€195.000 boete voor ‘finfluencer’ wegens samenwerken met illegale vermogensbeheerder Grinta Invest
AI Analysis
The AFM sanctioned finfluencer J. van den Brink for jointly carrying out unlicensed asset management with Grinta Invest by promoting it, recruiting investors, supporting onboarding and acting as a contact point. Although the AFM announced a €195,000 fine, the Rotterdam District Court reduced it to €142,500 on 31 August 2026, citing proportionality, delayed regulatory action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR. The case signals that an individual promoter may face direct enforcement exposure where marketing and referral activity materially enables unlicensed investment services, particularly when remuneration is linked to invested capital.
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. The court's final outcome was €142,500 rather than €195,000, while otherwise maintaining the decision. Independent market commentary reads the case alongside the AFM's €1.6 million BUX enforcement as evidenc
Compliance impact
The enforcement demonstrates potentially severe personal exposure for an influencer whose promotional, referral and onboarding activities materially facilitate unlicensed asset management; the regulator expressly linked the original penalty to high commissions and investor losses. It also reinforces that Dutch inducement and licensing risks extend beyond the authorised investment firm to third par
Who is affected
Related regulations
References
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original AFM source before acting. Full disclaimer.
What the AFM said
Update 31 augustus 2026: In beroep heeft de rechtbank de boete met €52.500 gematigd en vastgesteld op € 142.500, onder andere vanwege de evenredigheid in algemene zin en vanwege een overschrijding van de redelijke termijn uit artikel 6 EVRM. Zie hier de actuele stand van zaken . Grinta Invest was een illegale…
Extract from AFM . Read the full notice at the source for the authoritative text.