Who was sanctioned, and for what?

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed penalties totalling 7.3 million AUD on the fund manager: 2.3 million AUD for misleading statements (s 12DF ASIC Act) and 5 million AUD for breaching its duty of care and diligence as responsible entity (s 601FC(1)(b) Corporations Act). Between October 2019 and May 2024 the Diversified Social Aspirations Fund, marketed as socially responsible, held through underlying funds interests in companies that derived revenue from fossil fuels, among others, even though the product documents promised certain exclusions and ongoing monitoring; the company did not respond to investor concerns by amending its statements.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) s 12DF (Geldbuße nach s 12GBB); Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 601FC(1)(b) (Geldbuße nach s 1317G)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Admissions, cooperation throughout the proceedings and contrition; since the proceedings began, an independent review of the product documents; no previous court findings.

Liability of senior managers

According to the agreed facts, senior management was involved (the company's then Executive Chair and Head of Investments).

Published

12 Aug 2026

Original amount 7,300,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Aug 2026.

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

A national advertising campaign from January 2020 to August 2021 promised purchases at Harvey Norman with 60 months interest free and no deposit, but concealed that a credit card such as the Latitude GO Mastercard was required, with monthly account fees and, until March 2021, establishment fees. After liability was established in 2024 and upheld on appeal in 2025, the Court set penalties of AUD 35 million against Harvey Norman and AUD 20 million against Latitude and ordered corrective notices on the home pages for 90 days. It based the higher penalty for Harvey Norman on its lower level of contrition.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

ss 12DB(1)(a), (g), (i), 12DF(1) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth); Haftungsfeststellung auch zu s 12DA(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

In the Court’s view Latitude showed contrition; the advertising complained of had ceased.

Liability of senior managers

The Court regarded public statements by Harvey Norman’s board chair as showing disregard for potential harm to consumers and therefore considered a higher penalty necessary.

Published

28 Jul 2026

Original amount 55,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Jul 2026.

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

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 20.5 million AUD on the exchange operator because a market announcement of 10 February 2022 stated that the project to replace its CHESS clearing and settlement system was progressing well. About six weeks later ASX announced a likely delay and paused the project in November 2022; in June 2026 it admitted contraventions of ss 12DA and 12DB of the ASIC Act.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12DA, 12DB(1)(a) und (e)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

3 Jul 2026

Original amount 20,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Jul 2026.

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

The Supreme Court of Victoria sentenced Risham Nominees Pty Ltd, operator of Centenary Bakehouse, after a guilty plea for workplace manslaughter to a fine of 3.4 million AUD, the highest penalty to date for a single offence under the workplace safety laws of the state of Victoria. During ceiling works at the bakery in Reservoir in August 2021, a worker fell around four metres and suffered fatal head injuries. The company had taken no measures against falls and did not require the use of harnesses that were available, although an independent scaffold would have been reasonably practicable.

Authority / court

WorkSafe Victoria

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Workplace-Manslaughter-Bestimmungen des Arbeitsschutzrechts von Victoria (fahrlässiges Verhalten unter Verletzung einer geschuldeten Pflicht mit Todesfolge)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty plea.

Published

25 Jun 2026

Original amount 3,400,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Jun 2026.

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

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) reprimanded used car dealer OzCar Pty Ltd on 22 June 2026 and imposed conditions on its dealer licence. The regulator refers to the maximum available in disciplinary proceedings and does not state the amount imposed on the company. The investigation found a pattern of dishonest conduct between 2023 and 2025; among other things, customers reported being pressured into signing or misled about the purpose of contracts, that contracts were not properly explained – including to particularly vulnerable buyers – and that vehicles of unacceptable quality were sold. Among other things, the company must introduce a compliance programme with training for sales staff, may no longer allow waivers of the statutory cooling-off right to be pre-filled, and must fix defects affecting safety or reliability before sale.

Authority / court

NSW Fair Trading

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW), s 45(1)(a), (b), (d) und (d1)(ii)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

24 Sep 2026

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

HSBC admitted that from May 2023 to May 2024 it lacked adequate controls against unauthorised payments via its internal transfer channel, that from January 2020 it handled scam reports under the ePayments Code too slowly (144 days on average) and without applying the liability rules, and that until April 2024 it gave affected customers no orderly way back into their accounts. The Court imposed AUD 35 million (AUD 10 million for the fraud controls, AUD 22.5 million for the contraventions relating to the ePayments Code, AUD 2.5 million for restoring account access) and ordered notices on the website, in the app and in letters to customers.

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

s 912A(1)(a), (5A) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); s 47(1)(a), (4) National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Admissions and jointly proposed penalty; remediation programme with payments of AUD 27,915,700.56 by 21 May 2026; no previous contraventions of a similar nature.

