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: 2,033 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by authority- Regional Court Bredasdorp (Ermittlungen: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment) €112,512 51 % · 1 case
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission) €105,000 48 % · 4 cases
- Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) €1,269 1 % · 1 case
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Unathi-Wena Fishing CC €112,512 51 % · 1 case
- Wilmar SA (Pty) Ltd €52,689 24 % · 1 case
- DH Brothers Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Willowton €51,783 24 % · 1 case
- Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd €1,269 1 % · 1 case
- Seed Bearing Fields (Pty) Ltd €528 0 % · 1 case
- The South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd – 0 % · 1 case
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 1 | €112,512 |
| Q1 2025 | 2 | €53,052 |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 1 | €52,689 |
| Q2 2026 | 2 | €528 |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
6 cases
27 Nov 2024 Unathi-Wena Fishing CCFishing in De Hoop marine protected area: fine for Unathi-Wena Fishing €112,512
On 27 November 2024 the Bredasdorp Regional Court sentenced Unathi-Wena Fishing CC, operator of the fishing vessel 'The White Rose', because the vessel had fished without authorisation in the De Hoop marine protected area on three days in May 2019; the case was investigated by the environmental inspectorate (Green Scorpions) of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (national environment ministry). The court imposed 150,000 ZAR for three offences under fisheries law (MLRA) and 2,000,000 ZAR for an offence under the National Environmental Management Act, of which 1,000,000 ZAR was suspended; the catch had been seized.
A fishing permit does not automatically cover fishing in marine protected areas – operators should monitor their vessels' positions and fishing grounds continuously, as authorities can prove breaches years later using surveillance data.
Fishing permits and marine protected areas
- Authority / court
- Regional Court Bredasdorp (Ermittlungen: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability
- Legal basis
- Regulation 75 Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA); Section 49A(1)(f) National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Bezeichnungen laut Ministeriumserklärung)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 9 Dec 2024
Original amount 2,150,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Nov 2024.
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Jun 2026 The South African Breweries (Pty) LtdMerger condition: SAB must recalculate employee share benefits for former staff Order
On 15 June 2026, on the basis of a settlement between the Competition Commission (competition authority), The South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SAB) and the trustees of the Zenzele employee share scheme, the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) ordered that allocations under the scheme be recalculated to include former SABMiller employees who had moved to the CCBSA group (Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa); the funds held back in trust since 2020 must allegedly be paid out within 30 days. The case concerned apparent non-compliance with a condition of the 2017 merger approval under which these employees were not to lose any scheme benefits because of the transaction. The Tribunal rejected objections raised on behalf of current employees.
Merger conditions – including those protecting employees – remain binding and may be enforced years later; implementing them needs clear ownership within the company.
Implementing merger conditions on employee share schemes
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Competition Act 89 of 1998: Durchsetzung der Fusionsauflage 4.6 aus LM021Apr17 über Section 27(1)(d) i. V. m. Section 16(3); Antrag nach Section 49D i. V. m. Section 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 May 2026 Seed Bearing Fields (Pty) LtdFood supply tender: Seed Bearing Fields admits price fixing €528
On 27 May 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement in which Limpopo-based Seed Bearing Fields (Pty) Ltd admitted fixing prices with Mogodumo Bakone Holding (Pty) Ltd for a Limpopo Department of Health tender to supply perishable food. The directors of the two bidders are related; the companies shared an office and service providers and submitted strikingly similar bids. Seed Bearing Fields allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 10,044 ZAR and must attend competition law compliance training provided by the Competition Commission (competition authority).
Related companies bidding separately must not coordinate their prices – shared offices, service providers and similar documents make collusion easy to spot.
Related bidders in public tenders
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 4(1)(b)(i) und (iii) Competition Act 89 of 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
Original amount 10,044 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 May 2026.
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Feb 2026 Wilmar SA (Pty) LtdEdible oils case: Wilmar SA allegedly pays ZAR 1m and commits to public-interest measures €52,689
On 18 February 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement between the Competition Commission (competition authority) and Wilmar SA (Pty) Ltd (formerly Wilmar Continental Edible Oils and Fats) in proceedings running since 2016 over alleged price fixing and – added later – market division in edible oils, baking fats and margarine. Without admitting a contravention, Wilmar allegedly pays 1,000,000 ZAR and commits to public-interest measures worth 49.5 million ZAR over five years, including bursaries, school infrastructure including eradicating pit latrines, and a fund for small businesses; it also undertakes a compliance programme and investment commitments.
Settlements with South Africa's competition authority can include public-interest commitments many times larger than the payment itself – this belongs in any risk assessment.
Price fixing in the food industry
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 4(1)(b)(i) und/oder (ii) Competition Act 89 of 1998 (Vorwurf, ohne Anerkenntnis)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 18 Feb 2026
Original amount 1,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Feb 2026.
- Competition Tribunal: Competition Tribunal confirms settlement in edible oils alleged price-fixing matter (18.02.2026) Court press release
- Competition Commission: The Commission welcomes Tribunal confirmation of the settlement agreement concluded with Wilmar SA (Pty) Ltd (24.02.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Mar 2025 Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) LtdCoca-Cola Beverages South Africa: fine for failing to register with the FIC €1,269
After Schedule 1 of the FIC Act was extended with effect from 19 December 2022 to include, among others, credit providers, the company should have registered with the Financial Intelligence Centre as an accountable institution within 90 days but failed to do so. A fine of 25,000 ZAR was allegedly imposed, reduced to 10,000 ZAR if the company registered by 1 April 2025 and paid by 10 April 2025; the company accepted the sanction on 27 March 2025.
Manufacturing and trading companies that extend credit to customers may also be subject to anti-money laundering duties – check registration requirements after changes in the law.
Anti-money laundering duties for non-financial companies extending customer credit
- Authority / court
- Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC)
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing
- Legal basis
- Section 43B(1) Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 i. V. m. Regulation 27A(2) Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Control Regulations; Sanktion nach Section 45C(3)(e) FIC Act
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Reduction to 10,000 ZAR for timely registration and payment.
Original amount 25,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Mar 2025.
- FIC Notice of Sanction (Annexure B): Acceptance of administrative sanction issued in terms of section 45C(3)(e) FIC Act – Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa (Pty) Ltd Decision of an authority
- FIC: Sanctions issued by the FIC (Liste) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Feb 2025 DH Brothers Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a WillowtonCompetition Tribunal: Willowton allegedly pays ZAR 1m and commits ZAR 100m to public-interest measures €51,783
In 2016 the Competition Commission investigated several edible oil producers over alleged price fixing and market division; the Willowton Group challenged the investigation in court for years and no findings were made. Under the confirmed settlement, Willowton allegedly pays ZAR 1m without admitting liability and commits to public-interest measures of ZAR 100m over five years (20m education trust, 30m food donations, 50m procurement from B-BBEE companies) as well as a compliance programme.
Even without an established infringement, competition proceedings can end with substantial payment and public-interest commitments; an effective compliance programme is better protection than years of litigation.
Handling competition investigations and settlement options
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Competition Act 89 of 1998, s. 4(1)(b)(i) und (ii); ss. 49D, 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- No admission of liability and no findings by the Commission; pragmatic settlement after lengthy litigation.
- Published
- 17 Feb 2025
Original amount 1,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Feb 2025.
- Competition Tribunal, CO155Jan25: Order confirming consent agreement, Competition Commission v DH Brothers Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Willowton (17.02.2025) Court decision
- Competition Tribunal greenlights R101m settlement with Willowton Group over price fixing and market division allegations (17.02.2025) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link