Consumer Protection / Conduct

Key dates

2016-07-01

Beginning of the period during which Sunshine Loans entered into contracts containing the unlawful amendment fee.

2019-03-13

Relevant fee contraventions became civil penalty provisions; civil penalties were available only for contraventions from this date.

2020-11-01

Sunshine Loans ceased charging the amendment or rescheduling fee shortly after ASIC intervention.

2022-06-01

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Sunshine Loans.

2024-04-12

The Federal Court found that Sunshine Loans had contravened the National Credit Code by imposing, charging and accepting the prohibited fee.

2025-03-24

The Full Federal Court dismissed Sunshine Loans' liability appeal and determined the relevant appeals in ASIC's favour.

2026-03-18

The High Court unanimously dismissed Sunshine Loans' appeal concerning the recusal issue, allowing the penalty matter to return to the Federal Court.

2026-11-06

The Federal Court ordered Sunshine Loans to pay a $5.5 million civil penalty and ASIC's costs.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every fee and charge applied to small amount credit contracts and map each one to an expressly permitted category under the National Credit Code.
• Lenders should consider testing repayment-date changes, hardship arrangements, restructures and other contract variations to confirm that fees are not imposed when a consumer is not in default.
• Firms should consider conducting a historical review of fee configuration, customer communications, contract templates, payment records and general ledger data to identify comparable conduct and quantify affected consumers.
• Where potentially unlawful fees are identified, firms should consider stopping the relevant charging logic, preserving records, assessing remediation and notifying relevant governance bodies and regulators where appropriate.
• Credit licensees may wish to strengthen legal review and compliance sign-off for product terms and fee changes, including documented evidence supporting the legality of each fee.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether compliance monitoring adequately tests fee restrictions for products used by financially vulnerable consumers and whether identified issues are escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether their dispute-resolution and remediation processes enable affected consumers to obtain redress through internal complaints handling and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new legislative rule. The Court confirmed that small amount credit contract providers may impose only the fee categories permitted by the National Credit Code: an establishment fee, a monthly fee, a fee payable on default, or a government fee, charge or duty. A $35 fee for rescheduling a repayment where the consumer was not in default did not fall within those categories.

Key dates

2024-06-30

MiCAR provisions concerning asset-referenced tokens and e-money tokens became applicable.

2024-12-30

Most remaining MiCAR provisions, including the principal Title II framework for offers and admissions to trading of other crypto-assets and Title V CASP requirements, became applicable.

2026-11-06

The AFM published its warning and reminder concerning public crypto-asset offerings, memecoins, white papers and marketing communications.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify every token launched, distributed or promoted to EU users and document whether the activity is an issuance, public offer, admission to trading or a crypto-asset service under MiCAR.
• Firms should consider confirming that the issuer is a legal person and recording the basis on which any MiCAR exemption is relied upon, including the relevant investor-count or EUR 1,000,000 12-month threshold where applicable.
• Before marketing or distribution, firms should consider preparing, notifying and publishing the required MiCAR white paper and ensuring that its content follows the applicable regulatory technical standards and AFM submission expectations.
• Marketing, influencer activity, website content and social-media posts should be reviewed for fair, clear and non-misleading presentation, clear advertising identification, balanced risk disclosure and consistency with the white paper.
• Firms should consider retaining approval records, versions of promotional content, influencer instructions, audience and jurisdiction controls, and evidence supporting any exemption or risk classification.
• Trading platforms and CASPs may wish to assess onboarding and listing controls for tokens whose issuer, white paper, promotional claims or market-abuse risk indicators are unclear.
• Compliance teams should consider escalation procedures for exaggerated profit claims, undisclosed paid promotion, misleading statements about token utility or supply, and conduct suggesting fraud or market manipulation.
• Firms should consider checking whether the token is instead a financial instrument or an asset-referenced token or e-money token, in which case MiFID II or MiCAR Titles III or IV and their associated authorisation requirements may apply rather than, or in addition to, the ordinary Title II analysis.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new regulation or effective date; it restates and foregrounds existing obligations under Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCAR). Under MiCAR Title II, a person intending to make a public offer of a crypto-asset other than an asset-referenced token or e-money token, or seeking its admission to trading, generally must be a legal person, draw up a crypto-asset white paper, notify it to the competent authority and publish it.

Key dates

2025-06-12

The SFC launched the consultation on expanding section 34 of the SFO and introducing similar restrictions under the AMLO.

2025-08-11

The consultation period closed; the SFC reported receiving nine submissions from industry associations, professional bodies, a bank and other interested parties.

2026-11-06

The SFC published its consultation conclusions, updated the FAQs and announced its intention to introduce an amendment bill into LegCo.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory legal-entity names, business names, brands, websites, domains, mobile applications, social-media handles, product names and marketing descriptions against the SFC's proposed Table A and Table B titles.
• Firms should consider mapping each relevant name to the activities actually performed, including trading, brokerage, matching, exchange, clearing, settlement, custody and virtual-asset services, and documenting whether SFO or AMLO licensing could be required.
• Unregulated entities may wish to assess whether current names imply SFC licensing, regulated status or an association with a well-known exchange, clearing house or VATP, including through abbreviations, translated names and closely resembling wording.
• Licensed VATPs and financial groups may wish to review whether group-company names, partnerships, white-label arrangements, sponsorships or marketing references could create an apparent association with an established operation that does not exist.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to monitor the amendment bill, LegCo proceedings, commencement provisions, transitional arrangements, the final restricted-title list and any future mechanism for updating that list.
• Firms considering a new name or business launch may wish to obtain independent Hong Kong legal advice and, where appropriate, seek SFC authorisation before adopting a potentially restricted title; the SFC has not announced a final application deadline or commencement date.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may be updated to require enhanced review of terms such as "exchange", "trading platform", "clearing house", "virtual asset", "digital asset", "token" and "crypto" once the amendments are enacted.

What changed

The SFC will proceed with legislative amendments to expand the existing section 34 SFO restrictions beyond titles such as "stock exchange" and "commodity exchange". The expanded scope is intended to cover titles commonly used instead of "exchange", titles describing SFO-regulated products, titles referring specifically to clearing operations, and names or acronyms implying association with established or well-known exchanges, clearing houses, VATPs or similar operations, whether located in Hong Kong or elsewhere and whether regulated or unregulated.

Key dates

2026-11-05

CFTC issued the interpretation of the impartial access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b).

2026-12-05 Deadline

Thirty-day period expires for DCMs to cease domestic geographic restrictions that violate the impartial-access requirements or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight why compliance is not feasible; the same period applies to addressing intermediary impediments or explaining why compliance is not feasible.

