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

ASIC issued an infringement notice because on 208 business days between October 2024 and August 2025 Deutsche Bank had not accurately reported the “direction” fields for 20,483 outstanding and 244,091 terminated or matured OTC derivative transactions, mostly foreign exchange trades, to trade repositories. The bank allegedly paid AUD 2 million under the infringement notice; payment is not an admission of guilt.

Authority / court

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Rule 2.2.6 ASIC Derivative Transaction Rules (Reporting) 2024; reg 7.5A.104 Corporations Regulations 2001

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation with ASIC and measures to prevent further reporting errors.

Published

13 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,000,000 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

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) reprimanded Leader Properties Investment Pty Ltd on 9 June 2026 and imposed a monetary penalty of 22,000 AUD because it had locked out a tenant and unlawfully taken possession of the rented home in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. All licensed agents of the company who provide property management must complete tenancy training. Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Authority / court

NSW Fair Trading

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW), s 192(1)(a), (c) und (d); Verstoß gegen den Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

25 Jun 2026

Original amount 22,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 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

Four Australian companies of the Canva group did not lodge their financial reports for the 2024 financial year with ASIC by the due date of 30 April 2025; the consolidated report followed only on 27 March 2026. ASIC issued an infringement notice of allegedly AUD 198,000 to each company (AUD 792,000 in total); the notices were paid, which is not an admission of guilt.

Authority / court

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

s 319(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); Bußgeldbescheide nach s 1317DAM

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

6 May 2026

Original amount 792,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 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 Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed an allegedly agreed penalty of 4 million AUD on the listed manufacturer of defence, space and communications technology. By 25 July 2022 the company knew that its 2022 revenue was likely to fall materially short of its published guidance of at least 212.3 million AUD, but did not correct the guidance until 31 October 2022; the court found a continuing breach of the continuous disclosure obligation.

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

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 674A(2) i. V. m. s 1317QA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Defence and security

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

9 Apr 2026

Original amount 4,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 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

In April 2023, as a bank managing a AUD 14 billion government bond issue for the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), ANZ sold large volumes of bond futures around the time of pricing without informing the AOFM of its outstanding sales, and from 2021 to 2023 reported inflated secondary market turnover in government bonds to it. The Court imposed AUD 135 million: AUD 85 million for the bond issue (including AUD 80 million for unconscionable conduct) and AUD 50 million for the inaccurate turnover reporting, together with a compliance programme at its own cost. In three retail matters a further AUD 115 million was imposed on the same day in a separate judgment.

Authority / court

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

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

ss 12CB(1), 12DB(1)(a) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth); ss 912A(1)(a), (ca), (f), (5A), 912DAA, 1041H(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Constructive engagement with ASIC and admissions at the earliest available opportunity.

Published

19 Dec 2025

Original amount 135,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Dec 2025.

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

On an application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the Federal Court of Australia allegedly imposed civil penalties totalling 925,000 AUD: 575,000 AUD on the licensee R M Capital and 350,000 AUD on its authorised representative The SMSF Club. Between November 2014 and July 2016 SMSF Club accepted referral fees totalling 135,863.65 AUD (excluding GST) on 52 occasions from a property provider that referred clients to it, who then set up self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) with its help and used them to buy property from that provider; the court treated this as prohibited conflicted remuneration, and R M Capital, as licensee, had through gross negligence failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Both companies must provide ASIC with an independent expert's report on their compliance arrangements within six months; R M Capital lodged an appeal on 15 January 2026. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

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

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Gifts, hospitality and benefits

Legal basis

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 963F, s 963G(1), s 1317G(1E), s 1101B(1)(a)(i)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

For SMSF Club, ASIC and the company submitted as mitigating that it ended the referral arrangement immediately after ASIC raised concerns in 2016, cooperated and agreed to resolve the matter, that these were the first contraventions alleged against it and that no client loss was alleged; the court allegedly approved the jointly proposed penalty.

Published

19 Dec 2025

Original amount 925,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2025.

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

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) cancelled the motor dealer licence of Atom Motorss Pty Ltd on 17 November 2025 and disqualified the company for five years. Measures against individuals are not set out here. According to the release, the company had traded as a motor dealer without a licence and, when selling vehicles to consumers, had given false information from the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR, the register of security interests in personal property) in the prescribed dealer forms.

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)(f) und (g); zugrunde liegende Verstöße gegen den Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 und das Australian Consumer Law

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

12 Mar 2026

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

In October 2022 the roof of an industrial cool room gave way while seven workers were moving equipment on it; they fell around five metres into the cool room. The Industrial Court convicted the company of breaching its health and safety duty with a fine of AUD 480,000 and of breaching s 46 of the WHS Act with a further AUD 20,000, a total of AUD 500,000.

Authority / court

SafeWork NSW / Industrial Court of NSW

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

ss 32, 19(1) und s 46 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

31 Mar 2026

Original amount 500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Oct 2025.

