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: 2,030 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.

SingaporeOther Clear all filters
2cases from 1 jurisdiction
€240,207Total of monetary amounts
€208,955Largest single case: Marina Bay Sands Pte. Ltd.
€120,104Median per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

Where?

by authority
  1. Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) €240,207 100 % · 2 cases

What for?

by area of law

All areas of law

  1. Data protection €240,207 100 % · 2 cases

Who?

by company
  1. Marina Bay Sands Pte. Ltd. €208,955 87 % · 1 case
  2. Air Sino-Euro Associates Travel Pte. Ltd. €31,252 13 % · 1 case

When?

per quarter, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
Q4 20230–
Q1 20240–
Q2 20240–
Q3 20240–
Q4 20240–
Q1 20250–
Q2 20250–
Q3 20250–
Q4 20252€240,207
Q1 20260–
Q2 20260–
Q3 20260–
Q4 20260–

2 cases

28 Oct 2025 Marina Bay Sands Pte. Ltd.Marina Bay Sands: 315,000 SGD after configuration error in middleware migration SingaporeData breaches and data security €208,955

When API configurations were manually transferred to a new middleware platform (September 2022 to March 2023), a single employee in sole charge omitted an app identifier, so token verification did not apply to the web page of the ArtScience Friends museum programme for at least six months; an attacker exploited this in October 2023 and retrieved data on 665,495 members of the Sands Rewards Lifestyle loyalty programme, which was then offered for sale on the dark web. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) held that the resort had negligently breached the Protection Obligation by relying on this one employee without independent checks or automation. It reduced the provisionally intended 450,000 SGD to 315,000 SGD after the company's representations; no directions were issued because remediation had already been carried out.

What organisations can take from it

Security-critical configuration steps when migrating large data sets must not depend on a single person without independent checks or automation.

Relevance to training and awareness

Human error in manual IT changes: four-eyes principle and automation

Authority / court
Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)
Area of law
Data protection · Data breaches and data security
Legal basis
Section 24 Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Protection Obligation); Section 48J PDPA (Financial Penalty)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Other
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
no
Mitigating circumstances
Otherwise adequate security arrangements, containment on the day of discovery, admission under the Expedited Decision Procedure, cooperation and voluntary notification of all affected individuals.
Published
28 Oct 2025

Original amount 315,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Oct 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.

31 Oct 2025 Air Sino-Euro Associates Travel Pte. Ltd.Air Sino-Euro: 47,000 SGD – no data protection officer, no internal rules, data leak SingaporeData subject rights and transparency €31,252

After a cyberattack on the travel agency became public in December 2023, data on 336,759 individuals in its booking system was affected, in some cases including full images of identity cards, passports and birth certificates; part of the data was exfiltrated. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC, Singapore's data protection authority) found negligent breaches of the Accountability Obligation – a data protection officer appointed only in April 2024, and apart from the customer-facing privacy policy no internal policies, no complaints process and no information to staff – and of the Protection Obligation, because there were no contracts with the IT vendors covering security tasks, no security reviews and no multi-factor authentication, and the server was still running the unsupported Windows Server 2012. It imposed 47,000 SGD, rejected objections based on COVID-19 losses and comparable cases, and directed among other things policies, security clauses in vendor contracts and a penetration test by a provider licensed by the Cyber Security Agency (CSA).

What organisations can take from it

An outward-facing privacy policy is no substitute for a designated data protection officer or for internal rules that staff know and that apply in day-to-day work.

Relevance to training and awareness

Internal data protection policies, communicating them to staff, and password rules

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
Sections 11(3) und 12 PDPA 2012 (Accountability Obligation); Section 24 PDPA (Protection Obligation); Section 48J(1)(a) PDPA (Financial Penalty); Section 48I PDPA (Directions)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Other
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
Voluntary early admission of the breaches (treated as significantly mitigating) and prompt, effective remediation.
Published
8 Jan 2026

Original amount 47,000 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Oct 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.

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