Suggested considerations

• DCMs should inventory all domestic geographic eligibility, onboarding, trading, product-access, and account-management restrictions and assess them against 17 CFR 38.151(b)'s requirements for impartial, transparent, and non-discriminatory access.
• DCMs should review whether state-based restrictions affect members, persons with trading privileges, independent software vendors, or access to particular products, including event contracts.
• DCMs should identify and review contractual, technical, and operational controls used by futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries to determine whether they impose geographic restrictions inconsistent with the DCM's impartial-access requirements.
• DCMs should document the legal and operational basis for removing each restriction or, where removal is not feasible, prepare a fact-specific explanation for the Division of Market Oversight before the 30-day period expires.
• Compliance teams at intermediaries should map state-based geofencing, customer-location verification, product blocking, and position-management restrictions affecting access to DCM markets and assess whether those controls are required by applicable law, regulation, or court order.
• Affected firms should assess conflicts between the CFTC's interpretation and any state requirements or judicial orders, obtain legal analysis, and avoid treating the interpretation as automatically vacating an injunction or other binding court order.
• DCMs should retain evidence of governance review, intermediary oversight, customer communications, access testing, and remediation decisions in anticipation of possible fact-specific CFTC inquiry or enforcement.

What changed

The CFTC has applied the existing impartial-access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b) expressly to domestic geographic restrictions, including restrictions based on a market participant's state or location. DCMs must cease geographic restrictions that violate the rule within 30 days of the November 5, 2026 publication, or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight stating why compliance is not feasible.

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published an earlier statement warning about demands for repayment of disguised-remuneration scheme loans, the possible need for a Validation Order and undue pressure in debt collection.

2026-11-05

The FCA published the intervention and the restrictions agreed with Ethica Resolve Limited and West 28th Street Limited.

Suggested considerations

• Firms servicing or collecting historic disguised-remuneration loans should identify affected portfolios, pause demands and litigation activity falling within the FCA restrictions, and confirm the precise scope of any agreed requirements with the FCA.
• Ethica should complete and evidence the required consumer communications, including the explanation that payment is not currently enforceable, and maintain records of recipients, delivery attempts and unresolved cases.
• Compliance teams should review whether correspondence, telephone contact, default notices, letters of claim and court instructions could create undue pressure or inaccurately imply that immediate payment is legally required.
• Firms should establish a vulnerability-identification and support process covering consumers experiencing health, financial or comprehension difficulties, with appropriate escalation, reasonable adjustments and management information.
• Debt servicers should verify the creditor's ownership, the chain of assignment, the original lender's regulatory status and any applicable consumer-credit permissions or exemptions before pursuing repayment.
• Legal and compliance teams should assess whether any proposed enforcement requires an FCA Validation Order or other court permission, recognising that a Validation Order is not guaranteed and that the FCA has stated that the debt may remain unenforceable if required permission is not granted.
• Firms should ensure that no default judgment is sought in the affected claims and that consumers continue to receive accurate information that formal court documents should not be ignored.
• Senior management should review outsourcing, agency and oversight arrangements where an authorised firm acts for an unauthorised debt purchaser, including conduct risk, consumer-outcome monitoring and escalation to the FCA where harm may have occurred.

What changed

Ethica must write to affected consumers explaining that they do not currently have an enforceable obligation to pay and therefore do not need to make payment at this stage. Ethica must not make further demands for payment from affected consumers in the current proposed court claim while the relevant issues remain unresolved. Ethica and West 28 must not seek default judgments against consumers who have not responded to a legal claim. Ethica must identify affected vulnerable consumers and put additional protections in place.

Key dates

2026-11-04

MPC meeting ended and the committee voted 8–1 to increase Bank Rate by 0.25 percentage points to 4%; one member voted for 4.25%.

2026-11-05

The November 2026 Monetary Policy Summary and Minutes were published and the Bank Rate increase was reported as effective.

2027-02-01

The MPC’s Market Participants Survey median expectation referenced in the minutes placed Bank Rate at 4.25% in February 2027; this is an expectation, not a scheduled regulatory change.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance, treasury and risk teams may wish to confirm that systems, product disclosures and contractual interest calculations use the revised 4% Bank Rate where applicable from the relevant effective date.
• Mortgage and consumer-credit providers should consider assessing customer communications, affordability monitoring and conduct-risk impacts for tracker, variable-rate and refinancing products affected by the increase.
• Banks and other lenders may wish to reassess interest-rate, credit, liquidity and concentration-risk assumptions, including scenarios involving inflation near 5% in 2027 Q2 and further Bank Rate increases.
• Investment firms and trading businesses should consider reviewing valuation, margin, collateral, hedging and client-risk controls for sterling rates, gilts, swaps and other rate-sensitive positions.
• Firms may wish to monitor the MPC’s identified indicators of second-round effects, including wage settlements, firms’ pricing behaviour, household and business expectations, energy-cost pass-through and economic slack.
• Governance committees may wish to document the effect of the rate decision and the Bank’s adverse and weaker-demand scenarios in applicable risk assessments, recovery planning, stress testing and customer-outcome monitoring.
• Treasury and product teams should consider verifying that forecasts and liquidity plans reflect the Bank’s warning that further tightening remains possible if elevated energy prices become persistent or feed into wages and prices.

What changed

This is a monetary-policy decision rather than a new binding compliance rule. Bank Rate increased from 3.75% to 4%, raising the reference cost relevant to floating-rate lending, tracker mortgages, treasury funding, derivatives valuation and certain contractual interest calculations. The MPC stated that monetary policy is not on a pre-set path and will be reassessed at each meeting, with particular attention to underlying pay, pricing behaviour, economic slack and the transmission of higher energy prices.

Key dates

2021-12-20

The AFM published its exploratory report on finfluencing, identifying unlicensed advice, risky recommendations, cooperation with unlicensed firms and customer-referral fees as key pitfalls.

2026-08-31

The Rotterdam District Court reduced the Van den Brink fine by €52,500 to €142,500, citing proportionality, delayed AFM action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR.

