Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Between 1 January 2022 and 22 March 2024 the airline gave passengers false information in individual replies, automated emails and on its website about their compensation rights under the Civil Aviation Act for delays and cancellations within its control, so that valid claims were refused. After pleading guilty to 20 representative charges, it was fined 2,250,000 NZD. The Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition and consumer authority) had already issued Jetstar with compliance advice for similar statements before the offending period.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, s 13(i)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Mitigating circumstances

Following the Commerce Commission's intervention, Jetstar compensated 2,692 affected customers with a total of 1,039,390 NZD.

Published

1 Sep 2025

Original amount 2,250,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Sep 2025.

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

The restaurant and takeaway business with branches in Auckland and Cromwell did not pay five employees the minimum wage, denied holiday, public holiday and sick pay, made unlawful deductions from wages and kept no accurate wage, time and leave records. After the Employment Relations Authority (ERA, New Zealand's employment tribunal) had already ordered arrears of 147,001 NZD, it imposed a penalty of 90,000 NZD against the company following an investigation by the Labour Inspectorate (labour standards enforcement unit of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment). Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Authority / court

Employment Relations Authority (Verfahren des Labour Inspectorate, MBIE)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

The company acknowledged its wrongdoing.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

3 Sep 2026

Original amount 90,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Sep 2026.

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

At a site for two-storey residential units in Kelston (Auckland), workers were working on the upper floor without adequate fall protection, and the site also had temporary platforms, partially removed scaffolding and unsecured ladders; WorkSafe (New Zealand's workplace health and safety regulator) therefore prohibited work at height on the second floor by a prohibition notice on 30 August 2024. Because work continued there on 2 and 4 September 2024 nonetheless, the Waitakere District Court imposed a fine of 38,500 NZD on 20 August 2026, plus costs of 1,099.10 NZD.

Authority / court

Waitakere District Court (Anklage: WorkSafe New Zealand)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, s 107(1), (2)(b)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

The prohibition notice had been issued to one of the directors.

Published

4 Sep 2026

Original amount 38,500 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Aug 2026.

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

The company behind The TV Shop had its own staff post positive product reviews without disclosing the connection, and published one- to three-star reviews only if customers responded to a follow-up email. It also gave customers the impression that they had no rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act beyond a 30-day money-back guarantee, and advertised an accessory pack for the Air Roaster Pro as “free” although it was always included. After a guilty verdict on 13 charges, the District Court imposed 1,104,000 NZD on 6 August 2026; the company had already been fined in 2015 (153,000 NZD) and 2022 (123,500 NZD).

Authority / court

District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 10, 13(e), 13(i), 40(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Liability of senior managers

According to the sentencing decision, managers and executives knew about the review practices and at times directed them themselves.

Published

11 Aug 2026

Original amount 1,104,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Aug 2026.

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

New Zealand's largest gym chain kept advertising a membership at 6.99 NZD a week on its website, Instagram and Google ads, although all new members had to pay a compulsory 3% surcharge that it presented as a “transaction fee” but which in fact served to raise revenue generally. After pleading guilty to eight representative charges (offending period 21 December 2023 to 30 April 2025), the company was sentenced on 5 June 2026 to a fine of 1,120,000 NZD. According to the Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition and consumer authority), the surcharge affected more than 125,000 members and generated around 1.6 million NZD in additional revenue.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 11, 40(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

According to the court, the labels “transaction fee” and “Payment Authority Fee” were approved at the highest level; the fee increase was decided by senior executives.

Published

9 Jun 2026

Original amount 1,120,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Jun 2026.

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

Between March 2022 and March 2025 a Hamilton law firm repeatedly breached the AML/CFT Act: it lacked a proper risk assessment, an implemented anti-money laundering programme and adequate records. It also failed to respond, or responded only in part, to information notices from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA, the AML/CFT supervisor for law firms), thereby obstructing its investigators. After the firm pleaded guilty, the court imposed a fine of 60,000 NZD, taking the firm's size and financial capacity into account.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Department of Internal Affairs)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

According to the Department of Internal Affairs, the firm's partners, as lawyers, also had professional obligations to uphold the law.

Published

24 Apr 2026

Original amount 60,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2026.

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

In June 2024 timber kicked back from an inadequately guarded stack saw at the Gisborne sawmill and seriously injured a worker's arm; seven weeks later another worker was crushed between two forklifts and suffered spinal and pelvic fractures. WorkSafe (New Zealand's workplace health and safety regulator) found systemic failings in machine guarding, risk assessment, traffic management, training and maintenance; the company had not notified the first incident and had not acted on earlier formal directions to fix the risks. On 18 March 2026 the Gisborne District Court imposed a fine of 601,250 NZD and 100,754 NZD in reparation.

Authority / court

Gisborne District Court (Anklage: WorkSafe New Zealand)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36(1)(a), 48(1), 48(2)(c)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Published

30 Mar 2026

Original amount 601,250 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2026.