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

In July 2022 a 56-year-old worker in the palletising area of a JBS Australia site was struck by a forklift and seriously injured in the leg. Following a SafeWork NSW investigation, the District Court convicted the company of breaching its health and safety duty and fined it AUD 330,000.

Authority / court

SafeWork NSW / District Court of NSW

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

ss 32, 19(1) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

31 Mar 2026

Original amount 330,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 29 Oct 2025.

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

In 2022, during a large data migration project, the online wine retailer suffered unauthorised access to a database holding data on around 928,760 customers and members (identity, contact and financial information). The Privacy Commissioner found that Vinomofo had not taken reasonable steps to protect the data, although it had been aware of deficiencies in its security governance at least two years before the incident, and ordered it not to repeat these practices, together with specified remedial steps.

Authority / court

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

APP 11.1 (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth))

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

29 Oct 2025

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

On the application of the Australian Information Commissioner, the Federal Court of Australia imposed the first civil penalties under the Privacy Act 1988: Australian Clinical Labs (ACL) had failed to adequately protect the personal information held on the IT systems of its Medlab Pathology business; in a cyberattack in February 2022, data of more than 223,000 people was taken from those systems. The penalty of 5.8 million AUD in total comprises 4.2 million AUD for the inadequate security measures (APP 11.1), 800,000 AUD because ACL did not assess reasonably and promptly whether a notifiable data breach had occurred, and 800,000 AUD for the late notification to the Commissioner. ACL admitted the contraventions; liability and the penalty were allegedly based on joint submissions by the parties.

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 13G(a) i. V. m. APP 11.1; s 26WH(2); s 26WK(2)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation with the investigation, an ongoing programme to uplift cyber security, apologies and admission of liability.

Liability of senior managers

The court found that the most senior management was involved in the decisions on integrating the Medlab systems and on assessing the attack.

Published

9 Oct 2025

Original amount 5,800,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Oct 2025.

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

The warehousing and logistics company Onkar Group Pty Ltd (Bakeology) was sentenced by the County Court in Wangaratta after guilty pleas to five charges, after a delivery driver died in August 2022 when, twelve hours after starting a night shift, his van ended up in front of an oncoming lorry. He had driven the same 796-kilometre route on 17 nights in a row, mostly in shifts of more than twelve hours without sufficient rest. The company received 1.1 million AUD for reckless endangerment and a total of 250,000 AUD for failing to provide safe working conditions; in addition, the offence must be publicised in an industry publication. Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Authority / court

WorkSafe Victoria

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Working time

Legal basis

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic): rücksichtslose Gefährdung, Pflicht zu sicherem Arbeitsplatz, Schutz von Nicht-Beschäftigten, Haftung als Organ (officer)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

22 Sep 2025

Original amount 1,350,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Sep 2025.

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

In 2020 the ASX-listed coal mining company used two ASX announcements and an open letter to shareholders to present as false the allegations of a former senior employee about coal quality certificates amended without proper justification, although an independent investigation at least partly supported them. On the basis of an admission and a jointly proposed penalty, the Court found a contravention of the prohibition on victimising whistleblowers and allegedly imposed AUD 7.5 million (payable in two instalments); TerraCom also pays AUD 1 million of ASIC’s costs. It is ASIC’s first enforcement outcome for breaches of the whistleblower protection provisions.

Authority / court

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

Area of law

Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers

Legal basis

s 1317AC(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); Strafe nach s 1317G

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Admission of the contravention and jointly proposed penalty following mediation; revised whistleblower policy and training for senior leaders and the board in May 2025; no previous court findings of a similar kind.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

27 Aug 2025

Original amount 7,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Aug 2025.

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

From June 2020 to July 2022, Kmart Australia used facial recognition in 28 stores to record the face of every person who came in and of every customer at the returns counters, with the aim of uncovering refund fraud, without informing them or obtaining their consent. The Privacy Commissioner rejected the exception for addressing unlawful activity, because the indiscriminate collection of sensitive biometric information was disproportionate given less intrusive alternatives and its limited benefit, and ordered that the conduct must not be continued or repeated. The decision is currently under review before the Administrative Review Tribunal; hearings are scheduled for early 2027. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Kmart stopped using the system in July 2022 when the investigation began and cooperated with the regulator throughout.

Published

18 Sep 2025

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

The Markets Disciplinary Panel (MDP) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator) allegedly issued an infringement notice for 3,880,100 AUD to the second-largest participant on the ASX 24 futures market because, between May 2023 and February 2024, it allowed 33 orders from two clients in electricity and wheat futures, placed shortly before market close, which it should have suspected were intended to create a false or misleading appearance in the market ('marking the close', Rule 3.1.2(1)(b)(iii) of the Market Integrity Rules). The MDP considered the conduct reckless after repeated contact from ASIC and treated the firm's compliance culture as an aggravating factor; payment is not an admission of liability.