2026-11-05

The AFM published the enforcement update describing the original €195,000 fine and the court's final €142,500 outcome.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should consider inventorying all finfluencer, affiliate, introducer and referral arrangements, including website links, discount codes, lead forms and onboarding assistance.
• Firms should consider verifying the AFM authorisation status of every investment-service provider, platform or asset manager promoted by employees, affiliates or contracted influencers before publication or referral activity begins.
• Investment firms should consider testing whether any payment is calculated by reference to the number of referred customers, account openings, onboarding progress, deposits or invested assets, as these features create heightened Dutch inducement and conduct risk.
• Firms should consider separating permitted advertising services from customer-introduction or onboarding activities and documenting why each arrangement does not involve unauthorised investment advice, portfolio management or participation in unlicensed services.
• Marketing and compliance teams may wish to review influencer scripts, direct messages, Q&A responses and customer-support practices for advice, personalised recommendations or operational assistance that exceeds passive advertising.
• Firms should consider collecting and retaining contracts, commission calculations, communications, approval records and evidence of licence checks so that the commercial purpose and control framework for each promotion can be demonstrated.
• Governance committees may wish to treat unusually high or asset-based referral commissions, including percentages of customer deposits, as escalation indicators requiring enhanced legal and compliance review.
• Firms should consider reviewing legacy arrangements in light of the AFM's 2021 finfluencer findings and subsequent enforcement against referral-fee models, including arrangements involving execution-only services.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or general licensing amendment. The AFM treated Van den Brink's combined activities—promotion through social media and a website, investor introduction, assistance with registration, responses to investor questions and acting as a contact person—as participation in illegal asset management, not merely advertising. The AFM stated that Grinta Invest had no required licence and that Van den Brink received substantial referral remuneration, including 10% of investors' deposited capital; the remuneration was relevant to the original fine.

Key dates

2026-11-03

DP26/2 opened and was first published by the FCA jointly with the DWP and TPR.

2026-12-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the Guided Retirement policy consultation.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider submitting responses to the DWP Guided Retirement Policy Team by 22 December 2026, including evidence on feasibility, consumer outcomes, product design, costs, data and operational dependencies.
• Contract-based providers should assess how potential Guided Retirement requirements could interact with their existing COBS 9B targeted-support processes, governance, suitability or appropriateness controls, customer communications and record keeping.
• Providers, trustees and administrators should map current retirement journeys and identify gaps in member data, administration systems, payment capabilities, transfer processes, decumulation products and management information.
• Scheme operators should consider which default retirement-income models could meet the emerging policy objectives, including approaches involving staged or flexible access and protection against longevity risk, while avoiding premature conclusions before the FCA rules and DWP regulations are consulted on.
• Governance teams should establish ownership for Guided Retirement readiness and monitor the FCA, DWP and TPR consultations expected to follow, including the FCA consultation on draft rules and guidance planned for the second half of 2027.
• Firms should assess interactions with other workplace-pension reforms, particularly value-for-money requirements, consumer-support arrangements, conflicts management and member communications, because independent commentary has identified a risk of overlapping or inconsistent standards.

What changed

The Discussion Paper sets out initial joint proposals for implementing Guided Retirement, under which workplace pension schemes would provide a clear, high-quality default route into retirement for eligible savers who do not make complex active choices. The framework is intended to apply across both FCA-regulated contract-based schemes and trust-based schemes, with the FCA required to introduce rules that achieve, so far as possible, the same outcomes as the duties imposed on trustees by the Pension Schemes Act 2026.

Key dates

2026-11-03

FCA and PRA published DP26/1: Credit unions: review of the regulatory regime.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to DP26/1 to be sent to the FCA.

Suggested considerations

• Credit unions should consider whether to submit a response by 5 March 2027, addressing the questions and evidence relevant to their business model, size, complexity, growth plans and risk profile.
• Boards and senior management may wish to assess how potential changes to prudential requirements, permitted activities, governance expectations, operational resilience and resolution or exit arrangements could affect strategic plans, without treating the Discussion Paper as a change to current rules.
• Compliance and regulatory-policy teams should map the firm’s current obligations under the PRA Rulebook Credit Unions Part, applicable FCA conduct requirements and the Credit Unions Act 1979, then identify areas where proportionality or regulatory barriers create material costs or risks.
• Credit unions may wish to engage with representative bodies and credit union service organisations to develop evidence on member outcomes, access to affordable credit, innovation, consolidation, operational dependencies and barriers to orderly exit.
• Firms should monitor subsequent FCA and PRA consultation papers, policy statements and rule changes because any future implementation would require a separate policy process and could include differentiated requirements for smaller and larger credit unions.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirements or policy changes have been introduced. The regulators are seeking evidence on whether the existing prudential framework remains appropriate; whether risk-based and proportionate requirements could better support growth and complexity; whether the framework provides adequate safeguards while enabling competition and innovation; and whether credit unions have effective tools for orderly market exit. The publication is relevant to credit unions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, their members, credit union service organisations and trade associations.

Key dates

2026-11-03

PRA and FCA publish the joint discussion paper and open the feedback period.

2027-03-05 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the discussion paper to be submitted to the PRA and FCA.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess the discussion paper against their size, growth trajectory, business model, lending mix, capital methodology, governance arrangements and operational-risk profile.
• Credit unions may wish to submit evidence to the PRA and FCA by 5 March 2027, including quantified costs and benefits of simplified requirements, risk-based capital treatment, revised reporting and any proposed thresholds.
• Compliance and risk teams should map current internal-audit, regulatory-documentation, capital, leverage-ratio, risk-weighted-asset, capital-add-on and stress-testing requirements so that the impact of possible future options can be assessed without assuming that any proposal is yet effective.
• Boards and senior management should consider whether planned growth, aggregator arrangements, mortgage or fixed-rate lending, outsourcing and technology investment are matched by appropriate governance, liquidity, credit-risk, operational-resilience and third-party oversight capabilities.
• Firms considering new products or services should identify statutory, prudential, conduct, systems and outsourcing barriers and document the safeguards that would be needed to support a credible response to the regulators.
• Credit unions should review current wind-down, transfer and restructuring plans and identify legislative or contractual barriers to sale of loan books, transfer of business or conversion to another mutual form.
• Industry bodies and service providers may wish to coordinate submissions on FCA fees, shared-service models, CUSO capability, third-party guidance and the practical consequences of applying Small Domestic Deposit Takers rules.

What changed

This is a discussion paper, not a consultation proposing or committing to specific policy changes, so existing PRA and FCA requirements continue to apply. The regulators are examining whether internal-audit and regulatory-document requirements could be reduced for smaller and simpler credit unions; whether larger or more complex credit unions should move to a risk-based framework with more flexible capital requirements; and whether relevant Small Domestic Deposit Takers rules, including the standardised approach for risk-weighted assets, could replace the current simple leverage-ratio...

Key dates

2026-11-02

The FCA published its expectations for lenders making voluntary motor finance settlement offers; the page was updated on 2026-11-03.

2026-10-01

Barclays Partner Finance identified customers whose complaints had been acknowledged on or before this date as a cohort for some early settlement offers.

2027-02-16

The scheduled start of the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

2027-03-03

The scheduled end date of the hearing window for the legal challenges to the FCA motor finance compensation scheme.

