing of its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing function. Date = publication of the press release.

What organisations can take from it

Fast-growing payment service providers must let their compliance, AML and internal audit functions grow with them in terms of staffing and organisation.

Authority / court
Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Aufsichtsrechtliche Anordnung (ettekirjutus) der Finantsinspektsioon
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
16 Sep 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.

11 Sep 2026 Capitec Bank LimitedCapitec Bank: ZAR 28m for failings in customer due diligence and training South AfricaCustomer due diligence €1.49m

Following a 2023 inspection, the supervisor found inadequate customer due diligence and inadequate enhanced and ongoing due diligence in sampled files, no ongoing training for sampled employees and gaps in the risk management and compliance programme, such as name and payment screening manuals that had not been approved by management before being implemented, and inadequately documented arrangements for terrorist property reporting and financial sanctions. Five cautions and penalties of 28 million ZAR were imposed, of which 5.5 million ZAR is suspended for 36 months from 13 October 2025; the bank had already been sanctioned with 56.25 million ZAR in December 2024. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

A bank that has already been sanctioned will be judged at the next inspection on full implementation – due diligence and training must demonstrably be in place.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ongoing due diligence and regular anti-money laundering training

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Prudential Authority (PA) der South African Reserve Bank
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Sections 21, 21A und 21C i. V. m. 42(1), 42(2)(d), (e), (g) sowie Sections 42 und 43 Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation in remedying the deficiencies; 5.5 million ZAR suspended for 36 months.
Published
11 Sep 2026

Original amount 28,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

3 Sep 2026 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. – Niederlassung Italien (BBVA Italia)Garante: 5.5 million EUR against BBVA Italia over advertising despite objection ItalyMarketing and consent €5.51m

For seven months (October 2025 to May 2026), the bank continued to send a customer advertising via its app, although he had objected several times. The Italian data protection authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali) also found deficient systems for implementing objections and inaccurate information about the processing, and imposed 5,508,000 EUR (Provvedimento No. 613).

What organisations can take from it

An objection to advertising must take effect immediately and reliably across all channels – including app messages.

Authority / court
Garante per la protezione dei dati personali
Area of law
Data protection · Marketing and consent
Legal basis
Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, Art. 12, 21, 24 DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
11 Sep 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.

31 Aug 2026 EM@NEY P.L.C.Malta: EM@NEY pays 97,622 EUR under settlement for late bank account register reports MaltaMoney laundering and terrorist financing €97,622

The financial institution did not deliver on time the data due every seven days to the Centralised Bank Account Register (CBAR). The Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) set a fine of 162,704 EUR, which was reduced by 40% to 97,622 EUR under a settlement pursuant to its 2026 settlement policy.

What organisations can take from it

Recurring mandatory reports need deadline monitoring with escalation – otherwise individual omissions add up to six-figure sums.

Authority / court
Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing
Legal basis
Reg. 4(2), 8, 9 CBAR Regulations (S.L. 373.03)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement with 40% reduction
Published
4 Sep 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 Aug 2026 MiFinity Malta LimitedMalta: MiFinity pays 160,099 EUR following anti-money laundering examination MaltaCustomer due diligence €160,099

At the payment institution, the customer risk assessment had only been introduced after business had started, some customers remained unassessed, and customer profiles were based on transaction thresholds rather than on risk. The Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) set a fine of 266,833 EUR and a follow-up directive; under a settlement, the fine was reduced by 40% to 160,099 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

A customer risk assessment belongs before business starts, not in a later remediation project.

Relevance to training and awareness

Risk-based customer profiles and source of funds

Authority / court
Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Reg. 2(1), 5(5)(a)(ii), 7(1)(c), 7(2)(a), 21, 22 PMLFTR
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement with 40% reduction; remediation demonstrated
Published
2 Sep 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.

25 Aug 2026 Wise Europe SAWise Europe: NBB order and public statement over customer due diligence failures BelgiumCustomer due diligence Order

The Banque nationale de Belgique (National Bank of Belgium) found serious anti-money laundering due diligence failures at Wise Europe SA, including in identifying and verifying customers and beneficial owners, ongoing monitoring of business relationships, analysis of atypical transactions and intra-group information sharing. It made public that Wise Europe had not complied with an order of 8 July 2025 to meet these obligations by 31 March 2026, and ordered full compliance by 31 January 2027 at the latest; no fine was published.

What organisations can take from it

Letting a supervisory deadline to remedy KYC failures lapse risks new orders and public naming.

Relevance to training and awareness

KYC and transaction monitoring at payment service providers

Authority / court
Banque nationale de Belgique / Nationale Bank van België (BNB/NBB)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Art. 13 § 1, 23, 26, 27, 35 § 1 und 45 Gesetz vom 18. September 2017 zur Verhinderung von Geldwäsche; Anordnung nach Art. 93 § 1 1°, Veröffentlichung nach Art. 93 § 2 1° und Art. 98/1 i. V. m. 135 § 3
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Published
25 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

25 Aug 2026 Kommunal Landspensjonskasse Gjensidig Forsikringsselskap (KLP)KLP: binding commitments after suspected abuse in municipal pensions NorwayAbuse of market power Order

Konkurransetilsynet (Norwegian Competition Authority) made commitments offered by KLP binding and thereby closed its investigation into a possible abuse of a dominant position in public occupational pensions for municipalities. The authority was concerned that, from 2019, when a competitor entered the market, KLP had systematically discouraged municipalities from putting their occupational pension schemes out to tender; KLP now undertakes to refrain from such influence and to remedy the effects of its earlier practice. No infringement was conclusively established and no fine was imposed.

What organisations can take from it

Dominant companies must not use close customer relationships to deter customers from running tenders – even a suspicion of this can lead to binding obligations.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conduct of dominant companies towards public purchasers

Authority / court
Konkurransetilsynet
Area of law
Competition law · Abuse of market power
Legal basis
§ 12 Abs. 3 i. V. m. § 11 konkurranseloven; Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
2 Sep 2026

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

Report an error

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

21 Aug 2026 Bank oder Finanzinstitut (anonymisiert)Liechtenstein: CHF 50,000 fine for due diligence and sanctions screening failures LiechtensteinCustomer due diligence €53,459

The Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA, Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority) fined an unnamed legal person CHF 50,000 for breaches of the Sorgfaltspflichtgesetz (Due Diligence Act) – business profiles not established or updated as required, group-wide application of the due diligence standard not ensured – and of the Gesetz über die Durchsetzung internationaler Sanktionen (ISG, Act on the Enforcement of International Sanctions). The ISG provision relied on makes it an offence punishable by a fine not to carry out the sanctions screening of customer and transaction documents, or to carry it out improperly or late.

What organisations can take from it

Sanctions screening of customers and transactions must be complete and timely, and in groups the due diligence standard must also be applied at branches and subsidiaries.

Relevance to training and awareness

Sanctions screening of customers and transactions and group-wide due diligence standards

Authority / court
Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein (FMA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Art. 31 Abs. 1 Bst. e und k Sorgfaltspflichtgesetz (SPG); Art. 11 Abs. 1a Bst. c Gesetz über die Durchsetzung internationaler Sanktionen (ISG)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 50,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Aug 2026.

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

Report an error

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

17 Aug 2026 Pluxee Česká republika a.s.; Edenred CZ s.r.o.; Up Česká republika s.r.o.Meal voucher cartel: 279 million CZK against Pluxee, Edenred and Up upheld with final effect CzechiaCartels and collusion €11.5m

From 2004 to 2018, the three issuers of paper meal vouchers coordinated with retail chains how many vouchers would be accepted per purchase. The President of the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) dismissed the appeals against the recalculation of the fines: Pluxee 132.271 million, Edenred 101.94 million and Up 44.941 million CZK, a total of 279.152 million CZK.

What organisations can take from it

Coordinating seemingly technical conditions such as acceptance limits is also a cartel – industry discussions need clear boundaries.

Relevance to training and awareness

Coordination of terms and conditions among competitors

Authority / court
Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Published
17 Aug 2026

Original amount 279,152,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Aug 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.

12 Aug 2026 Banco Genial S.A.Banco Genial: BRL 21.56m for anti-money laundering failings in FX business BrazilCustomer due diligence €3.62m

The Comitê de Decisão de Processo Administrativo Sancionador (COPAS, sanctions decision committee) of the Banco Central do Brasil (Brazilian central bank) fined Banco Genial S.A. a total of BRL 21,560,000.00: BRL 4,200,000.00 for inadequate anti-money laundering policies, procedures and controls, BRL 8,920,000.00 for failing to verify the credentials of foreign exchange clients and BRL 8,440,000.00 for failing to file suspicious activity reports with the financial intelligence unit Coaf in the proper form and on time. According to the case documents, the reporting charge concerned 1,364 foreign exchange transactions for the acquisition of virtual assets with five clients between November 2020 and October 2021, totalling USD 744,341,982.45.

What organisations can take from it

Foreign exchange transactions for buying crypto-assets require checks on clients' financial capacity and timely suspicious activity reports.

Relevance to training and awareness

Customer due diligence and suspicious activity reporting in FX and crypto business

Authority / court
Banco Central do Brasil (Comitê de Decisão de Processo Administrativo Sancionador – COPAS)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Lei nº 9.613/1998, Art. 10 III, Art. 11 und 12; Lei nº 13.506/2017; Circular BCB nº 3.978/2020; Resolução CMN nº 3.568/2008
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Original amount 21,560,000 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Aug 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.

12 Aug 2026 Lebes Financeira S.A. – Sociedade de Crédito, Financiamento e InvestimentoLebes Financeira: BRL 2.58m over lending to a related party above the limit BrazilOrganisational requirements €432,774

The BCB (central bank) sanctions committee COPAS imposed a fine of BRL 2,576,000.00 on Lebes Financeira S.A. – Sociedade de Crédito, Financiamento e Investimento because from January 2022 to March 2023 it engaged in prohibited credit transactions with a related company: its banking correspondent retained collected loan instalments, and the arrears reached BRL 147m at the end of November 2022, or 207.66% of adjusted equity against a limit of 10%. In addition there was a BRL 20m loan routed through a third company. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

If an affiliated distribution partner retains customer money, this can quickly become a prohibited loan to a related party.

Authority / court
Banco Central do Brasil (Comitê de Decisão de Processo Administrativo Sancionador – COPAS)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Lei 13.506/2017, Art. 3 II; Lei 4.595/1964, Art. 34 § 3 V d und § 4 I; Resolução CMN 4.693/2018, Arts. 5, 6 und 7 II
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Original amount 2,576,000 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Aug 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.

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.

11 Aug 2026 Fiducian Investment Management Services LimitedFiducian: 7.3 million AUD for misleading ESG claims about an ethical fund AustraliaMisleading environmental and sustainability claims €4.47m

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.

What organisations can take from it

A fund's sustainability promises require ongoing checks of its actual holdings; where they diverge, either the holdings or the statements must be changed.

Relevance to training and awareness

Substantiating ESG and ethical claims in product documents and fund marketing

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

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

Report an error

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

10 Aug 2026 Your Neighbourhood Credit Union LimitedFINTRAC: CAD 16,500 penalty on Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited for one violation of anti-money laundering obligations CanadaInternal controls €10,243

According to FINTRAC, Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited is a provincially regulated credit union based in Kitchener, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 16,500 on the company on 10 August 2026. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed one violation of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violation concerned written compliance policies and procedures. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on Your Neighbourhood Credit Union Limited", published 24 September 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-09-24-2-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
24 Sep 2026

Original amount 16,500 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Aug 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.

5 Aug 2026 Powszechna Kasa Oszczędności Bank Polski S.A. (PKO BP)PKO BP: PLN 47.5m for failings in structured deposits PolandOrganisational requirements €11m

The KNF imposed five fines totalling PLN 47,500,000 on PKO BP in connection with structured deposits: PLN 26m for failing to inform clients of existing conflicts of interest, PLN 8m each for not analysing costs and charges and for an imprecise definition of the risk category and target market, PLN 4m for selling without checking target-market suitability and PLN 1.5m for misleading sales material on two products. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Firms selling structured products must disclose conflicts of interest, test costs against client benefit and define the target market precisely.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest and product governance for retail investment products

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 88c Abs. 1 und 2, Art. 88m Abs. 5 und 9 Prawo bankowe i. V. m. Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 21.01.2019 über Dienstleistungen der Banken bei strukturierten Einlagen
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 47,500,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Aug 2026.

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

Report an error

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

5 Aug 2026 Order Express, Inc.NYDFS: $250,000 against money transmitter Order Express over cyber deficiencies USA, NYSecurity measures and risk management €216,375

The licensed money transmitter had no adequate policies for system updates and insufficient risk assessments under New York's cybersecurity regulation, as found by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS). The company has already remedied the deficiencies.

What organisations can take from it

Even small financial service providers must keep documented patch policies and regular risk assessments.

Authority / court
New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)
Area of law
Information security and cyber · Security measures and risk management
Legal basis
23 NYCRR Part 500 (Cybersecurity Regulation)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Because of its low turnover, the company was exempt from many Part 500 obligations; deficiencies already remedied.
Published
5 Aug 2026

Original amount 250,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 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.

3 Aug 2026 UBS Financial Services Inc.FinCEN: 125 million USD against UBS Financial Services as a repeat offender USAInternal controls €108.4m

The US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) imposed 125 million USD on the broker-dealer – the highest BSA penalty against a broker-dealer to date. UBSFS admitted wilful infringements: the AML programme was inadequate, more than 50,000 foreign currency transfers totalling more than 10 billion USD were not adequately monitored and suspicious activity reports were not filed; it is already the second enforcement action after 2018.

What organisations can take from it

Monitoring gaps left unremedied after an earlier enforcement action lead, the second time round, to a multiple of the original penalty.

Authority / court
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Culpability
intentional
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
Up to 15 million USD (remaining amount due by 31 May 2028) may be waived to the extent that UBSFS bears the costs of the independent review of its AML programme and implements its recommendations
Published
3 Aug 2026

Original amount 125,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 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.

31 Jul 2026 UBS Financial Services Inc.UBS Financial Services: 8 million USD over gaps in anti-money laundering monitoring USAOrganisational requirements €6.97m

The CFTC fined the futures commission merchant 8 million USD for failing to supervise diligently the configuration and operation of its anti-money laundering transaction monitoring. From January 2019 to June 2023, thousands of foreign currency wire transfers through retail customers' commodity accounts were insufficiently monitored or not monitored at all: first because of an incomplete manual report which UBS, contrary to commitments made in earlier proceedings in 2018, replaced only more than two years later, and then because of incorrectly fed data in the new automated system. FinCEN, the SEC and FINRA announced their own settlements with UBS Financial Services at the same time. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Commitments made in earlier supervisory proceedings must be implemented on time, and new monitoring systems must be tested for complete data feeds before going live.

Authority / court
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
CFTC Regulation 166.3 (17 C.F.R. § 166.3)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
The CFTC recognised the remediation described; according to the order, the core problems of the automated system had been fixed by the fourth quarter of 2022.
Published
3 Aug 2026

Original amount 8,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 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.

28 Jul 2026 Luk Fook Securities (HK) LimitedLuk Fook Securities: HKD 2.1m fine for weak cybersecurity ahead of ransomware attack Hong KongSecurity measures and risk management €235,595

Luk Fook Securities (HK) was publicly reprimanded and fined 2,100,000 HKD because inadequate cybersecurity controls might have contributed to a ransomware attack on 19 September 2022 hitting numerous core servers and to full recovery taking until 7 October 2022; during that time clients could not trade via the app or internet platform. Findings included missing firewall protection, outdated operating systems and antivirus software, weak access and password controls with credentials stored unencrypted, insufficient controls over remote access and external devices, inadequate data backup and a last security training session in 2018.

What organisations can take from it

Basic cyber hygiene – patching, access and password controls, backups and regular staff training – is a regulatory obligation for financial firms.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ransomware defence, password security and security awareness training

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
Area of law
Information security and cyber · Security measures and risk management
Legal basis
s. 194 SFO (Cap. 571); Code of Conduct GP 2, GP 3, GP 7, paras. 12.1, 18.5 und Schedule 7; Guidelines for Reducing and Mitigating Hacking Risks Associated with Internet Trading
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Root-cause review with an independent reviewer, strengthened controls, no evidence of client loss, cooperation, clean disciplinary record.
Published
28 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,100,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 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.