Liability of senior managers

According to the agreed facts, senior management was also aware before May 2023 of heightened fraud risks and gaps in the controls.

Published

18 Jun 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Jun 2026.

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

Between 2018 and 2020 the since-collapsed CFD issuer Union Standard and its two authorised representatives EuropeFX and TradeFred pushed inexperienced and vulnerable customers into trading risky contracts for difference using aggressive sales tactics; customers lost more than AUD 83 million, while in most cases the representatives profited from those losses. The Court imposed AUD 156.7 million on Union Standard, AUD 114.1 million on EuropeFX and AUD 29.4 million on TradeFred, together with a permanent ban on EuropeFX and an obligation for it to refund customers’ net deposits. For the first time a licensee was also penalised for distributing CFDs to customers in China although it knew or ought to have known of their legal risk.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth): Verbot von unconscionable conduct und irreführenden Angaben; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Pflicht des Lizenzinhabers zu effizienter, ehrlicher und fairer Leistungserbringung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

12 Jun 2026

Original amount 300,200,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jun 2026.

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

Monash IVF collected sensitive information about visitors to its fertility treatment website through third-party tracking pixels. The Privacy Commissioner held that following the visitors of health-related websites and afterwards showing them targeted adverts on social networks amounts to collecting sensitive data, which requires consent, and found breaches of APP 3.3, 5.1, 5.2 and 7.1. Monash IVF must not continue or repeat the conduct and must implement specified remedial steps; a parallel determination against the telehealth provider Medmate Australia was made on the same day.

Authority / court

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)

Area of law

Data protection · Cookies and tracking

Legal basis

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Published

24 Jun 2026

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

The online retailer sold household appliances and electronics on instalments and, between September 2021 and February 2025, calculated interest in more than 38,000 credit contracts on the total contract amount instead of the unpaid balance; customers paid almost AUD 20 million too much as a result. Sample contracts also exceeded the statutory annual cost rate cap of 48%. The Court imposed AUD 32 million for the interest calculation and AUD 1.5 million for exceeding the cap, and ordered publication of a notice.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

s 24(1) National Credit Code (Anhang 1 zum National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)) i. V. m. ss 23(1), 28, 32A(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

18 May 2026

Original amount 33,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 2026.

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

In two incidents in July and August 2022 around 423,000 litres of untreated sewage escaped in Carramar because plant had not been properly maintained, affecting a residential property, a sports field, bushland and Prospect Creek. After a guilty plea, the Land and Environment Court convicted Sydney Water and imposed AUD 225,000 for breaching its environment protection licence and AUD 15,000 for failing without lawful excuse to provide CCTV footage requested by the EPA.

Authority / court

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) / Land and Environment Court of NSW

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits

Legal basis

Bedingungen der Environment Protection Licence; Pflicht zur Vorlage von Informationen und Unterlagen gegenüber der EPA NSW

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Mitigating circumstances

25% discount for an early guilty plea.

Published

7 May 2026

Original amount 240,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 May 2026.

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

Following an investigation by SafeWork NSW, the District Court of NSW fined LiveBetter Services Limited 675,000 AUD for a breach of ss 32/19(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. In February 2022, a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was placed in a bath with excessively hot water, suffered serious burns and died from her injuries.

Authority / court

SafeWork NSW

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) ss 32/19(2)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Original amount 675,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Apr 2026.

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

Following action by Consumer Affairs Victoria (the consumer protection regulator of the state of Victoria), the Federal Court of Australia ordered White Ray Oakleigh Pty Ltd, former operator of the Ray White Oakleigh agency, to pay 600,000 AUD because between February 2022 and November 2023 it advertised nine properties well below market value and at prices it did not itself expect to achieve (underquoting). According to the regulator, the agency agreements often provided for considerably higher commission on proceeds above the reserve price, and vendors were persuaded to lower their reserves after signing; text messages between the agents showed that they expected considerably higher prices. The court found misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Victoria / Federal Court of Australia

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Irreführendes Verhalten sowie falsche oder irreführende Angaben (Vorschriften in der Mitteilung nicht genannt)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

The company admitted the conduct and cooperated with the regulator in the court proceedings; it has not operated the agency since 2025.

Published

24 Apr 2026

Original amount 600,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2026.

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

The Privacy Commissioner found that the rental application platform 2Apply collected more personal information than necessary from March 2020 to March 2025, such as gender, student status, citizenship, visa expiry and previous living arrangements, and did so unfairly through design techniques such as “confirmshaming”, biased framing and bundled consent. The determination requires IRE to stop this collection within 60 days, engage an independent reviewer and report to the OAIC within twelve months on implementing the recommendations.

Authority / court

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

APP 3.2 und APP 3.5 (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)); Feststellungen nach s 52(1A)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Mitigating circumstances

IRE adapted its collection practices during the investigation without admitting a breach.