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

In May 2022, without seeking clearance, Alderson Logistics and its associated company Supa Shavings (2022) acquired the businesses of the two largest suppliers of bulk wood shavings used as bedding by chicken and goat farmers in the Waikato, which together held a market share of at least 70 to 80% and were each other's closest competitors. Following a settlement with the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's competition regulator), the High Court imposed an allegedly agreed penalty of 420,000 NZD jointly against both for breaching the prohibition on acquisitions in s 47 of the Commerce Act. It was the first time the Commission had also sought divestment where a breach was admitted; the divestment did not succeed.

Authority / court

High Court Auckland (Klage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Commerce Act 1986, s 47

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

9 Mar 2026

Original amount 420,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Mar 2026.

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

In 2021 the courier company concluded an agreement with a competitor acting as reseller that allocated customers and fixed prices, and gave effect to the non-compete clause on one occasion; the wording had been copied from an older Fastway template. In civil proceedings brought by the Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition authority), the High Court on 4 March 2026 approved the jointly proposed penalty, allegedly of 700,000 NZD (starting point 1 million NZD, 30% reduction).

Authority / court

High Court Auckland (Klage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Commerce Act 1986, s 30

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

No previous warnings or contraventions, voluntary provision of documents and interviews, early admission and remorse, new agreements without the clause and a new competition law compliance programme in New Zealand and Australia.

Liability of senior managers

The agreement was prepared from a template by the national sales manager; a more senior employee signed it without reviewing its content.

Published

4 Mar 2026

Original amount 700,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Mar 2026.

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

Following proceedings brought by the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's competition and consumer regulator), the High Court ordered One New Zealand Group Limited to pay a pecuniary penalty of 1,100,000 NZD; in addition, the company is paying 100,000 NZD towards the authority's costs, which is not included in the amount. One NZ admitted ten breaches of the 111 Contact Code between 2021 and 2023 concerning information duties, record-keeping and regular contact with customers. The Code is intended to ensure that vulnerable customers whose landline does not work in a power cut receive another way of calling 111 at no cost.

Authority / court

High Court of New Zealand (Verfahren der Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Information security and cyber · Critical infrastructure

Legal basis

Telecommunications Act 2001 (Neuseeland), s 156B; 111 Contact Code

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Mitigating circumstances

According to the Commerce Commission, One NZ remedied the breaches as soon as it recognised their scale and cooperated fully with the investigation; the breaches were admitted.

Published

1 Dec 2025

Original amount 1,100,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Dec 2025.

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

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.

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

Between February 2022 and July 2023 the meal-kit provider called former customers, ostensibly to gather feedback but mainly to offer them discount vouchers, without making clear that accepting could reactivate their paid subscription; after more than a million call attempts, almost 80,000 subscriptions were reactivated. After pleading guilty to five charges under s 11 of the Fair Trading Act, the company was fined 845,000 NZD on 16 October 2025.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, s 11

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

17 Oct 2025

Original amount 845,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Oct 2025.

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

The Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition and consumer regulator) warned Kmart NZ Holdings Limited because, from 4 August 2023 to 4 October 2024, the company advertised own-brand clothing with the claim “100% sustainably sourced cotton” without being able to substantiate it: the cotton sourced as “Better Cotton” was mixed with conventional cotton in the supply chain. The authority considers a breach of s 12A Fair Trading Act 1986 (unsubstantiated representations) likely; only a court could determine one.

Authority / court

Commerce Commission (ComCom), Neuseeland

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

s 12A Fair Trading Act 1986 (Neuseeland)

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Kmart removed the claim from its New Zealand website after the authority raised it and stated that it continues to provide regular compliance training on consumer and competition law.

Published

14 Aug 2025

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

On the application of a Labour Inspector, the Employment Relations Authority (New Zealand's employment relations tribunal) ordered Well Sushi Limited to pay a penalty of 30,000 NZD to the Crown. The company had admitted failing to pay an employee on a work visa the minimum wage for all hours worked, miscalculating his annual leave, public holiday and sick leave entitlements and failing to keep complete time and wage records; arrears totalling 53,940.03 NZD had already been paid under a settlement. No penalties were sought against the co-respondent Hutt Food Limited because the time limit had expired.

Authority / court

Employment Relations Authority, Wellington (Antrag: Labour Inspector, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Legal basis

Employment Relations Act 2000 (ss. 130, 135), Minimum Wage Act 1983 (s. 6), Holidays Act 2003 (u. a. ss. 16, 24, 25, 28A, 40, 49, 50, 60, 71, 72, 81)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement without a hearing, full payment of arrears, changed payroll processes and no previous breaches; the Authority therefore reduced the calculated 40,000 NZD to 30,000 NZD.

Original amount 30,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jul 2025.