27 Jul 2026 Banque Lombard Odier & Cie SAFederal Criminal Court fines Banque Lombard Odier CHF 3 million over money laundering SwitzerlandInternal controls €3.23m

The Bundesstrafgericht (Federal Criminal Court) found Banque Lombard Odier & Cie SA guilty of failing to take adequate organisational measures against aggravated money laundering by a former relationship manager who in 2011 and 2012 handled accounts of a criminal organisation holding proceeds of corruption in the Uzbek telecommunications market; despite warning signs, the bank's anti-money-laundering functions did not sufficiently ensure that the origin and purpose of the funds were investigated and documented. The bank was fined CHF 3,000,000 and bears procedural costs of CHF 24,561.49; it was acquitted on the remaining charges, and proceedings for acts before 27 July 2011 were dismissed as time-barred. The judgment is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Warning signs about the origin of large inflows must be investigated and documented by the anti-money-laundering function itself, not just by the relationship manager.

Relevance to training and awareness

Anti-money-laundering: investigating conspicuous inflows and documentation

Authority / court
Bundesstrafgericht (Strafkammer), Anklage der Bundesanwaltschaft
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Art. 102 Abs. 2 StGB i.V.m. Art. 305bis Ziff. 1 und 2 StGB (Urteil SK.2023.42)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
The long time elapsed since the offences (2011/2012) was taken into account as mitigating.
Published
27 Jul 2026

Original amount 3,000,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

27 Jul 2026 China Industrial Securities International Asset Management LimitedSFC: HKD 6.8m fine for CISIAM over missed red flags in a private fund Hong KongOrganisational requirements €761,367

The SFC publicly reprimanded China Industrial Securities International Asset Management (CISIAM) and fined it HKD 6.8 million because, between August 2019 and September 2020, the manager of a private fund set up for the insurer Tahoe Life acquired complex structures with notes linked to bonds of a related company at the request of the insurer's chief investment officer, without identifying and properly examining the red flags. CISIAM also failed to observe the fund's investment restrictions and objectives and did not manage its risks effectively. In setting the penalty, the SFC also took into account management fees of around HKD 1.9 million received from the fund.

What organisations can take from it

A fund manager must independently assess an investor's instructions and must not implement unusually complex structures without a clear commercial rationale unchecked.

Relevance to training and awareness

Recognising red flags in investor-driven fund arrangements

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), Hongkong
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 194 Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571); General Principle 2 Code of Conduct; Paragraphen 1.2(d), 3.1 und 3.11.1 Fund Manager Code of Conduct; Abschnitt VIII Management, Supervision and Internal Control Guidelines
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial measures (new policies on risk management and dubious investment arrangements, compliance training), cooperation with the SFC and an otherwise clean disciplinary record.
Published
27 Jul 2026

Original amount 6,800,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 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.

27 Jul 2026 Bright Smart Securities International (H.K.) LimitedBright Smart Securities: HKD 2.8m fine for inadequate wash-trade controls Hong KongMarket abuse and insider dealing €313,504

Bright Smart Securities International (H.K.) was publicly reprimanded and fined 2,800,000 HKD because between November 2023 and September 2025 its controls did not prevent 615 clients from executing 1,021 pairs of wash trades (trades without a change in beneficial ownership) in 736 shares and warrants. Monitoring was mostly after the event and manual, and several wash trades by one client on the same day counted as a single occurrence. Similar deficiencies had been identified and raised repeatedly before but were not fully remedied in any instance.

What organisations can take from it

Trade surveillance must intercept wash trades automatically before execution; after-the-event manual reviews are not enough for recurring patterns.

Relevance to training and awareness

Detecting and preventing wash trades

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
s. 194 SFO (Cap. 571); Code of Conduct GP 2, para. 4.3
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Enhanced systems and a commitment to an independent effectiveness review, cooperation.
Published
27 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,800,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 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.

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.

24 Jul 2026 Shelbit General Trading L.L.CVARA sanctions Shelbit again for unlicensed crypto services, missing KYC and promotion United Arab EmiratesCustomer due diligence Fine

Despite a cease-and-desist notice and enforcement action of 2 January 2025, the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA, Dubai's virtual assets regulator) found that Shelbit General Trading L.L.C (Shelbit Exchange) continued to provide virtual asset services in and from Dubai without a licence, onboarded users without the mandatory KYC checks and promoted its services without authorisation. VARA again imposed fines of an undisclosed amount and ordered it to cease immediately; according to the regulator, the risk identified also concerned cross-border transactions with possible consequences for the integrity of the UAE financial system.

What organisations can take from it

Disregarding a cease-and-desist order leads to further sanctions – the regulator keeps monitoring the market after the first action.

Relevance to training and awareness

Compliance with cease-and-desist orders and KYC obligations

Authority / court
Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), Dubai
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Federal Decree-Law No. (10) of 2025 (AML/CFT/PF); Cabinet Resolution No. (111) of 2022; Dubai Law No. (4) of 2022 Regulating Virtual Assets in the Emirate of Dubai; VARA Regulations and Rulebooks
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Published
24 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.

23 Jul 2026 Caisse populaire acadienne ltéeFINTRAC: CAD 676,500 penalty on Caisse populaire acadienne ltée for 3 violations of anti-money laundering obligations CanadaSuspicious activity reports €421,916

According to FINTRAC, Caisse populaire acadienne ltée is a federally regulated credit union based in Caraquet, New Brunswick. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 676,500 on the company on 23 July 2026. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 3 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned suspicious transaction reporting, written compliance policies and procedures and assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks. Specifically, according to FINTRAC, the credit union failed in four instances to report multiple transactions that showed indicators of suspicion. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on Caisse populaire acadienne ltée", published 24 September 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-09-24-4-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
Legal basis
PCMLTFA s. 7, 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c), 156(2); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
24 Sep 2026

Original amount 676,500 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Jul 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.

17 Jul 2026 80 Eight South Africa (Pty) Ltd (vormals Ela Asset Management (Pty) Ltd)80 Eight South Africa: failing to protect clients against fraud South AfricaOrganisational requirements Fine

The financial services provider had not made sure that its clients were protected against losses from theft, fraud or other dishonest acts by its employees; one individual's misconduct caused clients substantial losses. The company was directed to introduce, within two months, a policy protecting against such risks. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

Financial services providers need effective controls against fraud by their own employees – even contraventions they discover and report themselves can lead to a penalty and directives.

Relevance to training and awareness

Insider fraud and internal controls

Authority / court
Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Sections 2 und 11 General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (2003); Section 13(3)(a) Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002; Section 42(1) Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for Financial Services Providers (2017)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
According to the authority's update of 22 July 2026, the company had itself discovered and reported the contraventions, which occurred in 2021.
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
17 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

16 Jul 2026 Swedbank AB (publ) (mit New York Branch)NYDFS: USD 50 million against Swedbank for withholding information USA, New YorkDisclosure and reporting obligations €43.6m

The NYDFS imposed a penalty of USD 50 million on Swedbank AB (publ) and its New York branch. In response to several requests by the regulator under section 37 of the New York Banking Law concerning links between its Baltic subsidiaries and the law firm Mossack Fonseca (Panama Papers) and the status of European investigations, the bank did not provide the requested information, in breach of section 125(3) of the New York Banking Law. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Information requests from the regulator must be answered in full; withholding information is sanctioned in its own right.

Relevance to training and awareness

Complete and truthful disclosures to the regulator

Authority / court
New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
New York Banking Law § 125(3) i. V. m. § 37; Sanktion nach Banking Law §§ 39, 44
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Liability of senior managers
According to the order, the bank has since, among other things, dismissed its then Chief Compliance Officer and its former CEO and parted ways with numerous other employees; the majority of the board has been replaced.
Published
16 Jul 2026

Original amount 50,000,000 USD, 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.

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.

10 Jul 2026 Volksbank Düsseldorf Neuss eGBaFin: 210,000 EUR against Volksbank Düsseldorf Neuss over monitoring and reporting gaps GermanyCustomer due diligence €210,000

Germany's Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) imposed fines totalling 210,000 EUR on the cooperative bank: business relationships were not monitored on an ongoing basis or with enhanced scrutiny, additional information was not obtained and suspicious activity reports were not filed or were filed late. The function of the money laundering reporting officer had been outsourced to an external service provider with several clients.

What organisations can take from it

Institutions that outsource the anti-money laundering function remain responsible themselves for ongoing monitoring and timely suspicious activity reports.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ongoing monitoring of business relationships and suspicious activity reporting

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
§ 56 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 20, 36, 38 und 69 GwG; Bekanntmachung nach § 57 GwG
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
17 Sep 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.

10 Jul 2026 Brown Capital Management LLCBrown Capital Management: voting rights notifications not submitted on time GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €187,500

The Baltimore-based US asset manager had not submitted voting rights notifications to the issuer and BaFin in time; the deadline is four trading days after reaching a notifiable threshold. BaFin imposed a fine of 187,500 EUR; the notice is final.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone investing in German issuers needs automated threshold monitoring with clear responsibility for the four-day deadline.

Relevance to training and awareness

Threshold monitoring and notification deadlines for shareholdings

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
§ 33 Abs. 1 Satz 1 WpHG
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
22 Jul 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.

3 Jul 2026 ASX LimitedASX: 20.5 million AUD for misleading announcement on CHESS replacement project AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €12.4m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Progress updates on major projects must reflect the actual status, including known risks – and operators of critical market infrastructure are held to a particularly high standard.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accuracy and balance of market announcements about ongoing major projects

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

Report an error

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

2 Jul 2026 IRB-Brasil Resseguros S.A.IRB-Brasil Resseguros: BRL 6.32m settlement over obstructing SUSEP supervision BrazilBribery and corruption €1.07m

IRB-Brasil Resseguros S.A. concluded a Termo de Compromisso (settlement in sanction proceedings) with the CGU and allegedly pays a fine of BRL 6,317,473.41 because the company had hindered the investigative and supervisory activity of the insurance supervisor SUSEP (Art. 5 V Lei 12.846/2013). The fine equals the statutory minimum of 0.1% of gross revenue (BRL 6,509,921.81) less BRL 192,448.40 already paid in SUSEP proceedings over inconsistent reporting. Extraordinary publication was waived, and the proceedings are thereby closed.

What organisations can take from it

Incomplete or inconsistent information given to a supervisory authority can, as obstruction of supervision, trigger an anti-corruption fine.

Relevance to training and awareness

Obstructing supervisory authorities through inaccurate information

Authority / court
Controladoria-Geral da União (CGU)
Area of law
Bribery and corruption
Legal basis
Lei 12.846/2013, Art. 5 V, Art. 6 I; Decreto 11.129/2022, Art. 25 § 2; Portaria Normativa CGU 155/2024
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Credit was given for a compliance programme (3.6%), the absence of proof of advantage or damage (1%) and settlement-related reductions for cooperation and admission; fines already paid to SUSEP were deducted.
Published
3 Jul 2026

Original amount 6,317,473.41 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 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.

2 Jul 2026 Banca Transilvania S.A.Employee retrieves account statements for a third party – Banca Transilvania pays 5,000 EUR RomaniaData breaches and data security €5,002

At the request of a third party and outside the scope of his duties, a bank employee retrieved account statements of a data subject (name, IBAN, transactions, balances). The Romanian data protection authority (ANSPDCP) found insufficient technical and organisational measures and imposed 26,172 lei (5,000 EUR); the bank has paid the fine. Date = publication of the press release; according to the authority, the investigation was concluded in the previous month.

What organisations can take from it

Access logs and clear rules against ‘favour queries’ are a duty for every bank.

Relevance to training and awareness

Access to customer data for business purposes only; handling requests from third parties

Authority / court
Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)
Area of law
Data protection · Data breaches and data security
Legal basis
Art. 32 Abs. 1, 2 und 4 DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
2 Jul 2026

Original amount 26,172 RON, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Jul 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.

30 Jun 2026 Moody's Deutschland GmbHESMA fines Moody's Deutschland 2.1 million EUR EU levelOrganisational requirements €2.15m

The credit rating agency did not submit up-to-date rating information to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), did not provide complete historical performance data to the central repository and lacked adequate procedures and internal control mechanisms. ESMA found negligent infringements and imposed fines totalling 2,145,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Reporting obligations to the supervisory authority are data quality issues – without functioning internal controls, they become a risk of fines.

Authority / court
Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1060/2009 (CRA-Verordnung), Art. 24, 36a, Anhang III
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes

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.

30 Jun 2026 „Paysera LT“, UABPaysera: daily fine for missing annual accounts adds up to 362,000 EUR LithuaniaDisclosure and reporting obligations €362,000

Because Paysera did not comply with the order to submit its 2024 annual financial statements by 30 September 2025, the Lietuvos bankas (Bank of Lithuania, financial supervisor) first imposed 20,000 EUR in November 2025 and then a daily fine of 1,000 EUR (rising to 2,000 and 3,000 EUR respectively). As the infringement was only remedied after 6 May 2026, the daily fine added up to 362,000 EUR. Source: archived copy of the press release.

What organisations can take from it

Running daily fines make every delay expensive – supervisory orders need top-management priority.

Authority / court
Lietuvos bankas (Litauische Zentralbank, Finanzaufsicht)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Aufsichtsrechtliche Anordnung und Berichtspflichten nach litauischem E-Geld-Recht
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Published
30 Jun 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.

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.

26 Jun 2026 Netrios LP Ltd.; Red Acre Ltd.Netrios and Red Acre: 2.5 million USD for white-label leveraged trading with US retail customers USAOrganisational requirements €2.19m

The CFTC fined Netrios LP Ltd., incorporated in Saint Lucia, 1,750,000 USD and Maltese Red Acre Ltd. 750,000 USD, totalling 2,500,000 USD. From 2019 to September 2025, Netrios sold a white-label service (website, trading software, margin accounts, execution, back office) through which offshore platforms offered US retail customers who were not eligible contract participants leveraged forex, precious metals, crypto and equity transactions outside a registered exchange; Red Acre assisted with customer support and marketing. The SEC took parallel action over the same conduct. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Technology and service providers share liability if their platform solution enables US retail customers to trade on leverage unlawfully outside registered exchanges.

Authority / court
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 4(a) Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 6(a)); Beihilfe nach Section 13(a) (7 U.S.C. § 13c(a))
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
29 Jun 2026

Original amount 2,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 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.

26 Jun 2026 Banque Degroof Petercam SABanque Degroof Petercam: 1 million EUR settlement over hidden costs in employee stock options BelgiumOrganisational requirements €1m

In stock option plans for employees of client companies (2018–2023), the bank did not fully inform the beneficiaries about costs, had initially not recorded the conflicts of interest in this business and assessed clients’ knowledge only with a yes/no question. The Autorité des services et marchés financiers (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority, FSMA) accepted a settlement of 1 million EUR with publication by name and commitments on cost information.

What organisations can take from it

Full cost transparency and a dedicated conflicts register also apply to ancillary business such as employee stock option plans.

Authority / court
Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Loi du 2 août 2002; Wohlverhaltensregeln (Loyalität, Kostentransparenz, bestmögliche Ausführung, Interessenkonflikte, Kundenkenntnis)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
Remediation of all deficiencies (appropriateness test, conflicts policy, cost disclosure, waiver of CVA/KVA discounts).
Published
26 Jun 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 Jun 2026 Bourse Direct SAAMF: EUR 800,000 on online broker Bourse Direct over reporting and monitoring failures FranceDisclosure and reporting obligations €800,000

According to the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers, French financial markets authority) Enforcement Committee, the online broker Bourse Direct did not properly submit its transaction reports under Art. 26 MiFIR between January 2021 and November 2023 and did not maintain an adequate system to detect and report suspicious orders and transactions under Art. 16(2) MAR. The company received EUR 800,000. The amount covers only the sanction imposed on the company.

What organisations can take from it

Investment firms should regularly test transaction reporting and market abuse surveillance for completeness and effectiveness.

Relevance to training and awareness

Transaction reporting and market abuse surveillance at brokers

Authority / court
Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Commission des sanctions
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 26 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 600/2014 (MiFIR); Art. 15 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/590; Art. 16 Abs. 2 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (MAR); Art. 2, 3 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2016/957
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
50 to 249
Published
25 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

23 Jun 2026 Banca Popolare Commerciale SpaBanca d'Italia: 40,000 EUR against Banca Popolare Commerciale over AML deficiencies ItalyCustomer due diligence €40,000

Following an on-site inspection from February to April 2025, the Bank of Italy (Banca d'Italia) found deficiencies in customer due diligence, active cooperation (suspicious transaction reporting) and anti-money laundering controls, and imposed an administrative fine of 40,000 EUR. The duration of the deficiencies and the corrective measures initiated were taken into account.

What organisations can take from it

Gaps in customer due diligence and suspicious transaction reporting are consistently sanctioned after on-site inspections, even with smaller amounts – corrective measures reduce the sanction but do not replace it.

Relevance to training and awareness

Customer due diligence and suspicious transaction reports

Authority / court
Banca d'Italia
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Art. 62 d.lgs. 231/2007; Verstöße gegen Art. 7, 16–19, 24, 25, 35, 36 d.lgs. 231/2007
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Corrective measures initiated

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.