Suggested considerations

• Firms considering early settlements should assess each offer against the maximum redress that would have been available under the FCA motor finance compensation scheme, rather than using a lower discretionary amount.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish governance and second-line review for the methodology, calculations, customer segmentation and approval of settlement communications.
• Firms should consider notifying the FCA before making offers and supplying the FCA factsheet with each customer communication.
• Offer letters should clearly state the amount, calculation basis, the full-and-final effect of acceptance, the inability to claim more later, the option to reject and remain within the scheme, and the consequences for the existing complaint.
• Firms should consider allowing at least one month for customers to respond and retaining evidence that customers had sufficient information and time to make an informed decision.
• Marketing, customer-service and complaints teams should avoid language suggesting FCA endorsement, approval or validation of an individual offer.
• Firms should consider controls to prevent accepted settlements from being subsequently processed as scheme claims or referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• Motor finance lenders should continue preparing for the compensation scheme and progress complaints as far as possible during the partial suspension, even if scheme compensation is not currently calculated or paid.

What changed

Lenders may make voluntary settlement offers before the partially suspended FCA motor finance compensation scheme is implemented, but the FCA expects each offer to provide at least the compensation the customer would receive under the scheme, calculated by reference to the relevant agreement and the scheme methodology. Firms intending to make offers are expected to notify the FCA, provide the FCA factsheet to customers, and ensure communications are clear, fair and not misleading.

Key dates

2019-08-01

Start of the period in which ASIC alleges more than $600 million was invested in First Guardian and the alleged failures occurred.

2024-05-01

Falcon Capital froze or suspended redemptions from First Guardian, subject to limited exceptions.

2025-02-24

The Federal Court made interim orders freezing the assets of Falcon Capital, First Guardian and David Anderson.

2025-04-09

The Federal Court ordered Falcon Capital and First Guardian to be wound up and appointed liquidators and a receiver in related orders.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced commencement of civil penalty proceedings against David Anderson and Simon Selimaj and its application for leave to proceed against Falcon Capital in liquidation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all related-party, connected-party and director-linked investments across managed investment schemes, including indirect exposures through controlled underlying funds.
• Firms should consider testing whether each private-credit, property and private-equity investment has current executed documentation, enforceable security, independent valuation support, documented approval, appropriate concentration analysis and evidence of ongoing monitoring.
• Responsible entities and trustees may wish to reassess whether investment committees exercise meaningful independent oversight, particularly where a chief executive, director or investment officer can originate, approve or vary investments without effective challenge.
• Firms should consider refreshing conflicts registers and reviewing whether conflicts were identified, disclosed, avoided or managed before investor funds were committed, including conflicts involving hospitality, alcohol-related businesses, technology ventures, property developments and payments to entities controlled by officers or associates.
• Product issuers may wish to review product disclosure statements and other investor communications for unsupported claims about robustness, diversification, security, liquidity, risk controls or investment processes, and assess whether any corrective disclosure or remediation is required.
• Platform operators, trustees and advice licensees may wish to review onboarding and due-diligence files for complex private-market products, including verification of valuations, underlying-fund registration status, custody arrangements, liquidity assumptions and the identity of related parties.
• Advice licensees may wish to test whether recommendations to transfer superannuation or establish an SMSF and invest in high-risk managed schemes were supported by documented best-interests analysis, appropriate disclosure and suitability assessments.
• Senior managers and boards may wish to preserve records demonstrating challenge, escalation, monitoring and follow-up of exceptions, red flags, valuation concerns, redemption restrictions and unusual related-party payments.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or generally applicable legislative amendment. ASIC alleges that Falcon Capital, as responsible entity of the First Guardian Master Fund, failed to maintain effective investment governance, due diligence, documentation, security, conflict management and oversight; misled investors through product disclosure statements describing robust investment processes; and allowed at least $57 million to be paid to entities controlled by Anderson or Selimaj.

Key dates

2017-09-01

Start of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches concerning the Crown insurance arrangements; the date is approximate because ASIC states only September 2017.

2018-11-30

End of the period identified by ASIC for the alleged directors’ and officers’ duty breaches; ASIC states November 2018.

2022-03-01

ACBF entities entered liquidation; ASIC states March 2022, without specifying the exact day.

2026-02-01

The contested liability hearing concerning Jones took place in February 2026; ASIC has not specified the exact day.

2026-06-30 Deadline

Closing date for applications to the Government’s Youpla Support Program.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced the findings against Jones and Pattenden and the orders agreed with Pattenden.

2026-12-01

Payments under the Youpla Support Program are scheduled to continue being processed until this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing board and committee processes for identifying, disclosing and managing actual or potential conflicts involving directors, officers and related parties.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether related-party insurance, reinsurance, outsourcing and service arrangements are demonstrably in the company’s interests, supported by independent analysis and properly documented board decisions.
• Boards may wish to review whether premium changes, counterparty concentration, offshore structures and insurer solvency risks are escalated promptly and communicated appropriately to affected customers.
• Insurers and other firms serving vulnerable or First Nations consumers should consider whether product governance, distribution controls and customer communications adequately address cultural, language, literacy and affordability risks.
• Companies should consider retaining evidence showing that directors challenged management assumptions, considered viable alternatives and monitored the ongoing financial and consumer consequences of material arrangements.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to monitor the later penalty hearing for Jones and the reserved decisions concerning Jonathan Law, Michael Wilson and Geoffrey Clayton, as those outcomes may provide further indications of ASIC’s approach to individual accountability and director disqualification.
• Firms should distinguish this case from a new industry-wide rule: the immediate orders apply to Pattenden, while the broader compliance significance is the enforcement precedent and ASIC’s stated priority of protecting vulnerable consumers.

What changed

This is an enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or general compliance obligation. Pattenden is subject to a $250,000 civil penalty and a 15-year prohibition on managing corporations; Jones has been found liable, with penalties to be determined at a later hearing. ASIC’s case concerns alleged breaches of sections 180, 181 and 182 of the Corporations Act 2001 arising from insurance arrangements with Vanuatu-based Crown Insurance Services Limited, which ASIC alleged was beneficially owned and controlled by Pattenden and Jonathan Law and was not in the interests of the ACBF entities.