Authority / court

Markets Disciplinary Panel (MDP) der Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

ASIC Market Integrity Rules (Futures Markets) 2017, Rule 3.1.2(1)(b)(iii); Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 798H(1); Infringement Notice nach reg 7.2A.04 Corporations Regulations 2001

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

2 Sep 2025

Original amount 3,880,100 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jul 2025.

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

A County Court jury convicted SKM Services Pty Ltd of aggravated pollution – having negligently caused or allowed an environmental hazard that created a considerable risk of serious danger to public health – and of three counts of air pollution; the company was fined 1.14 million AUD. The 2017 fire at the recycling plant in Coolaroo had spread through stockpiles of cardboard and other recyclables, burned for more than a week and led to evacuations in the neighbourhood; according to the court's findings, the company and its director contributed to the extent of the pollution by increasing the volumes stored although an earlier fire had reduced the processing capacity. Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Authority / court

Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA Victoria)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances

Legal basis

Environment Protection Act 1970 (Vic): schwere Umweltverschmutzung (aggravated pollution), Luftverschmutzung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Culpability

negligent

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

16 Apr 2025

Original amount 1,140,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Apr 2025.

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

Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd, a Newmont Mining company (formerly Newcrest Mining), was sentenced by the Land and Environment Court of NSW after pleading guilty to three offences under s 128(1)(b) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, because poorly operated mine exhaust fans exceeded the concentration limit for solid particles three times between November 2021 and May 2023. The court imposed fines totalling 350,000 AUD and ordered a payment of 61,500 AUD to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) for a new dust monitor in the Rural Air Quality Monitoring Network; in addition, the company must pay the EPA's costs and publish notices in three newspapers.

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 128(1)(b); Zahlungsanordnung nach s 250(1)(e)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Steel and metals

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity (25% discount); no prior convictions, good character and a low risk of reoffending (further 5% discount).

Published

2 Apr 2025

Original amount 350,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Mar 2025.

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

Following proceedings by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, the federal corporate and financial services regulator), the Federal Court of Australia on 18 March 2025 ordered LGSS Pty Ltd, trustee of the Active Super pension fund, to pay 10.5 million AUD and to send a notice of its misconduct to members and publish it on the fund's web pages. The fund had advertised that it excluded investments in, among others, gambling, coal mining and oil tar sands and, after the invasion of Ukraine, Russia, yet held such investments directly or indirectly; the court had found the breaches of the ban on misleading representations in June 2024.

Authority / court

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) / Federal Court of Australia

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) ss 12DB(1)(a) und 12DF(1); Strafe nach s 12GBB, Veröffentlichungsanordnung nach s 12GLB

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

The court accepted some contrition, cooperation with ASIC through attendance at voluntary conferences and compliance improvements (including ESG and consumer law training for the board, executive leadership and staff, and an external review of internal controls), but gave less weight to contrition and cooperation because of how the case was defended; the merger with another fund trustee reduced the weight of specific deterrence.

Liability of senior managers

LGSS accepted in the proceedings that senior management was ultimately responsible for the absence of properly functioning systems to prevent false ESG representations; the proceedings were brought against the company only.

Published

18 Mar 2025

Original amount 10,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2025.

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

Between 2016 and 2018 Allianz Australia and AWP, the company marketing and administering travel insurance on Allianz’s behalf, published online information on travel insurance that stated maximum benefits without adequately pointing out sub-limits, conditions and exclusions. The Court convicted Allianz on six counts at AUD 2.25 million each (AUD 13.5 million) and AWP on one count at AUD 3.3 million, in each case after a 25% discount for early guilty pleas. 781 customers had previously received compensation totalling AUD 1,264,864.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

ss 1041E(1), 1311(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, voluntary disclosure, full cooperation with the investigating authorities and compensation of affected customers.

Liability of senior managers

In 2016 a General Manager declined an external legal review of the website estimated at AUD 25,000 to 30,000; the Court saw the cause of the offences in an unwillingness to spend money on adequate oversight.

Published

28 Feb 2025

Original amount 16,800,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Feb 2025.

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

From July 2013 to March 2023 the trustee of Australia’s largest superannuation fund did not merge the duplicate accounts of around 90,700 members, although s 108A of the SIS Act requires this; members lost around AUD 69 million through duplicate fees, insurance premiums and lost earnings. The Court found a breach of fundamental trustee obligations and imposed AUD 27 million; all affected members have been remediated.

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

ss 52, 108A Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Self-report of potential breaches to ASIC in December 2021; remediation of all affected members.

Liability of senior managers

According to the judgment, issues were not escalated and senior management oversight was absent; under-resourcing delayed the remedy.

Published

21 Feb 2025

Original amount 27,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Feb 2025.

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