Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific: 1,838 cases from 37 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Anonymised companies €1.34bn 25 % · 102 cases
- TD Bank, N.A. und TD Bank USA, N.A. €1.19bn 23 % · 1 case
- HSBC Bank plc €267.5m 5 % · 1 case
- GVA Capital Ltd. €186.3m 4 % · 1 case
- Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd; Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd (EuropeFX); BrightAU Capital Pty Ltd (TradeFred) €182.1m 3 % · 1 case
- Royal Bank of Canada, Morgan Stanley, HSBC u. a. (5 Banken; Deutsche Bank als Kronzeugin bußgeldfrei) €126.2m 2 % · 1 case
- UBS Financial Services Inc. €115.3m 2 % · 2 cases
- The Toronto-Dominion Bank €113m 2 % · 1 case
- Xeltox Enterprises Ltd. (Cryptomus) €108.1m 2 % · 1 case
- Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Crédit Agricole CIB) €88.2m 2 % · 1 case
- 298 more€1.56bn
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 1 | €5.98m |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
1 case
27 Mar 2026 Oztures Trading Pty Ltd (Binance Australia Derivatives)Binance Australia Derivatives: 10 million AUD for misclassified retail clients €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.
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.
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