22 Jun 2026 Inkasso-Team AGFederal Administrative Court upholds FDPIC: Inkasso-Team was not allowed to publish debtor data SwitzerlandData subject rights and transparency Order

The debt collection company posted personal data of alleged debtors on the internet, some of it particularly sensitive, in order to obtain information on their whereabouts and to warn third parties. The Swiss Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, A-3891/2025) upheld the ruling of the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (EDÖB) of 28 April 2025, according to which this constitutes an unjustified violation of privacy.

What organisations can take from it

Publicly naming and shaming debtors cannot be justified under data protection law – debt collection must use less intrusive means.

Authority / court
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (A-3891/2025) auf Verfügung des EDÖB vom 28.04.2025
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
DSG Art. 6, Art. 19, Art. 31
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
20 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.

19 Jun 2026 Banque Internationale à Luxembourg S.A.Banque Internationale à Luxembourg: €3.255m ECB penalty for breaching a model decision EU levelOrganisational requirements €3.26m

From 2 October 2023 to 22 October 2024, contrary to a 2023 ECB decision, Banque Internationale à Luxembourg did not apply the newly approved internal models for the expected loss best estimate (ELBE) of defaulted retail and corporate exposures and therefore reported an IRB shortfall to be deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 capital that was too small. The ECB regarded the breach as intentional and severe and imposed 3,255,000 EUR; remedial action was taken into account as mitigating.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory decisions on internal models must be implemented on time, even if the previous approach produces more favourable capital figures.

Relevance to training and awareness

Timely implementation of supervisory decisions

Authority / court
Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 18 Abs. 7 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013 (Verstoß gegen einen EZB-Beschluss zu internen Modellen)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial action to alleviate the effects and to prevent future breaches.
Published
29 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 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.

19 Jun 2026 moomoo証券株式会社moomoo Securities: three months without new accounts after false NISA information and AML gaps JapanOrganisational requirements Order

From February to May 2025 the online broker wrongly displayed at least 77 US ETFs and ETNs as eligible for NISA (59 clients traded 25 of them in the tax-advantaged account) and repeated this for a further security after discovery, handled affected clients carelessly and unequally, had since 2024 refused all transfers of holdings to other institutions, carried out no suspicious-transaction assessment for at least 1,531 rejected account applicants and managed cyber and system risks inadequately. Soliciting and accepting new accounts was prohibited from 19 June to 18 September 2026, together with a business improvement order.

What organisations can take from it

A firm that grows fast with account-opening bonuses must scale product approval, complaints handling, suspicious-transaction checks and IT security at the same pace.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accurate product information and suspicious-transaction checks also for rejected clients

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Kanto Local Finance Bureau (関東財務局) 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 · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA, 金融商品取引法) Art. 52 Abs. 1, Art. 51; Art. 38 Nr. 1, Art. 43, Art. 40 Nr. 2 FIEA i. V. m. Art. 123 Abs. 1 Nr. 14 Cabinet Office Order on Financial Instruments Business; Act on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds (犯罪収益移転防止法)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
19 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

18 Jun 2026 HSBC Bank Australia LimitedHSBC Bank Australia: AUD 35m penalty for failing to protect customers from scams AustraliaOrganisational requirements €21.4m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Banks must deploy scam controls on every payment channel and handle scam reports within the deadlines of the applicable rules.

Relevance to training and awareness

Fraud and scam prevention in payments and handling of customer scam reports

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

Report an error

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

17 Jun 2026 Ikano Bank ABIkano Bank: 140 million SEK over deficiencies in money laundering risk assessment and customer due diligence SwedenCustomer due diligence €12.9m

For the period April 2022 to May 2023, the Swedish financial supervisory authority Finansinspektionen (FI) found that the bank’s general risk assessment did not realistically assess the terrorist financing risks of its corporate products and that no enhanced due diligence measures were taken for high-risk corporate customers. FI issued a remark and imposed 140 million SEK; the bank has brought an action before the administrative court.

What organisations can take from it

The money laundering risk assessment must reflect the actual customers and products – a generic assessment leaves the entire customer due diligence open to challenge.

Relevance to training and awareness

Enhanced due diligence for high-risk customers

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Penningtvättslagen (2017:630)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
17 Jun 2026

Original amount 140,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Jun 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.

17 Jun 2026 MX Global Ltd (MEXC)VARA fines MX Global (MEXC) for unlicensed crypto services and missing KYC United Arab EmiratesCustomer due diligence Fine

According to investigations by the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA, Dubai's virtual assets regulator), MX Global Ltd, which trades under the MEXC brand, provided broker-dealer and/or exchange services to customers in Dubai without a licence from 2022 to April 2026 and onboarded users without the KYC checks required by law. VARA imposed fines of an undisclosed amount and ordered the immediate cessation of all unlicensed activities in or from Dubai; other group companies were expressly not affected.

What organisations can take from it

Serving customers in a market requires a licence there – and local KYC obligations must be met regardless.

Relevance to training and awareness

Licensing requirement and KYC for cross-border crypto services

Authority / court
Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), Dubai
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Federal Decree-Law No. (10) of 2025 (AML/CFT/PF); Dubai Law No. (4) of 2022 Regulating Virtual Assets in the Emirate of Dubai; Cabinet Resolution No. 111/2022; VARA Regulations and Rulebooks
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation, compliance with the cease-and-desist orders and a stated intention to apply for a VARA licence.
Published
22 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.

17 Jun 2026 Peken Global Limited (KuCoin)VARA: fine and cease-and-desist order against unlicensed Peken Global (KuCoin) United Arab EmiratesCapital markets and financial supervision Fine

Following VARA investigations, Peken Global Limited, trading as KuCoin, provided virtual asset broker-dealer and/or exchange services to customers in Dubai without a licence. VARA imposed fines of an undisclosed amount and ordered the immediate cessation of all unlicensed activities; other group entities were expressly not affected.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone providing crypto services cross-border to customers in Dubai needs a licence there – regardless of where the platform is based.

Relevance to training and awareness

Licensing requirement for crypto services in the target market

Authority / court
Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), Dubai
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision
Legal basis
Federal Decree Law No. (10) of 2025 (AML/CFT/PF); Dubai Law No. (4) of 2022 Regulating Virtual Assets; Cabinet Resolution No. 111/2022; VARA Regulations und Rulebooks
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation and full compliance with the measures; intention to go through the licensing process.
Published
24 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.

16 Jun 2026 Banco BPM S.p.A.; Banco BPM Vita S.p.A.CONSOB fines Banco BPM and BPM Vita €570,000 over delayed disclosure of ECB letter ItalyDisclosure and reporting obligations €570,000

The CONSOB (Italian securities regulator) fined Banco BPM S.p.A. 370,000 EUR, of which 170,000 EUR for late disclosure of inside information under Art. 17(1) MAR and 200,000 EUR for obstructing supervision under Art. 187-quinquiesdecies of the Consolidated Law on Finance (TUF), and fined its subsidiary Banco BPM Vita S.p.A. 200,000 EUR, 570,000 EUR in total. In connection with BPM Vita's tender offer for Anima Holding S.p.A., the bank disclosed an ECB letter of 21 March 2025 rejecting the application of the so-called Danish Compromise to CONSOB and the market only four days later, after two trading days of the acceptance period. Both companies had previously informed CONSOB only incompletely about their discussions with the ECB.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory decisions affecting an ongoing takeover bid must be disclosed to the market and the supervisor at once rather than weighed internally.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ad hoc disclosure and transparency towards the supervisor in takeovers

Authority / court
CONSOB (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Abs. 1 Verordnung (EU) 596/2014 (MAR); Art. 187-ter.1 und Art. 187-quinquiesdecies Abs. 1 und 1-ter D.Lgs. 58/1998 (TUF)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes
Published
23 Jun 2026
Sources

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

Report an error

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

11 Jun 2026 Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd; Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd (EuropeFX); BrightAU Capital Pty Ltd (TradeFred)Union Standard and two CFD intermediaries: record penalties of AUD 300.2m AustraliaConsumer protection and online retail €182.1m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Licensees cannot outsource responsibility for distribution through authorised representatives and must actively monitor their sales practices.

Relevance to training and awareness

Licensees’ responsibility for authorised representatives and distribution of complex leveraged products to retail clients

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

Report an error

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

11 Jun 2026 Deutsche Bank AktiengesellschaftDeutsche Bank AG: AUD 2m penalty for inaccurate derivative trade reporting AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €1.21m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Derivative reporting systems need plausibility checks on mandatory fields, otherwise individual errors add up to systemic breaches.

Relevance to training and awareness

Data quality in regulatory transaction reporting

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

Report an error

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

5 Jun 2026 Caisse populaire Alliance limitéeFINTRAC: CAD 82,500 penalty on Caisse populaire Alliance limitée for 4 violations of anti-money laundering obligations CanadaCustomer due diligence €51,055

According to FINTRAC, Caisse populaire Alliance limitée is a provincially regulated credit union based in North Bay, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 82,500 on the company on 5 June 2026. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 4 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, enhanced measures for high-risk situations, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks and the prescribed review of the compliance programme. Specifically, according to FINTRAC, 46 of 118 high-risk clients were not reviewed annually, contrary to the credit union's own policies. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on Caisse populaire Alliance limitée", published 24 September 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-09-24-1-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1), 9.6(3); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c), 156(1)(f), 156(2), 156(3), 157; Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
24 Sep 2026

Original amount 82,500 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Jun 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.

4 Jun 2026 Pathwise Credit UnionFINTRAC: CAD 41,250 penalty on Pathwise Credit Union for 2 violations of anti-money laundering obligations CanadaInternal controls €25,501

According to FINTRAC, Pathwise Credit Union is a provincially regulated credit union based in Oshawa, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 41,250 on the company on 4 June 2026. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 2 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures and assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on Pathwise Credit Union", published 24 September 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-09-24-3-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
24 Sep 2026

Original amount 41,250 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Jun 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.

3 Jun 2026 CoinMENA FZEVARA fines CoinMENA over failings in its anti-money laundering programme United Arab EmiratesInternal controls Fine

The Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA, Dubai's virtual assets regulator) had licensed CoinMENA FZE to provide broker-dealer services on 30 November 2023. In ongoing supervisory inspections covering its entire market operations from the outset up to and including the 2025 financial year, VARA found administrative weaknesses in internal systems and controls that led to compliance failures in the company's anti-money laundering programme. VARA imposed a fine, the amount of which was not published.

What organisations can take from it

Even a licensed provider must keep its anti-money laundering programme aligned with its actual operations – the regulator reviews the entire period of operation.

Relevance to training and awareness

Internal controls in the AML programmes of crypto service providers

Authority / court
Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA), Dubai
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation, acceptance of the findings and a coordinated remediation plan.
Published
22 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.

3 Jun 2026 Wendelspiess Partners AG in LiquidationFINMA: Wendelspiess Partners breached FIDLEG duties, licence revoked SwitzerlandOrganisational requirements Order

Wendelspiess Partners AG invested almost all the money of its more than 400 clients in a barely diversified foreign fund it had set up and managed itself, which invested mainly in a Zug-based investment company and companies linked to it; it gave insufficient information about conflicts of interest and risks, carried out no suitability check and withheld relevant information from the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority). FINMA revoked the licence as an asset manager of the company, which is now bankrupt. Measures against individuals are not set out here. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

In-house funds in client portfolios are a classic conflict of interest that must be disclosed and backed by a documented suitability check.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest with in-house funds; information and suitability duties

Authority / court
Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verhaltenspflichten nach dem Finanzdienstleistungsgesetz (FIDLEG): Interessenkonflikte, Information, Eignungsprüfung; Auskunftspflicht gegenüber der FINMA
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
3 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 5 Oct 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

Report an error

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

2 Jun 2026 bunq B.V.AFM: €170,000 fine for bunq over late replies to fraud complaints NetherlandsOrganisational requirements €170,000

On 2 June 2026 the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM, Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets) fined bunq B.V. 170,000 EUR because in seven cases the bank did not give a substantive reply within the statutory 15 working days to complaints from customers who had fallen victim to online fraud (November to December 2023 and April to at least August 2024). Because bunq fully or largely compensated those affected without being legally obliged to, the AFM lowered the base amount from 500,000 to 200,000 EUR; the simplified settlement brought a further 15% reduction.

What organisations can take from it

Complaint processes for payment services need deadline monitoring, especially for fraud victims with large losses.

Relevance to training and awareness

Timely handling of complaints in payment services

Authority / court
Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 43a Abs. 1 i. V. m. Abs. 2 Besluit Gedragstoezicht financiële ondernemingen Wft (BGfo), Umsetzung von Art. 101 PSD2
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Voluntary full or largely full compensation of the customers concerned; simplified settlement (−15%).
Published
8 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 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.

29 May 2026 mBank S.A.mBank: PLN 14.9m for failings in treasury business and compliance PolandOrganisational requirements €3.52m

The KNF imposed four fines totalling PLN 14,900,000 on mBank: PLN 0.4m and 6m because staff negotiated client transactions with unauthorised third parties and passed client information to them, PLN 5m for not treating currency hedging transactions as financial instruments and PLN 3.5m for ineffective internal control and compliance functions. Following a request for reconsideration, the KNF upheld the decision on 28 August 2026; it is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Staff may negotiate client transactions only with persons whose authority has been verified, and the compliance function must monitor this.

Relevance to training and awareness

Verifying authority and confidentiality in client dealings

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
§ 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. § 26 Nr. 1 Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 24.09.2012; Art. 83b Abs. 3 und 6, Art. 83c Abs. 1 ustawa o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi; Art. 9c Abs. 1 Nr. 4 Prawo bankowe; Art. 21 und 22 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/565
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 14,900,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 May 2026.

Sources

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

Report an error

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

26 May 2026 TGI AGLiechtenstein: FMA halts TGI AG products over deposit-taking without a licence LiechtensteinCapital markets and financial supervision Order

The Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein (FMA, Financial Market Authority) ordered by decree of 26 May 2026 that TGI AG in Vaduz immediately stop distributing and publicly offering its products “Customer Basic 2 %”, “Sales Premium” and “Sofortrabatt”, because it was thereby conducting deposit-taking business without a licence, and that it no longer hold the customer funds received in this way within four months. In a partial decision of 12 August 2026 the FMA's appeals commission granted suspensive effect only for the order concerning the holding of the funds; the other measures remain in force and the proceedings are not final.

What organisations can take from it

Business models in which customer money is taken in and later repaid must be checked for a licensing requirement of the financial regulator before launch.

Relevance to training and awareness

Licensing requirement when accepting customer funds (deposit-taking)

Authority / court
Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein (FMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
28 May 2026

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

Report an error

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

25 May 2026 Padang Trust Singapore Pte. Ltd.MAS: SGD 300,000 against Padang Trust over failures in suspicious transaction reporting SingaporeSuspicious activity reports €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.

What organisations can take from it

Failing to question unusual transactions and delaying suspicious transaction reports breaches core anti-money laundering duties – staff must know the typical red flags.

Relevance to training and awareness

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.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

25 May 2026 Robomarkets LtdCyprus: Robomarkets pays 100,000 EUR under settlement over CFD sales to retail clients CyprusOrganisational requirements €100,000

For the period June 2023 to June 2024, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) examined the investment firm’s organisational requirements, client information, appropriateness assessment and compliance with the restrictions on marketing CFDs to retail investors. The proceedings were concluded with a settlement of 100,000 EUR, which the company has already paid.

What organisations can take from it

When selling CFDs to retail clients, the appropriateness assessment and product intervention rules are central points of supervisory scrutiny.

Relevance to training and awareness

Appropriateness assessment when selling complex products

Authority / court
Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 22(1), 25(1), 26(3) Gesetz über Wertpapierdienstleistungen 2017; Art. 42 VO (EU) 600/2014; CySEC-Richtlinie DI87-09; Art. 37(4) CySEC-Gesetz
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
24 Aug 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.

18 May 2026 Havenport Investments Pte LtdMAS: composition fine for Havenport Investments SingaporeOrganisational requirements €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.

What organisations can take from it

Licence conditions and capital requirements belong in ongoing compliance monitoring by senior management; any shortfall must be reported immediately.

Relevance to training and awareness

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.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

13 May 2026 Oma Säästöpankki OyjOma Säästöpankki: 400,000 EUR over late and incomplete insider lists FinlandMarket abuse and insider dealing €400,000

The bank failed to draw up insider lists in good time for two pieces of inside information (termination of the core banking project with Cognizant in 2021, merger talks with Liedon Säästöpankki in 2022), did not update them and omitted mandatory information. The Finanssivalvonta (Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority, FIN-FSA) imposed a total fine of 400,000 EUR; the decision was not appealed and is final.