Key dates

2026-10-29

The SEC announced charges against BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd and filed the related enforcement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review third-party crypto platforms, advisers, issuers, introducers, and promoters for unsupported claims that an SEC filing represents licensing, approval, endorsement, or authorization.
• Firms should consider independently verifying Form ADV, Form D, and other regulatory filings through official regulator databases and documenting the precise legal effect of each filing before relying on it in due diligence or investor communications.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may wish to test for claims of risk-free or guaranteed returns, extraordinary monthly performance, government approval, SEC registration, fake certificates, and statements that a Rule 506(c) filing authorizes operation of a crypto exchange.
• Firms with exposure to BG Wealth Sharing, DSJ Exchange, or associated promoters should consider escalating the relationship for legal, fraud, sanctions, counterparty, and suspicious-activity review and preserving relevant communications, transaction records, and onboarding materials.
• Investment advisers and other regulated firms may wish to assess whether referral, custody, payment, or platform relationships involving similar schemes create customer-protection, books-and-records, disclosure, or reputational risks.
• Compliance teams may wish to incorporate the related state and foreign warnings into typology monitoring, particularly indicators such as recruitment-based compensation, blocked withdrawals, advance exit or compliance fees, fake account balances, and periodic payments used to sustain investor confidence.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable compliance requirement. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by both entities, and violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by BG Wealth. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties against both entities, and conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

Key dates

2025-10-21

The FCA commenced High Court proceedings in the Business and Property Division against Huobi Global S.A. and persons unknown concerning alleged breaches of section 21 FSMA.

2026-02-10

The FCA publicly announced its enforcement action against HTX for unlawful cryptoasset promotions to UK consumers.

2026-10-29

The FCA announced the High Court settlement and undertakings; HTX was no longer active in the UK, with no deposits or new UK registrations permitted.

2027-10-01

The FCA publication states that cryptoassets remain largely unregulated in the UK, apart from anti-money-laundering and financial-promotion requirements, until October 2027.

2031-10-21

The court order provides that Huobi Global's undertakings continue until this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all UK-facing cryptoasset communications across websites, applications, email, affiliates, influencers and social-media platforms, including communications published by overseas group entities.
• Firms should consider documenting the legal basis for each UK financial promotion under section 21 FSMA, including the firm's authorisation status, any authorised-person approval and any applicable exemption under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) Order 2005.
• Overseas firms should consider geo-blocking and other durable controls for UK users, while testing whether content, account access, app availability, search visibility or social-media activity remains capable of having an effect in the UK.
• Marketing and compliance teams may wish to implement pre-publication approval, withdrawal and monitoring controls for third-party affiliates, influencers and social-media operators, with records showing who approved each communication and where it was distributed.
• Firms with existing UK users should consider reviewing account-access, deposit, withdrawal and customer-communications arrangements so that any UK exit strategy does not leave consumers exposed to continuing unlawful promotions.
• Cryptoasset businesses may wish to monitor the FCA Warning List and Firm Checker and assess whether their UK activities could also trigger UK anti-money-laundering registration or other authorisation requirements.

What changed

This is a settlement and enforcement outcome rather than a new generally applicable rule. Huobi Global is bound by court undertakings not to knowingly, directly or indirectly, communicate or cause to be communicated financial promotions contravening section 21 FSMA, including promotions on HTX websites, software applications and social-media platforms. HTX will not target, solicit or actively seek to engage UK consumers; UK consumers can no longer deposit funds or open new accounts, and residual-asset withdrawals are addressed through HTX's published arrangements.

Key dates

2026-10-29

FCA published Fair value in consumer finance and associated supervisory commentary; the examples are effective as supervisory guidance and do not create new rules.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory every financial and non-financial charge across each product's full customer journey and lifetime, including contingent, arrears, repeat and cumulative charges.
• Firms should consider refreshing fair value assessments to reconcile current pricing and charging data with quantified or otherwise evidenced customer benefits, product limitations, service quality and foreseeable risks.
• Firms may wish to document how assumptions, management information, customer outcomes and governance challenge support each fair value conclusion, with clear ownership and audit trails.
• Firms should consider segmenting analysis by relevant customer groups, including vulnerability characteristics, credit risk, product usage, distribution channel and customers experiencing financial difficulty, and testing whether outcomes differ materially.
• Compliance teams may wish to establish monitoring for arrears, complaints, cancellations, usage, enquiries, refunds, waivers, repeat charges and customer understanding, with defined escalation thresholds and remediation options.
• Firms should consider testing whether fees and charges are communicated clearly, prominently and at the point customers need them to make informed decisions, including through customer-understanding testing.
• Firms may wish to review controls for grace periods, charge caps, fee waivers and refunds and evidence that those controls are appropriately designed, operating effectively and reducing foreseeable harm.
• Where late or missed repayment charges are justified by reasonable costs, firms should consider documenting the cost methodology, evidence relied upon and relationship between the methodology and the charge level, alongside the separate fair value assessment.

What changed

The publication does not amend the FCA Handbook or create new mandatory actions. It consolidates good and poor practice under the existing price and value outcome in PRIN 2A.4 and FG22/5, including the requirement for manufacturers under PRIN 2A.4.2R(2) to conduct and regularly review value assessments at intervals appropriate to the product's nature and duration.

Key dates

2026-10-29

MAS published the policy statement announcing the extension of motor vehicle financing restrictions to individual-owned PHCs.

2026-10-30 Deadline

New restrictions take effect for individual-owned PHC purchases where the sales agreement is signed on or after this date; where there is no sales agreement, they apply if the COE is obtained on or after this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at affected lenders should update eligibility, LTV and tenure controls so that individual-owned PHCs are treated as private cars for transactions falling within the effective-date tests.
• Firms should confirm that the LTV calculation uses the full purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable, and that the OMV threshold is applied at $20,000.
• Lenders and finance providers should review onboarding and documentation controls to distinguish individual or sole-proprietor ownership from business-owned PHC ownership and to evidence the sales-agreement or COE date.
• Providers should assess pending applications, approvals, hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales near the 30 October 2026 transition point, including whether any transaction was restructured to avoid the new restrictions.
• Car dealers and platform operators should consider updating customer disclosures, application workflows and referral arrangements so that individual buyers are not presented with financing terms inconsistent with the new limits.
• Firms should review dealer, leasing and in-house financing products for potential regulatory perimeter or circumvention risk, particularly because the Government has indicated that it may apply equivalent restrictions to additional arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor MAS and Government follow-up, including implementation guidance and any measures affecting in-house loans or platform-operated financing channels.
• Firms should consider controls and customer communications addressing unregulated leasing, lease-to-own or other arrangements that may be marketed as alternatives to regulated motor vehicle financing.

What changed

For an individual-owned PHC with an OMV of $20,000 or below, the maximum LTV is 70% of the purchase price, including relevant taxes and the COE price where applicable. For an OMV above $20,000, the maximum LTV is 60%; financing tenure is capped at seven years in both cases. The restrictions apply to motor vehicle loans provided by financial institutions and licensed or exempt moneylenders, and to hire-purchase and conditional sale agreements.

