Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 cases from 32 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- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) / Export Control Joint Unit 1 case 50 % · €706,898
- Serious Fraud Office (SFO) 1 case 50 % · €11.6m
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by companyWhen?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| 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 | 1 | €706,898 |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | €11.6m |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | — |
2 cases
1 May 2026 Ultra Electronics Holdings Limited (vormals plc)Ultra Electronics: DPA of around 10.1 million GBP over bribery in Algeria and Oman €11.6m
The British defence supplier failed to prevent bribery by agents in connection with three public contracts in Oman and Algeria (including a contract with the Omani Ministry of Transport worth up to 200 million GBP). The DPA approved by Southwark Crown Court provides for a penalty of 10,083,150 GBP; in addition, the company is bearing around 4.8 million GBP of the SFO's investigation costs and must report on its compliance programme for three years.
Companies that use agents for government contracts must be able to demonstrate adequate procedures – otherwise the company is liable under Section 7 Bribery Act even without any intent to bribe on its own part.
Use of sales agents in public contracts
- Authority / court
- Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
- Area of law
- Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials
- Legal basis
- Section 7 Bribery Act 2010 (Failure to prevent bribery); Deferred Prosecution Agreement
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- Self-report of the Algerian matters in 2018; restructuring of ownership and leadership; 45 % discount on the penalty.
- Published
- 1 May 2026
Original amount 10,083,150 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Apr 2026.
- SFO secures £10m from British defence supplier Press release of an authority
- SFO DPA with Ultra Electronics Holdings Limited (formerly plc) Decision of an authority
- Serious Fraud Office v Ultra Electronics Holdings [2026] EWCR 4 (Approved Judgment, 1 May 2026) Court decision
- SFO-Ultra Indictment (Crown Court at Southwark) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 Dec 2025 British exporter pays 620,515 GBP for unlicensed exports of military goods €706,898
In September 2025, an unnamed British exporter paid a compound settlement of 620,515.04 GBP to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) for unlicensed exports of military goods. HMRC offers such settlements only for unintentional breaches or weaknesses in internal controls and following voluntary disclosure (date = publication).
Weaknesses in internal export control become expensive even without intent – disclosing breaches early can avoid prosecution.
Classification of goods and licensing requirements for military goods
- Authority / court
- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) / Export Control Joint Unit
- Area of law
- Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods
- Legal basis
- Export Control Order 2008
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Voluntary disclosure (prerequisite for the compound settlement)
- Published
- 1 Dec 2025
Original amount 620,515.04 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Dec 2025.
- NTE 2025/31: UK exporter pays compound settlement for breaches of export controls Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link