What organisations can take from it

Insider lists must be created from the moment inside information exists – a fixed process with designated responsible persons prevents gaps.

Relevance to training and awareness

Insider lists and handling of inside information

Authority / court
Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (MAR) Art. 18 Abs. 1, 3 und 4; Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2016/347
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Measures to prevent recurrence and partial admission/cooperation had a mitigating effect.
Published
15 May 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.

13 May 2026 Pareto Securities AbPareto Securities: EUR 115,000 for gaps and duplicate filings in transaction reporting FinlandDisclosure and reporting obligations €115,000

The Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA, Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed a penalty payment of 115,000 EUR on Pareto Securities Ab. The firm had submitted no transaction reports at all on 71 days in 2024 and 20 days in 2025, and between June 2023 and May 2025 it reported 13 transactions an unusually high number of times, most of them more than 300 times. The admission of the failings reduced the amount.

What organisations can take from it

Automated reporting pipelines need controls that detect outages and duplicates immediately.

Relevance to training and awareness

Monitoring automated reporting pipelines

Authority / court
Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 26 Abs. 1 UAbs. 1 MiFIR (VO (EU) Nr. 600/2014); Sijoituspalvelulaki 15 luku 2 § 7 mom. 5 kohta; FivaL 40 §, 41 §
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Admission of the failings and cooperation with the supervisor.
Published
13 May 2026

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

Report an error

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

11 May 2026 Banco Topázio S.A.Banco Topázio: BRL 16.28m and crypto FX ban over anti-money laundering failings BrazilSuspicious activity reports €2.82m

The sanctions committee COPAS of the Banco Central do Brasil (central bank) imposed fines totalling BRL 16,280,000.00 on Banco Topázio S.A.: BRL 4,560,000.00 because its monitoring system contained no rules for foreign exchange transactions to buy and sell virtual assets, BRL 3,280,000.00 because suspicious transactions were not reported, or reported late, to the financial intelligence unit Coaf (including BRL 3.05bn from one client), and BRL 8,440,000.00 because the bank had not verified the qualification of foreign exchange clients. In addition, for two years it may not carry out over-the-counter foreign exchange transactions for virtual assets in which the client acts as an unauthorised intermediary for third parties. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone processing foreign exchange for crypto intermediaries needs suitable monitoring scenarios and must also know the customers behind the customers.

Relevance to training and awareness

Anti-money laundering monitoring of foreign exchange with crypto intermediaries

Authority / court
Banco Central do Brasil (Comitê de Decisão de Processo Administrativo Sancionador – COPAS)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
Legal basis
Lei 9.613/1998, Art. 10 III, Art. 11 II, Art. 12 II und § 2 II und IV; Circular BCB 3.978/2020, Arts. 38, 39 und 48; Lei 13.506/2017, Art. 3 XVII, Art. 5 II und IV
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Original amount 16,280,000 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 May 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.

8 May 2026 Permanent TSB plcDPC: 277,500 EUR against Permanent TSB after account takeovers via call centre calls IrelandData breaches and data security €277,500

Fraudsters in possession of customer data posed as customers at the bank's ‘Open24’ call centre, had account details changed and obtained further information because security protocols were not followed; those affected had to close accounts, and some suffered losses. Ireland's Data Protection Commission (DPC) imposed 250,000 EUR for inadequate security and 27,500 EUR for late breach notification (decision served in the week before the press release).

What organisations can take from it

Call centre staff must adhere to identity checks without exception – callers with ‘matching’ data are not automatically authorised.

Relevance to training and awareness

Identity verification by telephone (vishing)

Authority / court
Data Protection Commission (DPC)
Area of law
Data protection · Data breaches and data security
Legal basis
Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. f, Art. 32 Abs. 1, Art. 33 Abs. 1 DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
8 May 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.

6 May 2026 Československá obchodní banka, a. s.ČNB: CZK 30m fine for ČSOB over customer due diligence and AML control failures CzechiaCustomer due diligence €1.23m

The Česká národní banka (ČNB, Czech National Bank) fined Československá obchodní banka 30,000,000 CZK under the Czech anti-money laundering act. For customers internally rated as high-risk, including a credit institution, the bank did not adequately examine the purpose and background of transactions such as 58 cash withdrawals and did not fully screen ownership and management structures against sanctions lists. It also lacked effective internal procedures for ongoing customer due diligence and for enhanced due diligence on transactions involving high-risk third countries; for 8,414 legal entities with complex structures, the whole structure was not screened for sanctions.

What organisations can take from it

High-risk customers, especially other financial institutions, need ongoing, documented review of their transactions and of their entire ownership chain, including sanctions screening.

Relevance to training and awareness

Customer due diligence and transaction monitoring for high-risk customers

Authority / court
Česká národní banka (ČNB)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
§ 9 Abs. 1 lit. c, § 9a Abs. 1, § 21 Abs. 1, § 44 Abs. 1 lit. b und Abs. 3 lit. d, § 48 Abs. 1 Zákon č. 253/2008 Sb. (AML-Gesetz)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 30,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 May 2026.

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

Report an error

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

5 May 2026 P&V Assurances SCP&V Assurances: 150,000 EUR – distribution via a deregistered insurance intermediary BelgiumOrganisational requirements €150,000

One of the insurer’s intermediaries was removed from the FSMA register in December 2023; owing to a human data entry error in the monitoring tool, P&V only noticed this after more than a month and concluded 34 contracts through him during that time. The Autorité des services et marchés financiers (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority, FSMA) accepted a settlement of 150,000 EUR; there had already been a settlement for the same amount in 2020.

What organisations can take from it

Automated register checks are only as good as the underlying data maintenance – critical entries require a four-eyes principle.

Relevance to training and awareness

Care in master data maintenance / register reconciliation

Authority / court
Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances, Art. 259
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
IT adjustments to prevent recurrence.
Published
5 May 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.

4 May 2026 Malta: insurer reprimanded again and fined – marketing calls despite objection MaltaMarketing and consent €1,000

Although the Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC) had already ruled in favour of a complainant, an insurance company (name redacted) again had him called for marketing purposes via a third-party company; his number remained on call lists. The IDPC criticised the lack of safeguards and inadequate contracts with processors, ordered remedial action within 20 days and imposed two fines totalling 1,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

An objection to marketing must also reach all call centres engaged – otherwise the next complaint follows.

Relevance to training and awareness

Passing marketing objections on to service providers (suppression lists)

Authority / court
Information and Data Protection Commissioner (IDPC)
Area of law
Data protection · Marketing and consent
Legal basis
Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 21 Abs. 2, Art. 24 Abs. 1, Art. 28 Abs. 3 i. V. m. Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. b, d, i DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
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.

1 May 2026 Swiss Fund Management AG in Liquidation; BZ Berater Zentrum AGFINMA revokes Swiss Fund Management's licence and confiscates BZ commissions SwitzerlandOrganisational requirements Order

Swiss Fund Management AG in liquidation and BZ Berater Zentrum AG, which held around 2,000 asset management mandates, channelled investor money of around CHF 200 million, directly or via funds, into illiquid bonds of interlinked issuers that financed real estate projects of related companies, without adequately informing investors about the conflicts of interest and without adequate suitability and appropriateness checks under FIDLEG (Swiss Financial Services Act). By ruling of 1 May 2026 the Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA, Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority) revoked SFM's licence as a manager of collective assets, rejected BZ's application for a licence as an asset manager and confiscated placement commissions of more than CHF 3 million from BZ. The ruling is final.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone steering client money into products of related companies must disclose the conflicts of interest and document a suitability check for each client.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest and suitability checks in asset management

Authority / court
Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verhaltensregeln nach dem Finanzdienstleistungsgesetz (FIDLEG): Interessenkonflikte, Eignungs- und Angemessenheitsprüfung
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
29 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 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.

29 Apr 2026 Delta Dental Insurance Company und Delta Dental of New York, Inc.NYDFS: $2.25 million against Delta Dental after MOVEit attack and late notification USA, NYSecurity measures and risk management €1.92m

In 2023, attackers exploited a zero-day vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer to steal files containing social security, driving licence, account and health data. The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) criticised inadequate retention settings, policies and controls as well as the late notification of the cybersecurity incidents to the supervisory authority.

What organisations can take from it

Keep data in transfer tools only for as long as necessary – and report security incidents to the supervisory authority on time.

Authority / court
New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)
Area of law
Information security and cyber · Security measures and risk management
Legal basis
23 NYCRR Part 500 (Cybersecurity Regulation)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Published
30 Apr 2026

Original amount 2,250,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 Apr 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 Apr 2026 Compensa Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń S.A. Vienna Insurance GroupCompensa: PLN 8.5m for inadequate motor third-party liability premiums PolandOrganisational requirements €2m

The KNF fined the insurer Compensa PLN 8,500,000 because, in motor third-party liability insurance (class 10) in 2022 to 2024, it set premiums that were insufficient to cover all obligations under the contracts and the costs of its insurance business. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Insurers must price premiums so that they cover at least all contractual obligations and operating costs, and review this regularly.

Relevance to training and awareness

Adequate premium pricing in insurance

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 33 Abs. 2 ustawa z dnia 11 września 2015 r. o działalności ubezpieczeniowej i reasekuracyjnej
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 8,500,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Apr 2026.

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

Report an error

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

22 Apr 2026 Keytrade Bank (belgische Zweigniederlassung der Arkea Direct Bank SA)Keytrade Bank: €250,000 for faulty appropriateness warnings in online trading BelgiumOrganisational requirements €250,000

Because of an IT problem, Keytrade Bank displayed the same warning for every order from 27 December 2023 to 13 March 2024, regardless of the complexity of the instrument and the client's known level of knowledge. In the view of the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority), the bank thereby breached the rules on clear client information and on the appropriateness assessment, including for 81,416 transactions in non-complex instruments, 1,081 transactions in complex instruments without asking for knowledge and experience and 4,542 transactions where the required warning of inappropriateness was missing. The bank refunded losses of affected clients and pays 250,000 EUR under the settlement.

What organisations can take from it

Mandatory warnings in online brokerage must differentiate by product and client profile; changes to this logic need testing and ongoing monitoring.

Authority / court
Autorité des services et marchés financiers / Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten (FSMA) – Comité de direction (règlement transactionnel)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 27bis § 1 und Art. 27ter §§ 3 und 5 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002; Art. 71 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
The bank sold affected complex positions, refunded losses and informed the clients.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · 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 flatexDEGIRO SEBaFin fines flatexDEGIRO €1m for late ad hoc disclosure of special audit findings GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €1m

On 20 April 2026 BaFin (German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed a fine of 1,000,000 EUR on flatexDEGIRO SE. At the end of 2022, the company had not published the results of a special audit under § 44 KWG (German Banking Act) at flatexDEGIRO Bank AG, in which BaFin had identified deficiencies in business organisation, without delay as an ad hoc announcement, but only later as a press release. The fine is final.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory findings can also be inside information; a press release does not replace an ad hoc announcement.

Relevance to training and awareness

Assessing supervisory audit findings as potential inside information

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 17 Abs. 1 UAbs. 1 MAR (Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
30 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

20 Apr 2026 Arrowstreet Capital, Limited PartnershipAFM: €297,000 fine for Arrowstreet Capital over incorrect short position reports NetherlandsDisclosure and reporting obligations €297,000

On 20 April 2026 the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM, Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets) fined the US asset manager Arrowstreet Capital, Limited Partnership 297,000 EUR because, between July 2020 and November 2024, an error in its calculation method led it to report its net short positions in Just Eat Takeaway.com and Galapagos to the AFM too low on 101 occasions, 85 of which also breached the public disclosure obligation. Because the firm reported the error itself, corrected it quickly, cooperated fully and took measures against recurrence, the AFM reduced the base amount by 30%; the simplified settlement brought a further 15% reduction, and the matter is closed.

What organisations can take from it

Calculation methods used for reporting obligations should be validated regularly; self-reporting after discovering an error noticeably lowers the fine.

Relevance to training and awareness

Correct calculation and reporting of net short positions

Authority / court
Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 5 Abs. 1 und Art. 6 Abs. 1 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 236/2012 (Leerverkaufsverordnung, SSR)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Self-reporting, prompt correction, full cooperation and measures against recurrence (−30% on the base amount); simplified settlement (−15%).
Published
22 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · 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.

15 Apr 2026 Liquidnet Canada Inc.Liquidnet Canada: confidential order data passed on to unauthorised persons Canada, ONOrganisational requirements €369,572

The operator of alternative trading systems passed on confidential order and trading information from its fixed income and equity platforms to unauthorised employees, lacked adequate safeguards and was initially not forthcoming with the regulator. Sanctions: administrative penalty of 600,000 CAD, 75,000 CAD in costs, a reprimand and an external review.

What organisations can take from it

Technically restrict access rights to confidential client data and review them regularly – and make complete reports to the regulator.

Relevance to training and awareness

Need-to-know principle and protection of confidential trading data

Authority / court
Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario) auf Antrag der Ontario Securities Commission
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
National Instrument 21-101, s. 5.10(1)-(3); Securities Act (Ontario) ss. 127(1), 127.1
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation, self-report, no prior record

Original amount 600,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Apr 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.

9 Apr 2026 Ara 1857 S.p.A.IVASS fines Ara 1857 €900,000 for failing to carry out required remedies ItalyOrganisational requirements €900,000

IVASS (Italian insurance supervisor) imposed a fine of 900,000 EUR on Ara 1857 S.p.A. under Art. 310(1) of the Private Insurance Code (CAP). The company had not adequately implemented the preventive and corrective measures required by the supervisor, so serious shortcomings persisted in corporate governance, remuneration systems, risk management and control, and in the current and forward-looking solvency assessment. According to IVASS sanctions statistics, the company had already received a fine of 380,000 EUR in 2023.

What organisations can take from it

Supervisory requirements are not recommendations: failing to make the required corrections is in itself a breach that attracts a heavy sanction.

Relevance to training and awareness

Implementing supervisory remedial measures

Authority / court
IVASS (Istituto per la Vigilanza sulle Assicurazioni)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 188 Abs. 3-bis lit. d, Art. 30, 30-bis, 30-ter, 30-quater, 30-septies und 310 Abs. 1 D.Lgs. 209/2005 (CAP); IVASS-Verordnung 38/2018
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Published
29 May 2026

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

Report an error

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

8 Apr 2026 The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.Goldman Sachs Group: SEK 1.5m for late major shareholding notifications SwedenDisclosure and reporting obligations €139,095

Finansinspektionen (FI, Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed an administrative fine of 1,500,000 SEK on The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. because six crossings of the 5% threshold for shares and voting rights in Lundin Mining Corporation, Samhällsbyggnadsbolaget i Norden AB and Scandic Hotels Group AB were notified between 1 and 104 trading days late; a further transaction (Lundin Mining, 27 March 2025) was closed without sanction. FI took into account that a professional market participant had committed breaches in several issuers and saw no grounds for waiving the fine.

What organisations can take from it

Group-wide shareholding monitoring must detect crossings of national notification thresholds on the day they occur and report them on time.

Relevance to training and awareness

Major shareholding notifications (flagging) when thresholds are crossed

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
6 kap. 3 a § första stycket 4 lagen (1991:980) om handel med finansiella instrument (Flaggningspflicht)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
10 Apr 2026

Original amount 1,500,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Apr 2026.

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

Report an error

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

30 Mar 2026 XTB S.A.XTB: PLN 20m for deficient appropriateness checks in CFD sales PolandOrganisational requirements €4.66m

The KNF fined the brokerage XTB PLN 20,000,000 because, between January 2022 and September 2023, it did not properly assess clients' knowledge and experience, did not adequately define the target market for complex instruments such as CFDs, failed to identify possible conflicts of interest arising from the „lista HOT“ distributed to clients and gave clients unreliable information on CFD risks. At XTB's request the KNF reconsidered the case and upheld the decision on 28 August 2026.

What organisations can take from it

Experience with simple products is not enough to classify complex leveraged products such as CFDs as appropriate for a client.

Relevance to training and awareness

Appropriateness assessment and product governance for leveraged products

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 34 Abs. 2 lit. a, Art. 48 und Art. 56 Abs. 1 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2017/565; § 37 Abs. 5 Nr. 6 i. V. m. § 31 Abs. 7 Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 30.05.2018; Art. 83c Abs. 2 und Abs. 4 Nr. 2 ustawa o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 20,000,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

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

30 Mar 2026 Peken Global Limited (KuCoin)Peken Global (KuCoin): 500,000 USD and ban on US access without CFTC registration USAOrganisational requirements €435,388

On a complaint by the CFTC, the federal court in New York entered a consent order against the operator of the KuCoin crypto exchange, which is registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Peken Global had given US participants direct access to its trading system without being registered with the CFTC as a foreign board of trade; the court permanently prohibited this and imposed a fine of 500,000 USD. Disgorgement was waived because of the cooperation and the forfeiture in the parallel criminal case, in which Peken Global had pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone giving US participants direct access to a foreign trading platform needs the appropriate CFTC registration or must effectively block such access.