Key dates

2025-10-22

The SFC issued its consultation paper on proposed amendments to the UT Code.

2026-10-07

The SFC published consultation conclusions announcing the enhancements to Hong Kong's retail fund regime.

2026-10-16

The revised UT Code was gazetted.

2026-11-01 Deadline

The revised UT Code takes effect. New funds must comply with the revised requirements immediately, and the 12-month transitional period for existing funds begins.

2027-10-31 Deadline

The 12-month transitional period ends. Existing funds generally must comply with the revised UT Code requirements by this date.

2027-11-01 Deadline

Existing funds continuing to be offered to the Hong Kong public must use KFSs containing the enhanced disclosure requirements after expiry of the transitional period.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map each existing fund against the revised UT Code requirements and determine which requirements fall within the 12-month transitional period.
• Managers should consider documenting whether each fund will use the existing net derivative exposure approach or the new VaR approach, and assess the required models, data, governance, validation, stress testing, limits and reporting processes.
• Managers should consider reviewing fund asset liquidity, portfolio liquidity and redemption terms, including whether daily-dealing funds investing mainly in less liquid assets require anti-dilution liquidity management tools.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory available liquidity management tools, assess their calibration and activation triggers, and verify that the fund documentation and operational procedures describe their use consistently.
• MMF managers should consider testing compliance with the revised minimum credit-quality standards and eligible-instrument and deposit requirements, including the additional safeguards applicable to constant-NAV MMFs.
• Fund boards, trustees and management companies may wish to review governance and escalation arrangements for derivatives exposure, liquidity risk and use of liquidity management tools.
• Managers should consider updating KFSs, offering documents, product classifications, liquidity disclosures and related marketing materials using the revised SFC templates.
• Applications for new funds submitted from 1 November 2026 should be prepared against the revised UT Code and updated application guides rather than the former requirements.

What changed

The revised UT Code introduces a Value-at-Risk approach alongside the existing net derivative exposure approach, with accompanying calculation methodology and standards. Funds complying with the applicable NDE or VaR limits will generally be treated as non-complex products, although the SFC retains discretion to classify products as complex based on their features and risks.

Key dates

2026-10-20

Utah filed a state-court action against Kalshi entities and two Susquehanna trading firms, alleging violations of Utah gambling laws and seeking injunctive relief and recovery of profits.

2026-10-27

The CFTC announced its federal lawsuit against Utah and its commitment to block state enforcement affecting CFTC-registered prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms operating or supporting CFTC-registered event-contract markets should consider mapping their products, legal entities, affiliates, liquidity providers and customer-access arrangements against the Utah enforcement action and the CFTC’s requested injunction.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the related Kalshi appeal, and the other state proceedings because the litigation may determine whether state gambling laws can be applied to federally regulated event contracts.
• Firms should consider preserving records supporting CFTC registration, designated-contract-market compliance, product listings, trade surveillance, customer eligibility, geolocation controls and communications concerning Utah residents.
• Market operators and intermediaries may wish to assess whether their current Utah access controls and disclosures remain appropriate in light of the conflicting federal and state positions, without assuming that the CFTC’s lawsuit presently provides a final safe harbor.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to distinguish CFTC-regulated transactions from unregulated or differently structured products, since the Commission’s position is directed at covered transactions on CFTC-regulated markets rather than all prediction, gaming or wagering activity.

What changed

The publication announces litigation rather than a new rule, supervisory requirement, or compliance deadline. The CFTC is asking a federal court to block Utah from investigating or enforcing state laws against transactions conducted on CFTC-regulated designated contract markets, including actions involving regulated entities’ affiliates and partners. The Commission’s stated legal position is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive federal jurisdiction over these event contracts and preempts conflicting state restrictions.

Key dates

2026-10-26

ASIC announced and made the interim stop order against the Murdoch Clarke Mortgage Fund PDS.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider suspending affected offers, issuances, sales, transfers and distribution activity and checking all intermediary and platform instructions against the terms of the interim order.
• Compliance teams may wish to conduct a line-by-line PDS review against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C, 1013D and 1013F, including whether all material information, fees and costs, risks and withdrawal terms are disclosed clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Fund managers should consider identifying and describing all actual, potential and permitted related-party transactions, including the parties involved, nature of the arrangements, decision-making controls, remuneration and associated conflicts.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile every fee, cost, spread, margin, related-party charge and indirect cost in the PDS with constitutions, investment management agreements, responsible-entity arrangements, financial statements and actual operating practice.
• Managers should consider presenting lending, property-security, interest-only, principal-repayment, valuation, concentration, liquidity, default, impairment and loss risks in a prominent and investor-comprehensible manner rather than relying on generic risk wording.
• Firms should consider prominently distinguishing the Fund's usual withdrawal processing practice from the responsible entity's legal discretion and maximum permitted timeframe, including any suspension, gate, queue, notice, liquidity or repayment conditions.
• Distributors and advisers may wish to review current product lists, advice templates, research ratings and retail communications to ensure they do not continue promoting or recommending the Fund while the order is in force.
• Private credit managers should consider reviewing comparable PDSs and target market determinations proactively, given ASIC's stated surveillance focus and the recent pattern of interim intervention followed by required disclosure remediation.

What changed

The interim order immediately halts the relevant fundraising and secondary dealing activities under the Fund's PDS; it is not a new generally applicable rule or a final finding of contravention. ASIC identified concerns that the PDS fails to disclose related-party transactions, inadequately explains fees and costs, provides insufficient or unclear risk information, and does not adequately and prominently explain withdrawals. ASIC may make a final stop order if the concerns are not addressed in a timely manner, after Murdoch Clarke has an opportunity to make submissions.

Key dates

2026-10-26

Current date and FCA publication context for the review; firms have been told to take prompt action, but this is not a statutory compliance deadline.

2028-12-01

The FCA says the point-in-time publication may be treated as retired by December 2028 if it has not been removed sooner; this is not stated as a mandatory implementation deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map how the firm identifies direct defence businesses, defence supply-chain participants, dual-use technology businesses and relevant customers that are not accurately captured by SIC codes.
• Firms should consider testing whether onboarding and enhanced due diligence requests are risk-based, non-duplicative and proportionate to the individual customer's activities, jurisdictions, products, end use and supply chain, rather than triggered solely by a broad defence-sector label.
• Firms should consider reviewing blanket exclusions, revenue thresholds, automatic escalation rules and approval stages affecting defence customers, documenting why any retained restrictions are justified by legal, financial-crime, reputational or commercial-risk considerations.
• Firms should consider defining and governing reputational, ESG and sustainability criteria used in account opening, servicing, product access, restriction or closure decisions, with evidence that the criteria are consistently applied and aligned with stated risk appetite.
• Firms should consider establishing or improving management information covering defence-sector identification, application volumes, approval and rejection rates, onboarding duration, repeated information requests, escalation frequency, restrictions, closures, complaints and outcomes by customer risk category.
• Senior management and relevant committees may wish to review whether the available information allows them to challenge inconsistent treatment, unexplained delays or outcomes that arise from internal processes rather than the customer's actual risk.
• Where legally permissible and appropriate, firms should consider keeping applicants informed about additional checks, progress and likely decision timescales, and explaining decisions sufficiently to reduce avoidable uncertainty.
• Firms should continue to apply customer due diligence, enhanced due diligence, sanctions and other financial-crime controls required by applicable law; the FCA's message is to make those controls targeted and proportionate, not to reduce them.