Published

22 Apr 2026

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

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.

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

Singtel Optus asked customers who ported their number to Optus whether they wanted to appear in the phone directory, but between October 2015 and September 2019 it did not act on requests for an unlisted number, so that 41,278 affected customers remained published in the White Pages. The Privacy Commissioner found a breach of APP 11.1 because Optus did not remove a risk of errors it had been aware of throughout the period with reasonable steps such as regular system reconciliations, and declared that the company must not repeat this conduct. The regulator intends to decide on compensation separately in a representative complaint concerning the same conduct.

Authority / court

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s 13(1), APP 11.1; Erklärung nach s 52(1A)(a)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

11 Jun 2026

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

In June and July 2020 contractors of the state-owned forestry corporation felled six giant trees and three hollow-bearing trees in Wild Cattle Creek State Forest near Coffs Harbour that should have been retained under the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operation Approval. On the EPA’s prosecution, the Land and Environment Court convicted the corporation and found harm to koala habitat and cultural harm to the Gumbaynggirr people; following a restorative justice conference, the AUD 450,000 penalty goes to the Yurruungga Aboriginal Corporation for remediation projects. The corporation must also commission an independent audit of its procedures and publish the conviction.

Authority / court

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW) / Land and Environment Court of NSW

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits

Legal basis

Coastal Integrated Forestry Operation Approval (NSW)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Public sector

Repeat case

yes

Published

16 Mar 2026

Original amount 450,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Mar 2026.

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

The Supreme Court of New South Wales, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed a penalty of 35 million AUD on the securities dealer because, between December 2009 and February 2024, inadequate systems, processes and controls led it to misreport at least 73 million short sales to the market operator and to omit required regulatory data from orders. The court also found inadequate risk management and misleading conduct, and ordered a compliance programme involving an independent expert.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 798H(1)(b), 912A(1)(h), 1041H(1); ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Securities Markets) 2017; Geldbuße nach s 1317G(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

50 to 249

Mitigating circumstances

Early acceptance of the contraventions, sustained cooperation with ASIC and contrition; the errors were reported to ASIC once identified and promptly remediated; no previous court findings of similar conduct.

Liability of senior managers

According to the decision, the errors arose at an operational level; ASIC did not allege any involvement of senior management.

Published

16 Mar 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Mar 2026.

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

Clarence Colliery Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Centennial Coal Company, was sentenced by the Land and Environment Court of NSW after pleading guilty to five offences under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, after untreated mine water with elevated nickel and zinc levels from the coal mine near Lithgow entered the Wollangambe River in December 2023 and April 2024. The offences comprised two water pollution offences, a licence breach, non-compliance with a prevention notice and a pollution incident response plan that had not been tested for 269 days. The court imposed fines totalling 543,500 AUD and ordered 86,500 AUD for rehabilitation of Long Swamp; in addition, the EPA's legal and investigation costs of 170,000 AUD and 15,548 AUD are payable.

Authority / court

NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA NSW)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits

Legal basis

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) s 120(1) (zwei Fälle), s 64(1), s 97(1), s 153E; Zahlungsanordnung nach s 250(1)(e)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Early guilty pleas (25% discount).

Published

23 Feb 2026

Original amount 543,500 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Feb 2026.

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

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 2.5 million AUD on the fixed-income specialist because between March 2019 and June 2023 it lacked adequate cyber security measures, resources and risk management systems – among other things, there was no multi-factor authentication for remote access, no regular penetration testing and no mandatory security awareness training. In a 2023 attack around 385 GB of confidential data were stolen and some 18,000 clients were notified; the court also ordered a compliance programme with an independent expert.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Information security and cyber · Security measures and risk management

Legal basis

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 912A(1)(a), (d) und (h) i. V. m. s 912A(5A)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Full cooperation, admissions and an agreed statement of facts; no previous contraventions; the known financial losses (remediation costs of around 1.5 million AUD) were largely borne by the company itself.

Published

9 Feb 2026

Original amount 2,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Feb 2026.

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

On 30 January 2026 the Perth Magistrates Court convicted Jim's Realty Pty Ltd on 35 charges – client money not credited to the trust account, unlawful withdrawals, improper records and tenancy bonds lodged late or not at all – and fined it 225,000 AUD plus 577.50 AUD in costs. A forensic audit commissioned by Consumer Protection WA (the consumer protection division of Western Australia) had identified 57 unexplained withdrawals totalling more than 334,915 AUD. According to the regulator it is the largest fine ever imposed on an estate agency in Western Australia; the company has been in liquidation since 2024.

Authority / court

Consumer Protection WA (Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety) / Perth Magistrates Court

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA); Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

None; according to the release, the court found no mitigating factors despite the liquidation.

Published

11 Feb 2026

Original amount 225,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jan 2026.

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