Authority / court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (auf Klage der CFTC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
CFTC Regulation 48.3 (17 C.F.R. § 48.3); Section 6c Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 13a-1)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation with the CFTC and in the criminal proceedings; because of the forfeiture ordered there, the CFTC did not seek disgorgement.
Published
30 Mar 2026

Original amount 500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 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.

27 Mar 2026 Oztures Trading Pty Ltd (Binance Australia Derivatives)Binance Australia Derivatives: 10 million AUD for misclassified retail clients AustraliaOrganisational requirements €5.98m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Classifications that remove client protections require robust evidence, trained staff and effective oversight – a knowledge test that can be retaken at will is no substitute for a proper assessment.

Relevance to training and awareness

Client classification (retail or wholesale) and verification of evidence during onboarding

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

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

Report an error

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

27 Mar 2026 13010431 Canada Inc. (Necosmart)FINTRAC: 693,742 CAD against crypto service provider Necosmart over missing suspicious transaction reports CanadaSuspicious activity reports €434,295

The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) imposed 693,742.50 CAD on the Edmonton money services business, which also exchanges virtual currencies, for five violations: repeated failure to file suspicious transaction reports, lack of written compliance policies, insufficient enhanced measures for high-risk transactions, lack of a risk assessment and incomplete records of occupation and transactions for crypto exchanges.

What organisations can take from it

Small crypto exchange offices need the same basic framework as banks: risk analysis, policies, enhanced scrutiny and reporting.

Relevance to training and awareness

Recognising and reporting grounds for suspicion in crypto exchange

Authority / court
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
Legal basis
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, Part 1, und zugehörige Verordnungen
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
14 May 2026

Original amount 693,742.5 CAD, 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.

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.

26 Mar 2026 NN Penzijní společnost, a.s.ČNB: CZK 10m fine for NN Penzijní společnost – savers' interest income booked as its own CzechiaOrganisational requirements €408,530

The ČNB (Czech National Bank) fined NN Penzijní společnost 10,000,000 CZK under the supplementary pension savings act. In 2023 the pension company booked interest income totalling 8,060,467.26 CZK earned on savers' money held in collection and payout accounts as its own income instead of allocating it to the participants. In addition, until at least February 2024 it lacked independent ongoing monitoring of investment limits, effective oversight of outsourced activities and adequate procedures for conflicts of interest within the corporate group.

What organisations can take from it

Income generated on client money belongs to the clients; firms that outsource administration need their own independent controls rather than relying on the provider's data.

Relevance to training and awareness

Fiduciary duties towards savers and oversight of outsourced activities

Authority / court
Česká národní banka (ČNB)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
§ 49 lit. a und b, § 50, § 51, § 54 Abs. 1, § 160 Abs. 1 lit. q und u, § 160 Abs. 10 Zákon č. 427/2011 Sb. (ZDPS, Fassung bis 31. 12. 2024)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 10,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

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

25 Mar 2026 Familiam Asset Management OyFamiliam Asset Management: 70,000 EUR for 2,867 unreported securities transactions FinlandDisclosure and reporting obligations €70,000

Between September 2021 and August 2023, the asset manager failed to report a total of 2,867 transactions to the supervisory authority on time and in 2024 also submitted quarterly reports (FINREP) late. The Finanssivalvonta (Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority, FIN-FSA) imposed a total fine of 70,000 EUR; the admission had a mitigating effect.

What organisations can take from it

Reporting obligations require deadline monitoring with a deputy arrangement – especially in small firms without their own reporting department.

Relevance to training and awareness

Regulatory reporting

Authority / court
Finanssivalvonta (FIN-FSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
MiFIR (VO (EU) 600/2014) Art. 26 Abs. 1; IFR (VO (EU) 2019/2033) Art. 54 Abs. 1; FIN-FSA-Vorschriften 20/2013 (FINREP)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Admission of the failures / cooperation.
Published
25 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 Revolut Group Holdings Ltd, Revolut Bank UAB, Revolut Securities Europe UABAGCM fines Revolut €11.5m over misleading investment, account and IBAN information ItalyMisleading advertising and pricing €11.5m

The AGCM objected to three unfair commercial practices by Revolut: unclear information that investors sometimes acquire only fractional shares, together with misleading "0% commission" advertising; unclear information on account blocks and their aggressive implementation without adequate prior notice or support; and missing information on the requirements and time needed to obtain an Italian IBAN. Fines of 5,000,000 EUR against Revolut Group Holdings Ltd and Revolut Securities Europe UAB, and of 5,000,000 and 1,500,000 EUR against Revolut Group Holdings Ltd and Revolut Bank UAB, each jointly and severally, were imposed, totalling 11,500,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Account blocks need transparent criteria, timely information and a reachable route to resolve them, and "0% commission" must not be advertised where other costs apply.

Relevance to training and awareness

Transparency on investment products, fee advertising and account blocks

Authority / court
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
Art. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
For the IBAN practice, the AGCM took into account measures that Revolut took on its own initiative during the proceedings.
Published
2 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 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.

19 Mar 2026 Mavera ABMavera: SEK 14.3m for exclusivity clauses with insurance medical advisers SwedenAbuse of market power €1.32m

The Konkurrensverket (Swedish Competition Authority) found that Mavera AB abuses its dominant position by applying, since 1 January 2021, exclusivity clauses in contracts with companies providing insurance medical advice that prohibit advising competing businesses. The authority imposed a competition damages fee (konkurrensskadeavgift) of 14,300,000 SEK and ordered the company to stop applying the clauses and to inform its contractual partners within six weeks; the order is backed by a conditional fine (vite) of 30,000,000 SEK. Mavera has appealed to the Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Market Court). The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Exclusivity ties imposed by a dominant customer on service providers can keep competitors out of the market and carry high competition law risk.

Relevance to training and awareness

Exclusivity clauses used by dominant companies

Authority / court
Konkurrensverket
Area of law
Competition law · Abuse of market power
Legal basis
2 kap. 7 § konkurrenslagen (2008:579); Art. 102 AEUV; 3 kap. 1 § och 3 kap. 5 § första stycket 1 KL
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
19 Mar 2026

Original amount 14,300,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

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

17 Mar 2026 Bithumb Co., Ltd.Bithumb: partial suspension and KRW 36.9bn fine for anti-money laundering breaches South KoreaCustomer due diligence €21.5m

The KoFIU (Korea Financial Intelligence Unit) found that the crypto exchange Bithumb had processed 45,772 transfers of crypto assets with 18 virtual asset service providers that had not complied with their reporting obligation between August 2022 and April 2025, and had breached customer identification duties and the associated transaction restrictions in large numbers; there were also shortcomings in suspicious transaction reporting, record keeping and the risk assessment of new products. On 17 March 2026 it ordered a six-month partial suspension of business (no transfers of crypto assets for new customers from 27 March to 26 September 2026) and imposed a fine of KRW 36,873.5 million. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

Crypto exchanges must check counterparties for deposits and withdrawals against the register of reported providers before allowing transfers.

Relevance to training and awareness

Counterparty checks and customer identification for crypto transfers

Authority / court
Korea Financial Intelligence Unit (KoFIU)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Art. 4, 5, 5-2, 5-4 und 8 Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information; Art. 9, 10-6, 10-9 und 10-20 Durchführungsverordnung (Teilsperre wegen Art. 8 i. V. m. Art. 10-20 DVO: Geschäfte mit nicht gemeldeten Anbietern)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
17 Mar 2026

Original amount 36,873,500,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

17 Mar 2026 Alecta Tjänstepension ÖmsesidigtAlecta: warning and SEK 50m over risk control in Heimstaden investments SwedenOrganisational requirements €4.67m

Finansinspektionen (FI, Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority) issued the occupational pension provider Alecta a warning and the statutory maximum administrative fine of 50,000,000 SEK. For investments of around 26.5 billion SEK in Heimstaden Bostad AB between October 2019 and August 2023, Alecta had – with the exception of one investment occasion – not sufficiently identified the risk of loss arising from the articles of association and shareholder agreements, nor ensured that it could manage that risk; the assets were therefore not invested in the way that best served the beneficiaries' interests. FI classified the breaches as serious but refrained from revoking the licence in view of the measures taken.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone investing client money must analyse and document the contractual risks (influence, exit, reinvestment obligations) before each tranche.

Relevance to training and awareness

Risk control and prudence in large investments of pension assets

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
6 kap. 20 § försäkringsrörelselagen (2010:2043) in der Fassung vor dem 1.1.2016; 6 kap. 1–3 §§ lagen (2019:742) om tjänstepensionsföretag; 15 kap. 1, 2 och 16 §§ LTF
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Alecta replaced several senior executives, made staffing changes in asset management and strengthened its board; FI therefore considered a warning rather than licence revocation sufficient.
Published
18 Mar 2026

Original amount 50,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

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

17 Mar 2026 TradeStation Securities, Inc.OFAC: USD 1.11 million settlement with TradeStation over securities trading for customers in Iran, Syria and Crimea USABreaches of sanctions and embargoes €963,196

Online broker TradeStation Securities, Inc. of Florida is paying USD 1,110,661 under a settlement with OFAC for 481 apparent violations of multiple sanctions programmes. According to OFAC's findings, following several failures in compliance controls, customers in Iran, Syria and Crimea were able to execute 481 securities trades worth a total of USD 4,442,645 via the mobile app between June 2021 and June 2022. OFAC treated the apparent violations as non-egregious and voluntarily self-disclosed and credited significant remedial measures; the base penalty was USD 2,221,322. Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), enforcement release "TradeStation Securities, Inc. Settles with OFAC for $1,110,661 Related to Apparent Violations of Multiple Sanctions Regulations", 17 March 2026, https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/935351/download?inline; summarised in our own words.

Authority / court
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
Area of law
Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes
Legal basis
Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 560.204; Syrian Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 542.207; Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 589.207 (481 mutmaßliche Verstöße); Vergleich nach den Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
17 Mar 2026

Original amount 1,110,661 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Mar 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.

17 Mar 2026 Hakrinbank N.V.; Finabank N.V.; De Surinaamsche Bank N.V.OM: settlements with three Surinamese banks over negligent money laundering NetherlandsCustomer due diligence €415,000

Hakrinbank N.V., Finabank N.V. and De Surinaamsche Bank N.V. concluded transactions (out-of-court settlements) with the Openbaar Ministerie (OM, Dutch Public Prosecution Service) over suspected negligent money laundering (schuldwitwassen) in 2018 and are paying a total of 415,000 EUR (Hakrinbank 166,000 EUR, Finabank and De Surinaamsche Bank 124,500 EUR each). The trigger was the seizure at Schiphol Airport in April 2018 of 19.5 million EUR in cash belonging to the three banks and bound for Hong Kong; the OM accused them of not having adequately checked the origin of the cash in Suriname, in particular who the customers of the bureaux de change among their clients were. The OM found no intent; it took into account the age of the case and the lesser seriousness of negligent money laundering, and the seized money will be returned.

What organisations can take from it

Banks that accept cash from bureaux de change and ship it internationally must include their customers’ customers in checks on its origin.

Relevance to training and awareness

Checking the origin of cash shipments and customers of bureaux de change

Authority / court
Openbaar Ministerie (OM), Arrondissementsparket Noord-Holland
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Schuldwitwassen (fahrlässige Geldwäsche nach niederländischem Strafrecht); Transaktion des OM
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
No intent established; age of the case; the banks have since implemented improvements in cash controls, KYC and governance.
Published
17 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

13 Mar 2026 Macquarie Securities (Australia) LimitedMacquarie Securities: 35 million AUD for years of misreported short sales AustraliaDisclosure and reporting obligations €21.5m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Regulatory reporting processes need their own regularly tested controls, and individual errors that come to light should be investigated as a possible sign of wider system weaknesses.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accuracy of regulatory reporting (short sale and order data) and escalation of identified reporting errors

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

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.

10 Mar 2026 Barclays PLCBaFin fines Barclays €1.65m over 26 late voting rights notifications GermanyDisclosure and reporting obligations €1.65m

On 10 March 2026 BaFin (German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed a fine of 1,650,000 EUR on Barclays PLC. Between June 2022 and March 2023 the company had failed in 26 cases to submit voting rights notifications concerning the same issuer on time; the fine punished a breach of the duty of supervision because adequate organisational measures were lacking. The fine is final.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone holding positions in German issuers needs reliable threshold monitoring, or many missed notifications turn into a high fine.

Relevance to training and awareness

Monitoring voting rights thresholds and notifying on time

Authority / court
Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
§ 130 Abs. 1 OWiG i. V. m. § 33 Abs. 1 S. 1, § 34 Abs. 1 S. 1, § 38 Abs. 1 S. 1 und § 39 Abs. 1 WpHG
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Liability of senior managers
The fine punished a breach of the duty of supervision under § 130 OWiG (German Administrative Offences Act): the company had not taken adequate organisational measures to prevent the breaches or make them significantly more difficult.
Published
27 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

9 Mar 2026 Werbendes Unternehmen aus dem Sektor Finanz- und Versicherungsprodukte (anonymisiert)BNetzA: €50,000 fine on financial products seller posing as an advice centre on the phone GermanyMarketing and consent €50,000

The Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) fined a company marketing financial and insurance products 50,000 EUR for unlawful telephone advertising. The calls were particularly intrusive, callers falsely claimed to be an independent advice centre and presented sales calls as service calls; the company has appealed.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone marketing by phone must not disguise either their own identity or the promotional purpose of the call.

Relevance to training and awareness

Consent and proof of consent for telephone marketing

Authority / court
Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA)
Area of law
Data protection · Marketing and consent
Legal basis
UWG – Verbot unerlaubter Telefonwerbung gegenüber Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

6 Mar 2026 Canaccord Genuity LLCFinCEN: 80 million USD against Canaccord Genuity over AML and correspondent banking deficiencies USACustomer due diligence €69.2m

The US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) imposed 80 million USD on the broker-dealer, which admitted wilful BSA infringements: no effective AML programme, no due diligence on correspondent accounts of foreign financial institutions and failure to file suspicious activity reports in connection with securities fraud. Remedial measures that had been promised were not implemented for years.

What organisations can take from it

Implement remedial measures promised in writing to the supervisory authority genuinely and swiftly – years of delay aggravate the later sanction.

Authority / court
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Published
6 Mar 2026

Original amount 80,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 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.

5 Mar 2026 Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A.Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg: EUR 56,000 for late suspicious activity reports LuxembourgSuspicious activity reports €56,000

The CSSF fined the specialised financial services provider, whose domiciliation business was inspected, EUR 56,000 (around 2% of annual turnover). In four cases involving adverse media on possible corruption or drug trafficking, the company reported to the FIU only after the CSSF asked and incompletely; in six further cases with indications of corruption, bribery and tax offences no report was made at all.

What organisations can take from it

Adverse media on clients requires the firm's own investigation and, if suspicion remains, a complete report – not only when the supervisor asks.

Relevance to training and awareness

Investigating adverse media and reporting completely and on time

Authority / court
Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
Legal basis
Art. 2-1(1) i. V. m. Art. 8-4(1), (2)(f) und (3)(a) Loi modifiée du 12 novembre 2004 (LBC/FT); verletzt u. a. Art. 5(1)(a); Règlement CSSF 12-02
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Limited scope of the inspection; findings acknowledged, action plan and remedial measures.
Published
9 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

4 Mar 2026 Santander Bank Polska S.A. (heute Erste Bank Polska S.A.)Santander Bank Polska: PLN 21.1m for failings in securities and treasury business PolandOrganisational requirements €4.95m

The KNF imposed eight fines totalling PLN 21,100,000, among other things for cooperating with unauthorised third parties in client transactions (PLN 2m and 4m), transactions with clients outside the target market (PLN 2.5m), missing cost information on currency hedging transactions (PLN 1m), a non-compliant remuneration system (PLN 0.5m), the execution of orders relating to „Oprocentowanie Nie Wyższe Niż“ (PLN 7m), ineffective internal control and compliance functions (PLN 4m) and failure to archive client correspondence (PLN 0.1m). Following a request for reconsideration, the KNF upheld the fines on 28 August 2026; an action before the administrative court is possible.

What organisations can take from it

Banks must verify the authority of persons acting for clients and equip their compliance function so that it actually detects such gaps.