What changed

No binding regulatory obligations or new thresholds have been introduced. The FCA has nevertheless written to firms providing banking services to SMEs and expects prompt action under existing requirements. Firms should review whether onboarding, enhanced due diligence, escalation, servicing, restriction and closure processes distinguish among different defence activities and reflect the specific customer, geographic, product, supply-chain, end-use, financial-crime and reputational risks.

Key dates

2026-10-23

The FCA published the multi-firm review findings and associated supervisory expectations.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a documented gap assessment against the review findings, including whether their conflict framework reflects the substance of UK activities rather than only formal delegation or legal arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to refresh business-model and transaction-level conflict inventories to cover multiple funds, vintages, continuation and evergreen vehicles, affiliated businesses, shared services, capital-structure conflicts, remuneration, valuation, financing, redemptions, asset transfers and exit decisions.
• Firms should consider testing whether conflict identification occurs repeatedly from origination through valuation, allocation, monitoring, restructuring and exit, rather than only at onboarding or transaction approval.
• Firms may wish to define and evidence materiality thresholds, escalation triggers, accountable decision-makers and governance forums for complex or material conflicts, including when engagement with LPs or LP advisory committees is appropriate.
• For cross-fund transfers and continuation transactions, firms should consider independent challenge, valuation oversight, analysis of competing investor interests, documented alternatives and evidence supporting the fairness of the outcome; investor consent or disclosure alone may not demonstrate adequate management.
• Firms should consider reviewing gifts and entertainment controls beyond monetary thresholds, including purpose, recipient, frequency, patterns, inducement risk, approvals, record keeping and compliance monitoring.
• Firms may wish to assess whether information barriers use physical, organisational and system controls, with monitoring and oversight of information sharing, rather than relying primarily on staff judgement and training.
• Senior management and control functions should consider whether second-line compliance has sufficient independence and authority, and whether periodic internal-audit or other third-line reviews provide effective assurance and challenge.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance and a statement of FCA expectations, not a new rule or formal implementation deadline. The FCA expects firms to identify, assess, record, manage, mitigate and disclose actual, potential and perceived conflicts across the full investment lifecycle, based on the substance, scale and complexity of their UK activities rather than their formal legal structure.

Key dates

2023-02-28

Rex issued the profit forecast at the centre of the proceedings.

2023-04-14

The NSW Supreme Court found that Rex’s continuous disclosure breach commenced because it failed to disclose that it no longer had reasonable grounds for the forecast.

2024-12-01

ASIC commenced proceedings against Rex, the three non-executive directors, and former executive chairman and chief executive Lim Kim Hai; the source specifies December 2024 but not an exact day.

2026-06-30

The NSW Supreme Court found that Rex breached its continuous disclosure obligations but dismissed ASIC’s case against the three non-executive directors and did not establish misleading conduct by Rex.

2026-08-20

ASIC filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal the dismissal of part of its case, according to the related court-update material.

2026-10-20

Lim Kim Hai was disqualified from managing corporations for four years and ordered to pay an $800,000 pecuniary penalty after admitting involvement in Rex’s continuous disclosure breaches and breaches of directors’ duties.

2026-10-23

ASIC announced that it is seeking leave to appeal the findings concerning the three former non-executive directors.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing controls for monitoring earnings forecasts against current management information, operational trends and board materials, including clear escalation triggers when a forecast may no longer have reasonable grounds.
• Boards and non-executive directors may wish to ensure that material adverse trends, forecast variances and management warnings are clearly documented, discussed and escalated through formal board and disclosure committees.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether directors receive sufficiently clear and timely information to identify potential continuous disclosure issues, rather than relying only on aggregated financial reports or informal updates.
• Listed entities should consider documenting the basis for continuing, correcting or withdrawing earnings guidance and the decision-making process for ASX disclosure under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and applicable ASX Listing Rules.
• Firms should monitor the appeal process and any appellate guidance on the relationship between corporate continuous disclosure liability under section 674A and individual directors’ duties under section 180.
• Boards may wish to review director induction and continuing education concerning continuous disclosure, reasonable grounds for forecasts, escalation responsibilities and the evidentiary importance of board records.

What changed

No new binding obligation or threshold has been introduced by this publication. ASIC is challenging the primary judge’s findings that the evidence did not establish that the three non-executive directors knew Rex no longer had reasonable grounds for its 28 February 2023 positive operating-profit forecast, or that they therefore breached their duties under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Key dates

2026-10-22

FCA published CP26/37 and opened the consultation.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for consultation responses.

2027-06-30

End of the first half of 2027, during which the FCA expects to publish final regulatory requirements; the exact publication date is not specified.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess the consultation proposals against their current SMF population, including whether SMF18, SMF22 or the existing SMF7 definition is used and how responsibilities would be reallocated.
• Dual-regulated and Enhanced firms should review whether SMF5 and SMF10 to SMF15 appointments would move from prior approval to notification, while considering the continuing need for documented fitness and propriety assessments.
• Compliance teams may wish to model whether the proposed £200 million, £100 billion, £75 million and £750 million Enhanced thresholds would change the firm's classification, including group-level and three-year rolling-average calculations.
• Firms should plan to preserve accurate internal Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Maps even if routine FCA submissions are removed.
• Firms should review Prescribed Responsibility allocations and identify the impact of removing nine responsibilities, including the proposed retention of A, D, Z and J-3.
• Certification-function inventories, annual certification processes, regulatory-reference procedures and Directory reporting should be mapped so that transition arrangements can be implemented if the proposals are finalised; firms should not discontinue current obligations before final rules and commencement.
• Conduct and HR teams should assess changes to training, staff notifications, disciplinary classifications, appeal processes and breach-reporting workflows, distinguishing staff subject only to Individual Conduct Rules from those also subject to Senior Manager Conduct Rules.
• Firms should retain processes for prompt notification of matters of regulatory significance under Principle 11, SUP 15 and SUP 10C, because the consultation does not remove those obligations.