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

Between June 2018 and September 2019 the Auckland money remitter and foreign exchange provider (trading as Lidong Foreign Exchange) failed to report 197 transfers to China totalling more than 19.14 million NZD: 26 suspicious activities (4.72 million NZD) and 171 prescribed transactions (14.42 million NZD); it checked the source of funds of the two individuals through whom the transactions were conducted only on the basis of questionable documents. On 28 April 2025 the Auckland District Court imposed a fine of 1,125,000 NZD. The company has appealed the decision. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Auckland District Court (Anklage: Department of Internal Affairs)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Suspicious activity reports

Legal basis

AML/CFT Act 2009, ss 48A(1), 97 (Meldung vorgeschriebener Transaktionen) und s 92(1)(b)(i) (Verdachtsmeldung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

5 Jun 2025

Original amount 1,125,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Apr 2025.

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

At the Mount Maunganui fertiliser plant in July 2023, a worker cleaning the conveyor system fell onto a moving belt, was dragged under the frame of another conveyor and died. There was no effective, trained and monitored safe system of work for cleaning and maintenance, and no effective guarding or emergency stop devices. On 18 March 2025 the Tauranga District Court imposed a fine of 420,000 NZD (starting point 700,000 NZD, 40% discounts) and made no reparation order because the family had already received 287,202.86 NZD (77,000 NZD directly from the company and 210,202.86 NZD from a group life insurance policy held by the company).

Authority / court

Tauranga District Court (Anklage: WorkSafe New Zealand)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36(1)(a), 48(1), 48(2)(c) ([2025] NZDC 5282)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty plea, remorse, cooperation and reparation, with discounts totalling 40%; payments to the family totalling 287,202.86 NZD, of which 77,000 NZD was paid directly and 210,202.86 NZD came from the company's group life insurance policy.

Original amount 420,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2025.

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

The company disclosed to the DIA (Department of Internal Affairs, New Zealand's AML/CFT supervisor) that, because of a system error in its prescribed transaction reporting, 3,182 transactions not denominated in New Zealand dollars had not been reported to the Police Financial Intelligence Unit between November 2017 and February 2024. On 18 March 2025 the DIA issued a formal warning under the AML/CFT Act 2009 and, given the prompt voluntary disclosure, refrained from more serious action; NZForex must provide the final report of an independent audit and report on its remediation.

Authority / court

Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing

Legal basis

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Meldung vorgeschriebener Transaktionen)

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Prompt voluntary disclosure, admission of fault, fixing the system error, reporting all outstanding transactions and a voluntary independent audit.

Published

18 Mar 2025

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

The construction company coordinated its bids with a competitor in tenders run by the NZ Transport Agency (national transport authority; Northern Corridor Improvement Project) and Auckland Transport (refurbishment of the Middlemore Bridge). After guilty pleas to four charges of price fixing, the High Court in Auckland imposed a fine of 500,000 NZD on 18 December 2024 in the country's first criminal cartel prosecution; without the mitigating factors, around 1 million NZD would have been appropriate according to the court.

Authority / court

High Court Auckland (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Commerce Act 1986, s 30 (Kartellverbot, seit 8. April 2021 strafbewehrt)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas; the court took account of several mitigating factors, without which around 1 million NZD would have been appropriate.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

18 Dec 2024

Original amount 500,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2024.

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

The bank pleaded guilty to 21 charges under the Fair Trading Act because for years it had not provided services to customers on the agreed terms, for example discounts and interest-free periods under package agreements, correctly calculated repayments, the switch to principal repayments after interest-only periods and correct fees. Around 35,000 customers were overcharged a total of 6.8 million NZD; on 26 November 2024 the Auckland District Court imposed a fine of 1.5 million NZD. According to the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's consumer and competition regulator), the causes were errors in electronic systems and a lack of quality assurance checks on whether staff knew and followed the processes.

Authority / court

Auckland District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 13(i), 40(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

The bank had identified and reported the errors itself and is progressively refunding customers 9.2 million NZD.

Published

27 Nov 2024

Original amount 1,500,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Nov 2024.

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

In November 2020 a rack loaded with around nine tonnes of steel collapsed at the company's steel store in Wigram (Christchurch), killing a storeman; the racks were neither braced nor fixed to the floor, were not inspected regularly and had been built without engineering input. On 1 November 2024 the Christchurch District Court imposed a fine of 330,000 NZD (starting point 600,000 NZD) and 100,000 NZD in reparation for emotional harm; costs of 17,507.39 NZD were added.

Authority / court

Christchurch District Court (Anklage: WorkSafe New Zealand)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36(1)(a), 48(1), 48(2)(c)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Steel and metals

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Reductions for cooperation (5%), remorse including payments already made to the family (10%), willingness to pay reparation (10%), guilty plea (15%) and no previous convictions in 43 years of trading (5%).

Published

11 Nov 2024

Original amount 330,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Nov 2024.

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