Relevance to training and awareness

An effective compliance function and dealing with client representatives in treasury business

Authority / court
Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 83b Abs. 3, Art. 83c Abs. 1 und 4, Art. 83e Abs. 1 ustawa o obrocie instrumentami finansowymi; § 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. § 26 Nr. 1 Verordnung des Finanzministers vom 24.09.2012; Art. 9c Abs. 1 Nr. 4 und Art. 88k Abs. 6a Prawo bankowe
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 21,100,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

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

3 Mar 2026 BNF Bank p.l.c.Malta: 69,000 EUR against BNF Bank over late reporting to the bank account register MaltaMoney laundering and terrorist financing €69,000

Following the introduction of a new core banking system in April 2025, the bank was unable, until September 2025, to submit the mandatory weekly data deliveries to the Centralised Bank Account Register (CBAR) on time. The Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU) imposed 69,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Test regulatory reporting chains in advance of IT migrations – migration problems do not excuse missed deadlines.

Authority / court
Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit (FIAU)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing
Legal basis
Reg. 4(2), 8 Centralised Bank Account Register Regulations (S.L. 373.03)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
The bank continuously attempted to upload reports
Published
6 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.

27 Feb 2026 MBaer Merchant Bank AGFINMA withdraws MBaer Merchant Bank's licence over serious anti-money laundering deficiencies SwitzerlandInternal controls Order

Following enforcement proceedings, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) found serious, systematic deficiencies in anti-money laundering due diligence, organisation and risk management; the bank enabled clients to circumvent official asset freezes and executed transactions for sanctioned persons. FINMA had withdrawn the bank's licence and ordered its liquidation; with the withdrawal of the appeal before the Federal Administrative Court, the orders took effect on 27 February 2026. The day before, FinCEN had proposed designating the bank as an institution of primary money laundering concern.

What organisations can take from it

Systematic anti-money laundering and sanctions deficiencies can cost a bank its licence – not just money.

Authority / court
Eidgenössische Finanzmarktaufsicht (FINMA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Schweizer Geldwäschereirecht und Bankenaufsichtsrecht (laut FINMA)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
50 to 249
Published
27 Feb 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.

23 Feb 2026 COFIDIS SA (Zweigniederlassung Slowakei)NBS: EUR 160,000 fine for the COFIDIS branch over 23 anti-money laundering failings SlovakiaInternal controls €160,000

The NBS (National Bank of Slovakia) fined the French bank COFIDIS 160,000 EUR in respect of its Slovak branch for 23 breaches found in an on-site inspection that began in May 2021. The anti-money laundering programme was outdated and incomplete (among other things it lacked current details of the money laundering officer, clear rules on when standard and when enhanced due diligence applies, the branch's own risk assessment and record-keeping requirements); in 2020 only 5 of 27 staff were trained, and 6 of 7 newly hired staff with AML tasks were not trained within three months. The branch also failed to verify customers' identity adequately for online products and electronic signing, did not identify politically exposed persons, did not monitor third-party payments into loan accounts, did not report refusals of unusual transactions to the financial intelligence unit and submitted inaccurate customer data to the NBS.

What organisations can take from it

An AML programme must be updated every year, and new staff with AML duties need their training within the statutory deadline.

Relevance to training and awareness

AML training for existing and new staff

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Národná banka Slovenska (NBS)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
§ 10, § 12, § 14, § 17, § 19, § 20 Abs. 1 bis 3, § 20a Zákon č. 297/2008 Z. z. (AML-Gesetz); § 27 Abs. 2, § 42 Abs. 2, § 50 Abs. 1 lit. d Zákon č. 483/2001 Z. z. (Bankengesetz)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

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

23 Feb 2026 VersaBankFINTRAC: CAD 42,075 penalty on VersaBank for 2 violations of anti-money laundering obligations CanadaCustomer due diligence €26,082

According to FINTRAC, VersaBank is a bank based in London, Ontario. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 42,075 on the company on 23 February 2026. According to FINTRAC's findings, the company committed 2 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures and enhanced measures for high-risk situations. Specifically, according to FINTRAC, the bank failed in at least seven instances to correctly identify elevated or high-risk clients and apply enhanced due diligence. According to FINTRAC, the penalty has been paid in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on VersaBank", published 5 May 2026, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2026-05-05-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1), 9.6(3); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 157; Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
5 May 2026

Original amount 42,075 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Feb 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.

20 Feb 2026 BofA Securities Europe SABofA Securities Europe: €6.2m ECB penalty for misreporting market risk EU levelDisclosure and reporting obligations €6.2m

According to the ECB decision, BofA Securities Europe SA reported risk-weighted assets for market risk that were too low, and hence incorrect capital ratios, for six quarters (31 December 2022 to 31 March 2024), because it used its internal model for sovereign bond options although its permission did not cover them. The ECB classified the breach as intentional and severe and took remedial action into account as mitigating.

What organisations can take from it

Internal models may only be used within the approved scope; extensions must be applied for with the supervisor in advance.

Relevance to training and awareness

Using internal models only within the approved scope

Authority / court
Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 430 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 575/2013 (CRR); Art. 18 Abs. 1 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial action to prevent future breaches.
Published
27 Mar 2026

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

Report an error

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

20 Feb 2026 BVwG reduces FMA penalty against private bank over unclarified beneficial owners AustriaCustomer due diligence €356,000

From 2017 to 2020, an Austrian bank specialising in private and investment banking had not adequately examined the ownership and control structure of an offshore holding client despite the lack of evidence on shareholders, trust arrangements and beneficial owners. The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) confirmed the infringement but reduced the additional penalty imposed by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 17 December 2024 from 476,000 to 356,000 EUR (total penalty 436,000 EUR less FMA penalties already paid), because the FMA had taken the seriousness of the offence into account twice and the bank had cooperated, admitted its errors and terminated the client relationship; an appeal on points of law has been permitted.

What organisations can take from it

For offshore holdings with trustees, prove the beneficial owner with supporting documents – a self-declaration is not enough.

Relevance to training and awareness

Identifying beneficial owners in holding and trust structures

Authority / court
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 17.12.2024
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
§ 9 Abs. 1 erster Satz i. V. m. § 6 Abs. 1 Z 2 FM-GwG; § 35 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 1 Z 2 und Abs. 2 FM-GwG; § 22 Abs. 9 FMABG (Zusatzstrafe)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
reduced
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
Reduction by the court because the wrongfulness of the offence had been counted twice, cooperation, admission of the facts and of guilt, and termination of the client relationship

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.

17 Feb 2026 REGIS-TR S.A.Trade repository REGIS-TR: deficiencies in organisation and data protection – 1.37 million EUR EU levelOrganisational requirements €1.37m

The Luxembourg trade repository lacked adequate compliance procedures and an appropriate organisational structure, failed to identify operational risks and did not adequately protect the confidentiality and integrity of the reported data. ESMA imposed fines totalling 1,374,000 EUR for negligent infringements under EMIR and SFTR; the case is under appeal.

What organisations can take from it

Market infrastructures must manage operational risks and data access as strictly as banks manage their credit risks.

Authority / court
Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 648/2012 (EMIR), Art. 65, 73, Anhang I; Verordnung (EU) 2015/2365 (SFTR), Art. 9
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes

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.

17 Feb 2026 BVwG upholds 588,000 EUR FMA penalty against major bank over incorrect risk classification AustriaCustomer due diligence €588,000

The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) dismissed the appeal of a listed major Austrian bank and upheld the fine of 588,000 EUR (plus 58,800 EUR in procedural costs) imposed by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 19 November 2024. From 2017 to 2020, the bank had not adequately risk-classified three business relationships and had disregarded sector risks such as gambling and precious metals trading as well as cash intensity; an appeal on points of law has been permitted.

What organisations can take from it

Customers from gambling or precious metals trading with a high share of cash belong in a higher risk class – otherwise the enhanced obligations are missing.

Relevance to training and awareness

Risk classification of cash-intensive high-risk sectors

Authority / court
Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 19.11.2024
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
§ 6 Abs. 5 i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 1 Z 2 und § 35 Abs. 1–3 FM-GwG
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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 Feb 2026 J.P. Morgan SEJ.P. Morgan SE: €12.18m ECB penalty for misreporting risk-weighted assets EU levelDisclosure and reporting obligations €12.2m

The ECB imposed two penalties on J.P. Morgan SE: 10,150,000 EUR because the bank misclassified corporate exposures in 15 quarterly reports (end-2019 to mid-2023) and reported risk-weighted assets for credit risk that were too low, and 2,030,000 EUR because it wrongly excluded transactions from the calculation of credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk in 21 reporting periods (2019 to 2024). The ECB regarded both as seriously negligent, caused by evident deficiencies in internal processes; as a result, the reported capital ratios were too high.

What organisations can take from it

Classification of exposures for regulatory reporting needs effective controls; otherwise incorrect capital ratios become a sanctions risk.

Relevance to training and awareness

Accuracy of supervisory reporting

Authority / court
Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
Art. 430 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 575/2013 (CRR); Art. 18 Abs. 1 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
The bank identified and reported the breaches itself, cooperated and took remedial action.
Published
19 Feb 2026

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

Report an error

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

10 Feb 2026 Paxful Holdings Inc.Crypto platform Paxful: 4 million USD penalty after guilty plea to BSA infringements USAInternal controls €3.36m

Following a guilty plea to charges including conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business and to violate the AML obligations of the Bank Secrecy Act, the peer-to-peer crypto platform was sentenced to a penalty of 4 million USD. 112.5 million USD would have been appropriate, but the US Department of Justice (DOJ) found an inability to pay; in December 2025, FinCEN had additionally imposed a civil penalty of 3.5 million USD.

What organisations can take from it

Crypto platforms without registration and KYC face criminal liability – up to the limit of their ability to pay.

Authority / court
U.S. Department of Justice
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Travel Act; Verschwörung zum Betrieb eines nicht lizenzierten Geldtransfergeschäfts und zur Verletzung der AML-Pflichten des Bank Secrecy Act
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Mitigating circumstances
Penalty limited from 112.5 million to 4 million USD because of proven inability to pay
Published
11 Feb 2026

Original amount 4,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Feb 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.

9 Feb 2026 FIIG Securities LimitedFIIG Securities: 2.5 million AUD for inadequate cyber security ahead of data theft AustraliaSecurity measures and risk management €1.48m

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.

What organisations can take from it

For licensed financial services firms, cyber security is part of their licence obligations: basic measures such as MFA, patching, monitoring, training and a tested incident response plan must be funded and actually implemented.

Relevance to training and awareness

Cyber security basics: multi-factor authentication, patch management, security awareness training, tested incident response plan

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

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

Report an error

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

9 Feb 2026 Kylin International (HK) Co., LimitedSFC: HKD 9m fine for Kylin International over fund management failures Hong KongOrganisational requirements €968,909

The SFC publicly reprimanded Kylin International (HK) and fined it HKD 9 million for failures as investment manager or consultant of six sub-funds of a Cayman Islands fund from August 2018. The SFC found that conflicts of interest arising from six loans by the firm or a director to four sub-funds were neither managed nor disclosed, reconciliations, valuations and audits were missing, investors were wrongly told that the suitability requirement did not apply, KYC and suitability controls were inadequate and anti-money laundering records were missing. The firm ceased its regulated activities at the end of 2023; its licence was revoked at its request in January 2025.

What organisations can take from it

Loans from a manager or its senior management to funds under management are a conflict of interest that must be managed and disclosed to investors.

Relevance to training and awareness

Conflicts of interest and investor information in private fund management

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), Hongkong
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 194 Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial measures after an SFC review in late 2020, cessation of regulated activities and an otherwise clean disciplinary record.
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
9 Feb 2026

Original amount 9,000,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 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.

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.

2 Feb 2026 Ark Capital Management (Dubai) LimitedDFSA: allegedly USD 504,000 on Ark Capital Management over market abuse controls United Arab EmiratesMarket abuse and insider dealing €425,676

The investment firm did not review alerts from its surveillance system adequately or promptly, so at least ten suspicious trading instances were not reported or reported late; it also failed to notify an agreed, potentially staged change in control. After a 30% settlement discount the DFSA allegedly imposed USD 504,000 (otherwise USD 720,000).

What organisations can take from it

A surveillance system only helps if its alerts are reviewed promptly – and a staged acquisition of shares must still be notified.

Relevance to training and awareness

Consistently working through trade surveillance alerts

Authority / court
Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Art. 90(2) Regulatory Law 2004 (DIFC); GEN Rules 11.10.12A, 5.3.20(a), 11.8.11(2), 4.2.3, 4.2.10 DFSA Rulebook
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement (30% discount); USD 720,000 without settlement.
Published
6 Feb 2026

Original amount 504,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 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.

2 Feb 2026 Ed Broking (MENA) LimitedDFSA: USD 455,176 on reinsurance broker Ed Broking (MENA) for deceptive conduct United Arab EmiratesCapital markets and financial supervision €384,439

The reinsurance broker gave cedent insurers and reinsurers different premiums for the same placement, misled reinsurers about deductions and brokerage, and misled a client about the brokerage earned on 121 placements, partly using altered documents. In a settlement the DFSA allegedly imposed USD 455,176: USD 175,343 disgorgement (including interest) and a USD 279,833 penalty (USD 575,104 without settlement). The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

Undisclosed brokerage and inconsistent premium figures given to the contracting parties amount to deception – an early self-report reduces the consequences.

Relevance to training and awareness

Transparency on brokerage and premiums in insurance distribution

Authority / court
Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Self-report to the DFSA, internal investigation and restitution to clients; settlement (reduction from USD 575,104).
Published
2 Feb 2026

Original amount 455,176 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 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.

28 Jan 2026 CCV Group B.V.Netherlands: payment institution CCV without integrity risk analysis – 406,125 EUR fine NetherlandsInternal controls €406,125

Until March 2018, the payment institution had no systematic integrity risk analysis (SIRA) and therefore no systematic identification and analysis of integrity risks for its gatekeeper function. The Dutch central bank (De Nederlandsche Bank, DNB) imposed the fine in 2020; following objection and appeal proceedings, it was fixed at the reduced amount of 406,125 EUR by the decision of 28 January 2026 and was published in July 2026.

What organisations can take from it

Without a documented integrity risk analysis, any money laundering prevention lacks its foundation – and that alone is subject to fines.

Authority / court
De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Art. 3:10 Wet op het financieel toezicht (Wft); Art. 10 Besluit prudentiële regels Wft (Bpr)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
reduced
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Fine reduced in the objection and appeal proceedings
Published
21 Jul 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.

22 Jan 2026 Saxo Bank A/SSaxo Bank: DKK 313m for deficient customer due diligence on white-label clients DenmarkCustomer due diligence €41.9m

Saxo Bank accepted an administrative fine of 313,000,000 DKK from the Finanstilsynet (Danish Financial Supervisory Authority). For a number of customer relationships the bank had not obtained sufficient information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship, and between January 2021 and May 2023 it did not carry out ongoing monitoring of the end customers of its white-label partners, to whom it provided its trading platform. The fine was reduced because of the bank's cooperation in the investigation and the remedial steps taken, and in view of the bank's financial solidity.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone who opens their platform to partners for the partners' customers must include those end customers in ongoing anti-money-laundering monitoring.

Relevance to training and awareness

Customer due diligence and ongoing monitoring in white-label and partner models

Authority / court
Finanstilsynet
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Hvidvaskloven § 11 stk. 1 nr. 4 og 5; administratives Bußgeld nach § 78 a hvidvaskloven
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation in the investigation and remedial action on collecting the purpose and nature of the business relationship; reduction in view of the bank's financial solidity.
Published
23 Jan 2026

Original amount 313,000,000 DKK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Jan 2026.

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

Report an error

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

21 Jan 2026 KB Kookmin Bank, Shinhan Bank, Woori Bank, Hana BankFour major banks exchanged loan-to-value ratios: KRW 272bn fine South KoreaCartels and collusion €158.2m

According to the KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition authority), the four banks exchanged their complete loan-to-value (LTV) ratios for mortgage lending over a long period, between 736 and 7,500 individual values per bank, and adjusted their own ratios accordingly; only conduct from December 2021, when the express prohibition of anti-competitive information exchange entered into force, was pursued. The KFTC issued cease-and-desist orders and fines totalling KRW 272,014 million (Kookmin KRW 69,747 million, Shinhan KRW 63,801 million, Woori KRW 51,535 million, Hana KRW 86,931 million), the first application of that provision.

What organisations can take from it

Exchanging individual contract terms with competitors is a stand-alone competition law infringement even without price fixing.