What changed

The FCA proposes to make SMF5 (Head of Internal Audit) and SMF10 to SMF15 functions notified rather than subject to prior approval at specified dual-regulated and Enhanced firms. It proposes to remove SMF18 (Other Overall Responsibility) and SMF22 (Local Responsibility), narrow SMF7 (Group Entity Senior Manager), and retain SMF24 (Chief Operations Function) as a pre-approved function.

Key dates

2026-10-22

The FCA and PRA published parallel Phase 2 SM&CR consultations.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the FCA and PRA SM&CR Phase 2 consultations.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the FCA consultation CP26/37 and PRA consultation CP14/26 and consider submitting responses by 22 January 2027.
• Firms should continue operating existing SM&CR approval, certification, Directory, Conduct Rule and responsibility-mapping processes unless and until final rules and any required legislation take effect.
• Firms may wish to map current Senior Management Functions and identify Chief Actuary, Risk Committee Chair and Audit Committee Chair roles that could move from pre-approval to notification, while retaining evidence of fitness, propriety, competence and suitability assessments.
• Compliance teams should identify employees who could fall outside the proposed Certification Regime and assess how internal competence, performance, disciplinary and conduct controls would operate without annual regulatory certification.
• Firms may wish to model the effect of the proposed Enhanced-regime threshold increases on their classification, governance documentation, prescribed responsibilities and approval processes.
• Firms should review Conduct Rule breach-reporting workflows and training curricula, but should not apply a higher reporting threshold or reduced training scope until the relevant final rules are published and effective.
• Governance teams may wish to assess the proposed removal of ongoing Statements of Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities Map submissions and determine what internal records will still be needed to demonstrate clear accountability.
• Firms with cryptoasset activities or planned authorisation may wish to consider the interaction between these proposals, the FCA's modification-by-consent approach for cryptoasset firms and the wider cryptoasset perimeter work.

What changed

The regulators propose removing pre-approval for a range of functions, including Chief Actuaries and Chairs of Risk and Audit Committees, with firms instead notifying the regulators and retaining responsibility for fitness and propriety. Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer and Chair roles would generally remain subject to regulatory pre-approval, while regulators could require pre-approval for otherwise notified roles in high-risk cases.

Key dates

2024-04-01

Bank of America self-identified the inaccurate wire-transmittor information issue, according to the OCC enforcement order; the date is included as an approximate month-level historical reference represented by the first day of the month.

2024-10-01

Bank of America stopped the inaccurate transmittor-information practice in 2024; the OCC order does not provide an exact day, so this is an approximate month-level historical reference represented by the first day of the month.

2026-10-08

The OCC announced the American Express National Bank cease-and-desist order and $350 million civil money penalty.

2026-10-13

The OCC announced the Bank of America $750 million civil money penalty, described as the largest penalty in OCC history, in coordination with Treasury and FinCEN actions.

2026-10-22

The OCC published the October 2026 consolidated enforcement-actions release.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reassessing whether their BSA/AML risk assessments cover the risks of all material products and services, rather than concentrating on narrower deposit activity while underweighting credit-card, charge-card, correspondent, or payment activity.
• Compliance teams may wish to test end-to-end transaction-monitoring workflows for alert generation, escalation, investigation, disposition, and SAR filing, including backlog governance, aging thresholds, management information, and evidence that suspected trade-based money laundering is escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider validating that customer identification, customer due diligence, beneficial-ownership information, and ongoing-risk-rating processes are complete, accurate, risk-based, and aligned to the institution's actual customer and product populations.
• Banks may wish to perform a targeted review of outgoing wire data to confirm that originator or transmittor names and other required fields are accurate, consistently populated, retained, and not overwritten by deficient interfaces or manual processes.
• Boards and senior management should consider documenting sufficient staffing, subject-matter expertise, training, independent testing, audit coverage, and issue-remediation ownership for BSA/AML programs.
• Institutions operating under prior supervisory findings should consider independent validation that corrective actions are complete, effective, sustainable, and supported by evidence, rather than merely implemented procedurally.
• Compliance teams should consider reviewing whether third-party, correspondent, and payment-processing arrangements create data-quality or monitoring dependencies that could delay SAR filing or impair law-enforcement traceability.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement outcomes rather than a new rule or generally applicable deadline. American Express National Bank is subject to a cease-and-desist order and a $350 million penalty for an inadequately designed and monitored BSA/AML program, inadequate resources and expertise, internal-control weaknesses, weak independent testing and training, systemic failures involving approximately $13 billion of suspected trade-based money-laundering activity, and customer identification and customer due diligence deficiencies.

Key dates

2019-05-30

The Central Bank’s ASP investigation into PTSB concluded; PTSB had admitted 42 regulatory breaches and received a €21 million fine and reprimand.

2023-12-01

The Central Bank published ASP Guidelines providing further detail on its inquiry process; the exact publication day is not specified in the source, so this date denotes December 2023 only.

2025-04-23

The Central Bank Inquiry Decision concerning PTSB and David Guinane was issued.

2026-10-22

IFSAT published its decision, upheld Mr Guinane’s appeal and overturned the Inquiry Decision; the Central Bank stated that it does not propose to appeal.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to record the IFSAT outcome in enforcement-risk assessments and monitor the High Court confirmation process.
• Banks and mortgage lenders may wish to review open or potential individual-enforcement matters involving historic conduct to confirm that the alleged contraventions, issues for determination, evidential basis and proposed sanctions have been clearly particularised and communicated.
• Firms may wish to preserve governance records showing how customer-impact risks, escalation decisions, approvals and follow-up controls were assessed, particularly for tracker mortgage, conduct and legacy remediation matters.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to assess whether the reasoning reported in the decision has implications for ongoing Central Bank inquiries, including fair-notice, statutory-authority, procedural-fairness and reasons requirements.
• Firms may wish to distinguish this case from the separate PTSB entity enforcement outcome: PTSB admitted 42 regulatory breaches and received a €21 million fine and reprimand in 2019, which this publication does not overturn.
• Firms may wish to track the Central Bank’s external review of wider enforcement activities and any revisions to inquiry procedures, ASP guidance or Individual Accountability Framework implementation.

What changed

No new regulatory obligation or rule has been introduced for firms. The specific inquiry decision against Mr Guinane has been overturned, and the Central Bank does not propose to appeal the IFSAT findings. Independent reporting indicates that IFSAT found the inquiry process and reasoning legally defective, including failures to give fair notice of certain issues and to provide adequate reasons. The Central Bank will apply to the High Court for confirmation of the IFSAT decision under the Central Bank Act 1942.