Relevance to training and awareness

Information exchange with competitors

Authority / court
Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. 40 Abs. 1 Nr. 9 MRFTA i. V. m. Art. 44 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 Durchführungsverordnung (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
21 Jan 2026

Original amount 272,014,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

20 Jan 2026 Cardif Lux Vie S.A.Cardif Lux Vie: 615,000 EUR over deficiencies in money laundering questionnaires and customer files LuxembourgCustomer due diligence €615,000

An on-site inspection in 2023 revealed that the life insurer in some cases did not handle the mandatory money laundering risk assessment questionnaires in compliance with the rules, that the employees responsible lacked sufficiently precise instructions and that customer files contained many incorrect answers. The Commissariat aux Assurances (Luxembourg insurance supervisory authority, CAA) imposed 615,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Risk questionnaires are only as good as the guidance given to those who complete them – clear work instructions and training are part of this.

Relevance to training and awareness

Money laundering risk assessment by employees

Authority / court
Commissariat aux Assurances (CAA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Loi modifiée du 12 novembre 2004 (LBC/FT), Art. 2-1, 8-4, 8-5; Règlement CAA 20/03
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Close cooperation with the CAA during and after the inspection; remediation plan for all deficiencies submitted promptly.
Published
1 Jul 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.

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.

12 Jan 2026 Trident Trust Company (Cyprus) LimitedTrustee services firm Trident Trust Cyprus pays EUR 70,000 in money laundering settlement CyprusInternal controls €70,000

CySEC (Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission) reached a settlement with the administrative services provider (ASP) over possible breaches of the money laundering law and the CySEC anti-money laundering directive in the period 2015–2020. It covered adequate policies, controls and procedures, risk identification, the board's responsibilities and the compliance officer's duties; the company allegedly paid EUR 70,000. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

With trust and corporate service providers, the regulator specifically checks whether the board and compliance officer genuinely fulfil their AML roles.

Relevance to training and awareness

Money laundering risk management at trust and company service providers

Authority / court
Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Art. 58(a)–(d), 58A(1) Prevention and Suppression of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Law of 2007; Ziff. 5(d), 9(1)(d) CySEC-Richtlinie; Vergleich nach Art. 37(4) Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission Law of 2009
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
The settlement expressly covered the board's duties and the compliance officer's tasks under the anti-money laundering directive.
Published
6 Feb 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

8 Jan 2026 HSBC Bank plcPNF: HSBC Bank plc pays €267.53m over dividend arbitrage (tax fraud) FranceOther €267.5m

HSBC Bank plc concluded a CJIP (convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, French deferred prosecution agreement) with the Parquet national financier (PNF, French national financial prosecutor) concerning intra-group dividend arbitrage trading structures run through its Paris branch between 2014 and 2019, which avoided withholding tax on dividends and may be classified as aggravated tax fraud. The bank pays a public interest fine of 267,531,000 EUR; for 2019 it had already paid 34,464,424 EUR in taxes, interest and penalties. Validated on 8 January 2026.

What organisations can take from it

Intra-group trades around dividend record dates must be reviewed for tax and criminal law risks before they are approved.

Relevance to training and awareness

Tax-driven dividend trades as a criminal liability risk

Authority / court
Parquet national financier (PNF); Validierung durch den Präsidenten des Tribunal judiciaire de Paris
Area of law
Other
Legal basis
Art. 41-1-2 Code de procédure pénale (fraude fiscale aggravée)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
8 Jan 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

8 Jan 2026 Wealthface LimitedADGM: Wealthface gives enforceable undertaking after capital and reporting breaches United Arab EmiratesOrganisational requirements Other

The FSRA (Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the financial regulator of Abu Dhabi Global Market, ADGM) accepted an enforceable undertaking from the wealth manager and robo-adviser after its investigation found that between January 2023 and March 2025 the firm held insufficient liquid assets for most of the period and insufficient capital resources at the end of 2023 and 2024, calculated its capital requirement for three quarters of 2024 on an understated expenditure figure, did not prepare its 2023 financial statements under IFRS and filed them late, had no office in ADGM since the end of 2023 and paid supervision fees late. The firm admitted the alleged contraventions and undertook, among other things, to appoint an independent director within 60 days, to close any capital shortfall, to re-establish its head office and registered office in ADGM and to report monthly on its capital and liquid assets for one year. The undertaking contains no financial penalty.

What organisations can take from it

Capital and liquidity requirements must be calculated continuously and on correct input figures, not only at the reporting date.

Relevance to training and awareness

Ongoing monitoring of capital and liquidity

Authority / court
Financial Services Regulatory Authority (ADGM)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 235 FSMR 2015; PRU Rules 3.2.4(a), 3.7.2, 3.7.4(1); GEN Rules 4.5.1(1), 6.2.2, 6.6.2; FEES Rule 1.2.2
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Cooperation with the investigation; some of the contraventions (capital calculation and resources, IFRS accounts, office in ADGM) were already being remediated.

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.

6 Jan 2026 Saxo Capital Markets HK LimitedSaxo Capital Markets HK: HKD 4m fine over crypto products sold to retail clients Hong KongOrganisational requirements €438,731

Saxo Capital Markets HK was publicly reprimanded and fined 4,000,000 HKD because between November 2018 and November 2022 retail clients, too, could trade on its online trading platform 32 complex virtual asset-related products which under the regulators' circulars were reserved for professional investors (1,446 transactions by 130 retail clients and six professional investors). The firm neither assessed clients' knowledge nor provided sufficient information and warnings; the detection rules adopted from its parent group had not identified the products as crypto-related.

What organisations can take from it

Group-wide product filters do not replace a firm's own local product due diligence, especially for crypto products subject to distribution restrictions.

Relevance to training and awareness

Distribution of complex crypto products via online platforms

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
s. 194 SFO (Cap. 571); Code of Conduct; Guidelines on Online Distribution and Advisory Platforms; SFC-Rundschreiben vom 01.11.2018 und HKMA/SFC-Rundschreiben vom 28.01.2022
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Self-report, voluntary compensation of clients, cessation of regulated activities, cooperation and acceptance of the findings, otherwise clean disciplinary record.
Published
6 Jan 2026

Original amount 4,000,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Jan 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.

19 Dec 2025 Australia and New Zealand Banking Group LimitedANZ: AUD 135m penalty over conduct in a government bond issue and false reporting AustraliaMarket abuse and insider dealing €76.1m

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.

What organisations can take from it

A bank managing an issue for a client must disclose its own hedging activity and must not report embellished figures to authorities.

Relevance to training and awareness

Transparency and conflicts of interest in proprietary trading around client transactions; accuracy of reports to authorities

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

Report an error

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

18 Dec 2025 Croatia: 1.5 million EUR against bank whose app recorded all apps installed by customers CroatiaData subject rights and transparency €1.5m

The mobile banking app of a bank (name not published) scanned the list of all installed applications on the Android and Huawei devices of 433,922 customers and stored it centrally – without a legal basis, without transparent information and without a data-minimising design. The Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka (Croatian Personal Data Protection Agency, AZOP) imposed 1.5 million EUR; the decision is not final (date = publication).

What organisations can take from it

Fraud prevention does not justify capturing device data in full – a blocklist of known malicious apps would have been the less intrusive means.

Authority / court
Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka (AZOP)
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 12, 13, 25 Abs. 2 DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
18 Dec 2025

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.

18 Dec 2025 R M Capital Pty Ltd; The SMSF Club Pty LtdR M Capital and SMSF Club: 925,000 AUD over accepted referral fees AustraliaGifts, hospitality and benefits €521,597

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.

What organisations can take from it

Advisers must not accept commissions from product providers that could influence their recommendations – and licensees must actively check for such arrangements by their representatives and provide training on them.

Relevance to training and awareness

Commissions and benefits from product providers to financial advisers

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

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

Report an error

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

17 Dec 2025 CACEIS BankAMF: €3.5m against CACEIS Bank for control failures as depositary of the H2O funds FranceOrganisational requirements €3.5m

As depositary of the H2O funds, CACEIS Bank, a subsidiary of the Crédit Agricole group, had, according to the AMF (Autorité des marchés financiers, French financial markets authority) Enforcement Committee, not sufficiently verified the manager's procedures for monitoring investment ratios and valuing unlisted securities, and had not effectively checked compliance with investment limits (including for debt securities, currency swaps and the issuer limit for bonds). The Committee imposed 3,500,000 EUR and a warning; the allegation concerning total return swaps was rejected. The bank has appealed to the Conseil d'État.

What organisations can take from it

Depositaries must actually verify fund managers' investment and valuation processes rather than rely on the managers' own statements.

Relevance to training and awareness

Oversight duties of depositaries towards fund managers

Authority / court
Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Commission des sanctions
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 3, 6 Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2016/438; Art. L. 214-10-5 Code monétaire et financier; Art. 323-19 Règlement général de l'AMF
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
18 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

17 Dec 2025 Payward MENA Holdings LimitedADGM: allegedly 36,000 USD fine for Payward MENA Holdings over five years of late AML returns United Arab EmiratesInternal controls €30,711

The FSRA (Financial Services Regulatory Authority, the financial regulator of Abu Dhabi Global Market, ADGM) fined the operator of a multilateral trading facility, which also held a custody permission, allegedly 36,000 USD because it did not file its annual AML returns for 2020 to 2024 until 16 December 2025 despite numerous reminders and did not pay the late filing fees of 2,000 USD in total. The regulator also found inadequate systems and controls; in correspondence the firm pointed to internal issues and to the departure of the user registered for the reporting portal. Without the 20% discount for early settlement the fine would have been 45,000 USD.

What organisations can take from it

Regulatory returns need clear ownership and portal access that survives staff changes.

Relevance to training and awareness

Timely regulatory returns to the supervisor

Authority / court
Financial Services Regulatory Authority (ADGM)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
Section 232 Financial Services and Markets Regulations 2015 (FSMR); AML Rule 4.6.1; GEN Rule 2.2.3 (Principle 3); FEES Rule 1.2.7
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation, remediation, no previous non-compliance, limited scale of business with few clients and no customer loss identified (10% reduction); 20% discount for early settlement.

Original amount 36,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Dec 2025.

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.

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.

16 Dec 2025 Svea Bank ABSvea Bank: SEK 170m for failings in AML risk assessment and customer due diligence SwedenCustomer due diligence €15.5m

Finansinspektionen (FI, Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority) issued Svea Bank a remark (anmärkning) and an administrative fine of 170,000,000 SEK. In the review period from 30 April 2022 to 1 May 2023 (business with legal entities), the general risk assessments were incomplete, customers were not risk-assessed as required, beneficial owners were not sufficiently identified, and enhanced due diligence on high-risk customers was omitted, insufficient or late in a large proportion of the cases reviewed. An earlier FI sanction of June 2022 for credit assessment failings was treated as only a minor aggravating factor because it concerned different obligations.

What organisations can take from it

The general money laundering risk assessment must cover every product and feed into customer risk assessment, otherwise all downstream due diligence measures are ineffective.

Relevance to training and awareness

Risk-based customer due diligence, identification of beneficial owners and enhanced due diligence for high-risk customers

Authority / court
Finansinspektionen (FI)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Lag (2017:630) om åtgärder mot penningtvätt och finansiering av terrorism, u. a. 2 kap. 1–3 §§, 3 kap. 12 och 16 §§; 15 kap. 1 och 7 §§ lagen (2004:297) om bank- och finansieringsrörelse
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
The bank pointed to its cooperation and remediation; FI did not treat this as mitigating. No damage was known to FI; in an overall assessment FI did not classify the breaches as serious and therefore refrained from a warning or licence revocation.
Published
17 Dec 2025

Original amount 170,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Dec 2025.

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

Report an error

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

16 Dec 2025 Bank Dierickx Leys NVBank Dierickx Leys: €350,000 for inadequate market abuse surveillance BelgiumMarket abuse and insider dealing €350,000

Bank Dierickx Leys, which focuses on asset management and investment advice, did not submit a single suspicious transaction and order report (STOR) between 3 July 2016 and 25 March 2025. In the view of the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority), its systems did not monitor all relevant orders, relied on undocumented assessments by traders and were insufficiently documented and reviewed, its training did not fully cover the MAR obligations, and the bank could not rely on an external service provider's system without a delegation agreement. Under the settlement the bank pays 350,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone executing client orders needs complete, documented market abuse surveillance with trained staff; relying on third-party systems does not replace it.

Relevance to training and awareness

Detecting and reporting suspicious orders and transactions (STOR) under MAR

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten / Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA) – Directiecomité (minnelijke schikking)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing
Legal basis
Art. 16 Abs. 2 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 596/2014 (MAR); Delegierte Verordnung (EU) 2016/957; Art. 71 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial measures in 2024: new MAR policy, new monitoring system and specific market abuse training.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

12 Dec 2025 Treuhandgesellschaft (anonymisiert)Liechtenstein: CHF 58,000 fine on trust company (due diligence, conflicts of interest) LiechtensteinCustomer due diligence €62,145

The Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA, Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority) fined an unnamed legal person CHF 58,000 because it had not established or updated the business relationship profile as required (Sorgfaltspflichtgesetz, Due Diligence Act) and had breached the provisions of the Treuhändergesetz (Trustees Act) on conflicts of interest. These provisions require trustees and trust companies to keep their own assets strictly separate from client money, not to engage in proprietary transactions, and to disclose and document conflicts of interest towards clients; the FMA does not state which of these obligations was breached.

What organisations can take from it

Trust companies must keep client profiles up to date and systematically identify, document and disclose conflicts of interest.

Relevance to training and awareness

Business profiles and handling conflicts of interest in the trust business

Authority / court
Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein (FMA)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Art. 31 Abs. 1 Bst. e i.V.m. Art. 31 Abs. 5 Sorgfaltspflichtgesetz (SPG); Art. 81 Abs. 1 Bst. f i.V.m. Art. 81 Abs. 6 Treuhändergesetz (TrHG)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
For the Due Diligence Act breach, the fine is based on Art. 31(5) SPG, which makes the legal person liable for offences committed by persons in management positions.

Original amount 58,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 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.

11 Dec 2025 EFG Bank AGSFC: reprimand and HKD 10.85m fine for EFG Bank over deficient product due diligence Hong KongOrganisational requirements €1.19m

The SFC publicly reprimanded EFG Bank AG and fined it HKD 10,850,000 because, between January 2015 and December 2020, the bank failed to take special product features into account in its due diligence on 322 bonds, updated its policies late after the complex product regime took effect and in some cases served customers without the required information and warning statements. In addition, due diligence records were missing for 141 bonds, and the bank did not report the failures to the SFC immediately. The bank will apply an enhanced complaint handling procedure for customers who acquired one of 351 potentially affected products.

What organisations can take from it

Firms distributing complex products must document their product due diligence in full, update policies immediately when rules change and report identified failures to the regulator without delay.

Relevance to training and awareness

Product due diligence and customer information when distributing complex investment products

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), Hongkong
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Section 196 Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571); Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the SFC; Management, Supervision and Internal Control Guidelines
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial measures on product due diligence, cooperation with the HKMA and the SFC, and commitment to an enhanced complaint handling procedure for affected customers.
Published
11 Dec 2025

Original amount 10,850,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Dec 2025.

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 NN Životná poisťovňa, a.s.NBS: EUR 100,000 fine for NN Životná poisťovňa over unit-linked policy failings SlovakiaOrganisational requirements €100,000

The NBS (National Bank of Slovakia) fined the life insurer NN Životná poisťovňa 100,000 EUR. From 2016 to November 2021 the insurer had not drawn up a fund statute forming part of the contract for six of its own unit-linked funds, and when it replaced 13 existing funds with three new funds on 5 November 2021 it did not act towards its customers with the required professional care.

What organisations can take from it

Fund switches in existing insurance contracts require complete contractual documentation and a documented, customer-focused implementation process.

Relevance to training and awareness

Product changes in unit-linked insurance

Authority / court
Národná banka Slovenska (NBS)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
§ 64 Abs. 6, § 70 Abs. 1 lit. a, § 139 Abs. 1 lit. e und Abs. 11 Zákon č. 39/2015 Z. z. (Versicherungsgesetz)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

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

Report an error

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

11 Dec 2025 „ЗП Либра“ ООДZP Libra: 44,205 leva for poaching customers using competitor’s trade secrets BulgariaCompetition law €22,602

With the help of an employee of a competing insurance broker who later moved to ZP Libra, the broker unfairly concluded a brokerage agreement to the detriment of the competitor and used the competitor’s trade secrets to poach customers. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) imposed 29,470 leva (1% of 2024 turnover, Art. 36(1) ZZK, Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) and 14,735 leva (0.5%, Art. 37(1) ZZK).

What organisations can take from it

When hiring employees from competitors, make sure they do not bring customer lists or secrets with them.

Relevance to training and awareness

Taking customer data and trade secrets when changing employer

Authority / court
Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
Area of law
Competition law
Legal basis
Art. 36 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 ZZK
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not reported here.
Published
16 Dec 2025

Original amount 44,205 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Dec 2025.

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.

10 Dec 2025 Invest in OÜLender Invest in OÜ pays 16,000 EUR for failing to submit annual accounts EstoniaDisclosure and reporting obligations €16,000

The lender did not submit its 2024 annual report, together with the audit report, the resolution on the appropriation of profits and the minutes of the shareholders’ meeting, to the financial supervisory authority on time. In misdemeanour proceedings, the Finantsinspektsioon (Estonian Financial Supervision Authority) imposed a fine of 16,000 EUR; the maximum is 1 million EUR or 10% of annual turnover. Date = publication.

What organisations can take from it

Even small supervised lenders need a reliable deadline calendar for mandatory supervisory reports.

Authority / court
Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis
§ 56 Abs. 3, § 96 Abs. 2 KAVS (Gesetz über Kreditgeber und -vermittler)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
10 Dec 2025

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.

9 Dec 2025 Dunamu Inc.Upbit operator Dunamu: KRW 35.2bn fine for customer due diligence failures South KoreaCustomer due diligence €20.6m

The KoFIU (Korea Financial Intelligence Unit) found that Dunamu, operator of the crypto exchange Upbit, had failed to identify customers with due care in 5,324,165 cases between October 2021 and October 2024, for instance where identity documents could not be verified, were mere copies or photos, or where addresses were blank or implausible, and had nevertheless allowed transactions in 3,331,570 of these cases. In addition, it failed to file suspicious transaction reports on 15 customers linked to warrant applications by investigative authorities, and its monitoring system did not detect unusual patterns such as large crypto deposits followed by sale and withdrawal; KoFIU imposed a fine of KRW 35,215.6 million on 9 December 2025. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

What organisations can take from it

Digital onboarding processes need checks that reliably reject copies of identity documents and implausible addresses before trading is possible.

Relevance to training and awareness

Customer identification (KYC) at crypto exchanges

Authority / court
Korea Financial Intelligence Unit (KoFIU)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
Legal basis
Art. 4, 5, 5-2 und 8 Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information; Art. 9, 10-4, 10-6 und 10-20 Durchführungsverordnung
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
9 Dec 2025

Original amount 35,215,600,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

9 Dec 2025 Paxful, Inc. und Paxful USA, Inc.FinCEN: USD 3.5 million against crypto platform Paxful for failing to register and AML failures USAInternal controls €3.01m

FinCEN imposed a civil money penalty of USD 3.5 million on the peer-to-peer virtual currency trading platform Paxful, Inc. and Paxful USA, Inc. From February 2015 to April 2023 Paxful did not maintain an effective AML programme for its trading platform and hosted wallets and did not report suspicious transactions accurately and on time; the company also allowed its registration as a money services business to lapse and operated unregistered from January 2017 to September 2019 (974 days). Payments of USD 1.75 million to the DOJ are credited against the penalty; USD 1.75 million is payable to FinCEN. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

What organisations can take from it

Crypto marketplaces must ensure registration, including timely renewal, customer due diligence and suspicious activity reporting from the outset and keep them in step with growth.

Relevance to training and awareness

AML duties of crypto platforms: registration, KYC and suspicious activity reporting

Authority / court
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), U.S. Department of the Treasury
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls
Legal basis
31 U.S.C. § 5330, § 5318(h)(1), § 5318(g)(1); 31 C.F.R. §§ 1022.380, 1022.210, 1022.320
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
FinCEN took into account that Paxful was forthcoming during the investigation, answered information requests completely and on time and agreed to toll the statute of limitations.

Original amount 3,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Dec 2025.

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.

9 Dec 2025 Bank Nagelmackers NVBank Nagelmackers: €60,000 for unapproved fund advertising in interview form BelgiumMisleading advertising and pricing €60,000

In December 2024 Bank Nagelmackers published, as paid partner content in a magazine, an interview about a sub-fund of its SICAV without identifying it as advertising and without first submitting it to the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority) for approval. References to the prospectus, the key information document and investor rights, the main risks and the costs were missing, and the benefits were highlighted without presenting the risks equally prominently. Under the settlement the bank pays 60,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Paid interviews or partner content about funds are advertising and require labelling, mandatory information and, in Belgium, prior approval by the FSMA.

Relevance to training and awareness

Advertising financial products: labelling paid partner content and mandatory information

Authority / court
Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten / Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA) – Directiecomité (minnelijke schikking)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
Art. 60 § 3 und Art. 64 Gesetz vom 3. August 2012 über Organismen für gemeinsame Anlagen; Art. 35–43 KE vom 12. November 2012; Art. 4 Verordnung (EU) 2019/1156; Art. 71 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Online version removed about ten days after publication, approval process tightened with a systematic double check; subscriptions did not increase afterwards.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

9 Dec 2025 Banxso (Pty) LtdBanxso: penalties for misuse of client funds South AfricaCapital markets and financial supervision Fine

The investigation found that the financial services provider had, among other things, misused client funds, supplied false or misleading information to clients and the regulator, promised unrealistic returns and not acted in the interests of clients. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Relevance to training and awareness

Segregation and protection of client funds; no promises of returns

Authority / court
Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision
Legal basis
Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017; Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002; General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (2003); Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Act 28 of 2001; Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for FSPs (2017); Financial Markets Act Regulations (2018)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Liability of senior managers
Measures against individuals are not set out here.
Published
9 Dec 2025
Sources

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

5 Dec 2025 Banco Santander, S.A.Paris prosecutor: Banco Santander pays €22.5m over money laundering at a Paris branch FranceMoney laundering and terrorist financing €22.5m

Banco Santander undertook to pay a public interest fine of 22,500,000 EUR in a CJIP (convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, French deferred prosecution agreement) with the Paris public prosecutor. The investigation, triggered by a complaint from the bank itself, uncovered an illegal clearing system at a Paris branch: company cheques were paid into private clients' accounts and cash was handed out outside the banking system, with credits of around 49 million EUR between 2003 and 2010. The agreement was validated on 5 December 2025.

What organisations can take from it

Branches need transaction monitoring that immediately flags company cheques paid into private accounts and unusual cash withdrawals.

Relevance to training and awareness

Detecting suspicious cheque and cash flows at branches

Authority / court
Parquet de Paris (Procureure de la République, JIRS); Validierung durch den Präsidenten des Tribunal judiciaire de Paris
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing
Legal basis
Art. 41-1-2, 180-2 Code de procédure pénale (blanchiment aggravé)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
5 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

2 Dec 2025 IPI Partners, LLCPrivate equity firm IPI held oligarch's funds for four years after designation USABreaches of sanctions and embargoes €9.89m

In 2017/2018, the Chicago fund manager specialising in data centres took in capital from a Russian oligarch via nested structures and continued to manage this investment for four years after his designation in April 2018. The US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) assessed the case as non-egregious and not voluntarily self-disclosed.

What organisations can take from it

Screen investors through to the beneficial owner and re-check them when new designations occur – nested structures do not protect against liability.

Relevance to training and awareness

Checking beneficial owners of investors and fund structures

Authority / court
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
Area of law
Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes
Legal basis
Ukraine-/Russia-Related Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. part 589); IEEPA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
No prior violations in five years; cooperation improved significantly only after initially insufficient engagement (including waiver of attorney-client privilege), hence only limited credit
Published
2 Dec 2025

Original amount 11,485,352 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 27 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Report an error

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

2 Dec 2025 Drei Versicherungsunternehmen (anonymisiert)Three Luxembourg insurers: EUR 49,000 for distribution via an unregistered company LuxembourgOrganisational requirements €49,000

The Commissariat aux Assurances (CAA, Luxembourg insurance supervisor) imposed administrative fines of EUR 32,000, EUR 14,000 and EUR 3,000 (EUR 49,000 in total) on three insurers authorised in Luxembourg. They had distributed their products in the EEA through a company that, although run by authorised insurance agents, was itself neither authorised nor entered in a distributor register.

What organisations can take from it

Insurers must check that every distributing company is itself authorised and registered – authorised individuals in its management are not enough.

Relevance to training and awareness

Checking the registration of distribution partners

Authority / court
Commissariat aux Assurances (CAA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 303(1) Loi modifiée du 7 décembre 2015 sur le secteur des assurances (LSA), Buchst. a), j) und k); verletzt Art. 286(4) LSA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
13 Feb 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

28 Nov 2025 Westpac New Zealand LimitedWestpac NZ: 3.64 million NZD for breaching responsible lending principles New ZealandInformation duties in online retail €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.

What organisations can take from it

Lenders must invest in systems and controls that reliably deliver mandatory disclosures and agreed terms; self-reporting does not protect against a high penalty.

Relevance to training and awareness

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.

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.

27 Nov 2025 American Express Carte FranceAmerican Express Carte France: 1.5 million EUR – marketing cookies despite ‘Reject all’ FranceCookies and tracking €1.5m

When the website was accessed, eight non-exempt cookies were placed without any user action; after ‘Reject all’, three marketing cookies were nevertheless placed when switching to an affiliated domain, and after consent was withdrawn, cookies continued to be read. The Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (French data protection authority, CNIL) imposed 1.5 million EUR for this and, in view of the rectification during the proceedings, refrained from issuing an order; it found an infringement of data minimisation in the recording of customer calls but did not sanction it.

What organisations can take from it

Cookie settings must apply across all domains of a service – including when users move to affiliated sites.

Authority / court
Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), formation restreinte
Area of law
Data protection · Cookies and tracking
Legal basis
Art. 82 Loi Informatique et Libertés (Geldbuße); Verstoß gegen Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c DSGVO (Gesprächsaufzeichnungen) festgestellt, aber nicht sanktioniert
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
Corrections during the proceedings, cooperation.

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.

20 Nov 2025 MP Technology Services Ltd.FINTRAC: CAD 536,853.35 penalty on MP Technology Services Ltd. for 4 violations of anti-money laundering obligations CanadaSuspicious activity reports €331,514

According to FINTRAC, MP Technology Services Ltd. is an entity determined to be a foreign money services business operating in Canada. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 536,853.35 on the company on 20 November 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 4 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned international electronic funds transfer reporting, written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks and suspicious transaction reporting. Specifically, FINTRAC found four unreported incoming international transfers and four unreported suspicious attempted transactions; policies and risk assessment were not tailored to Canadian requirements. According to FINTRAC, the company has appealed the decision to the Federal Court. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on MP Technology Services Ltd.", published 18 December 2025, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2025-12-18-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
Legal basis
PCMLTFA s. 7, 9(1), 9.6(1), 9.6(2); PCMLTF Regulations 30(1)(c), 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
18 Dec 2025

Original amount 536,853.35 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 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.

19 Nov 2025 Exodus Movement, Inc.OFAC: USD 3.1 million settlement with Exodus over customer support for users in Iran USABreaches of sanctions and embargoes €2.68m

US fintech Exodus Movement, Inc. is paying USD 3,103,360 under a settlement with OFAC for 254 apparent violations of the Iran sanctions. According to OFAC's findings, Exodus provided customer support to users in Iran and in some cases helped them access third-party crypto exchanges through its own wallet software. According to OFAC, on twelve occasions staff, despite being aware of the sanctions, advised users to hide their location via VPN in order to circumvent those exchanges' controls; OFAC treated these instances as egregious. The apparent violations were not voluntarily disclosed; the base penalty was USD 4,774,400. Extensive remediation and cooperation were taken into account. Exodus satisfies USD 630,000 of the settlement amount by investing in additional sanctions controls; USD 2,473,360 is payable to the Treasury. OFAC signed the settlement agreement on 19 November 2025 and published it on 16 December 2025. According to the settlement agreement, the settlement does not constitute an admission by Exodus of the apparent violations. Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), enforcement release "Exodus Movement, Inc. Settles with OFAC for $3,103,360 for Apparent Violations of Iran-related Sanctions Regulations", 16 December 2025, https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/934831/download?inline; summarised in our own words.

Authority / court
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
Area of law
Sanctions and export control · Breaches of sanctions and embargoes
Legal basis
Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. § 560.204 (254 mutmaßliche Verstöße), in 12 Fällen zusätzlich § 560.203 (Umgehung); Vergleich nach den Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines, 31 C.F.R. part 501, app. A
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
16 Dec 2025

Original amount 3,103,360 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 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.

19 Nov 2025 Genertel S.p.A.IVASS fines Genertel €533,000 for late handling of motor insurance claims ItalyConsumer protection and online retail €533,000

IVASS (Italian insurance supervisor) imposed a fine of 533,000 EUR on Genertel S.p.A. under Art. 310(1) of the Private Insurance Code (CAP). In 198 motor third-party liability claims between 1 September 2023 and 29 February 2024, the insurer failed to meet the statutory deadlines for making a compensation offer to the injured party or giving reasons for rejecting the claim. According to IVASS statistics, this was the largest single fine of 2025.

What organisations can take from it

Statutory claims-handling deadlines apply to every single claim; insurers that miss them in large numbers must expect a heavy fine.

Relevance to training and awareness

Deadlines in claims handling

Authority / court
IVASS (Istituto per la Vigilanza sulle Assicurazioni)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
Art. 141, 148, 149, 150 und 310 Abs. 1 D.Lgs. 209/2005 (CAP); Art. 8 D.P.R. 254/2006
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
31 Dec 2025

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

Report an error

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

13 Nov 2025 TMF Management B.V.OM: €130,500 for trust office TMF over unreported transactions NetherlandsSuspicious activity reports €130,500

The Openbaar Ministerie (OM, Dutch Public Prosecution Service) imposed a penalty order of 130,500 EUR on TMF Management B.V. because the trust office did not immediately report two unusual transactions by a client to FIU-NL in 2020 and 2021. TMF continued to work on the (re)structuring of that client’s bond issue although, from 2020, it was aware of negative media reports about pending court cases over suspected fraud by the client; the proceedings stemmed from a report by De Nederlandsche Bank (Dutch central bank). Because of the exemplary role of the internationally active trust office, the OM raised the fine category and granted a 25% reduction for voluntary, full and timely cooperation.

What organisations can take from it

Negative press reports about a client are a reason to reassess ongoing transactions and report anything unusual without delay.

Relevance to training and awareness

Negative media reports as a trigger for suspicious transaction reports

Authority / court
Openbaar Ministerie (OM), Functioneel Parket
Area of law
Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports
Legal basis
Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme (Wwft), Pflicht zur unverzüglichen Meldung ungewöhnlicher Transaktionen; Strafbefehl des OM
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Mitigating circumstances
Voluntary, full and timely cooperation (−25%).
Published
13 Nov 2025

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

13 Nov 2025 Tung Tai Securities Company LimitedTung Tai Securities: HKD 900,000 fine after fraud via spoofed email instructions Hong KongOrganisational requirements €99,681

Tung Tai Securities was reprimanded and fined 900,000 HKD because between September 2019 and February 2020, acting on instructions from a bogus email address resembling the genuine one, it sold an overseas client's shares and transferred the proceeds of 3,301,740 USD to three overseas bank accounts not designated by the client. Red flags such as transfers rejected by several banks were ignored, and effective controls to protect client assets from theft and fraud were lacking.

What organisations can take from it

Sale and payment instructions received by email must be confirmed through an independent, pre-registered channel, especially for transfers to new beneficiary accounts.

Relevance to training and awareness

Fraud using spoofed email instructions (business email compromise)

Authority / court
Securities and Futures Commission (SFC)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
s. 194 SFO (Cap. 571); Code of Conduct GP 2, GP 3, GP 8, paras. 4.3, 11.1(a); Management, Supervision and Internal Control Guidelines Part VII
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Compensation of the client, improved order-handling and execution procedures, independent review of controls, cooperation, otherwise clean disciplinary record.
Published
13 Nov 2025

Original amount 900,000 HKD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Nov 2025.

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.

12 Nov 2025 Euronext Amsterdam N.V.AFM issues direction to Euronext Amsterdam over access barriers for CSDs NetherlandsOrganisational requirements Order

On 12 November 2025 the Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM, Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets) issued a direction (aanwijzing) to Euronext Amsterdam N.V. as operator of the regulated markets because, in the AFM’s view, three conditions of its announced new settlement model for market participants wishing to use a central securities depository (CSD) other than Euronext Securities Milan restricted such CSDs’ access to the transaction feeds. Euronext thereby breached the obligation to provide non-discriminatory and transparent access under Art. 53(1) CSDR. Euronext withdrew the conditions and confirmed access for the CSDs concerned; the direction is final.

What organisations can take from it

Trading venues should check new settlement models before announcing them to ensure that central securities depositories keep non-discriminatory access.

Relevance to training and awareness

Non-discriminatory access to market infrastructure

Authority / court
Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Art. 53 Abs. 1 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 909/2014 (CSDR); Anweisung nach Art. 1:75 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 1:3a Abs. 1 Wet op het financieel toezicht (Wft)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
13 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

Load 20 more of 492

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