Sanctions & settlements professional obligations Journalists Investment services providers The AMF Enforcement Committee fines an investment services provider and its director a total of €850,000
Broker DealerAll Firms
To showcase the appeal of Japan’s fintech industry to the global community and create new business opportunities for further development, Japan Fintech Week 2026 will be held from February 24th to March 6th. By collaborating with related events organized by various industry groups, this initiative aims to provide a platform where domestic and international fintech stakeholders can come together in one place.
All Firms
The Securities and Exchange Commission today issued a request for public comment on exchange-traded funds (ETFs) seeking to invest in innovative asset classes or engage in novel investment strategies. The request focuses on ways to facilitate innovation…
Asset ManagerBroker Dealer
Press release 26/13
All Firms
Given at ECB Sintra Forum
All Firms
Firms supporting people to buy, trade and hold crypto will need to meet clear standards under landmark rules set out by the FCA. All firms must meet financial resilience requirements including capital and stress testing. The FCA is also introducing new market integrity rules covering areas such as insider trading and market manipulation.The new framework also sets out specific rules for stablecoins, a type of cryptoasset designed to maintain a stable value, typically by being linked to a curr...
Crypto ExchangePayment ProviderFintech
The Bank of England and the FCA have published a joint approach setting out how they and where relevant other authorities will work together to regulate systemic stablecoin issuers in the UK.It explains how responsibilities will be split between the authorities, and how UK stablecoin issuers may move from FCA supervision to joint regulation once recognised as systemic by HM Treasury.The approach aims to provide clarity and predictability for firms as the market develops.Read the paper
The FCA and Bank of England have set out a joint supervisory model for **systemic stablecoin issuers**, clarifying how firms will move from FCA-only oversight to joint regulation once HM Treasury designates them as systemic. This matters because UK‑based and non‑UK stablecoin issuers used for payments will face distinct prudential, conduct and structural requirements depending on whether they are non‑systemic (FCA only) or systemic (Bank of England plus FCA), with a managed transition between regimes.
What Changed
- - UK stablecoin issuance will be subject to a dual regulatory regime: non‑systemic stablecoins will be supervised solely by the FCA, while systemic stablecoins used for payments will be jointly...
- Issuing a qualifying sterling‑denominated stablecoin in the UK will become a regulated activity, requiring FCA authorisation for non‑bank issuers and bringing them within the FCA’s prudential,...
- HM Treasury will apply statutory systemic tests under the Banking Act (e.g. scale, interconnectedness, substitutability, impact on confidence in sterling) to decide whether a stablecoin payment...
- Once recognised as systemic, stablecoin issuers and systemic payment system providers will fall under the Bank of England’s remit under the Banking Act 2009, including powers to obtain information,...
- Systemic sterling‑denominated stablecoin issuers will be required to maintain backing reserves equal to all outstanding coins, with backing assets held on statutory trust in the UK and ring‑fenced...
Suggested Considerations
- Map all existing and planned sterling‑denominated stablecoin products against the UK’s systemic and non‑systemic regimes and assess whether their intended use in UK payments could trigger HM Treasury systemic recognition.
- Initiate or update FCA authorisation applications for stablecoin issuance and cryptoasset custody activities, ensuring business models, governance and safeguarding arrangements align with CP25/14 and the forthcoming stablecoin regime.
- Design and implement reserve‑management frameworks capable of maintaining backing assets equal to outstanding coins, in the proposed 70/30 mix between short‑term UK government debt and Bank of England deposits, with appropriate stress testing and liquidity risk oversight.
- Establish statutory trust and segregation structures for backing assets and liquid‑asset reserves, including appointing UK‑authorised third‑party custodians and aligning documentation with FCA client‑asset‑style protections and coinholder proprietary claims.
- Develop capital planning processes and ICAAP‑style assessments to meet the Bank of England’s requirements for capital against general business risk and dedicated reserves for financial risk and wind‑down costs.
Key Dates
- Bank of England consultation paper issued on the proposed regulatory framework for sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins and systemic payment system operators
- Bank of England intends to finalise the Code of Practice and supporting materials by the end of 2026, confirming the prudential and structural regime for systemic stablecoins
- UK introduces new regulatory authorisation requirements for stablecoin issuers, including FCA authorisation for qualifying issuance and custody activities
- Consultation period closes for the Bank of England’s systemic stablecoin regime proposals
- Bank of England publishes its policy statement and draft Code of Practice for systemic stablecoin issuers, setting out detailed prudential and backing‑asset rules and confirming joint work with the FCA on an end‑to‑end regime
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the emerging stablecoin regime may result in refusal of authorisation, enforcement directions, restrictions on issuance volumes, and potential wind‑down of stablecoin products, with significant balance‑sheet, reputational and operational consequences. Systemic issuers face heightened supervisory scrutiny and Banking Act enforcement powers, making early alignment with prudential, safeguarding and governance expectations critical.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
FintechCrypto ExchangeBank Central Bank of Ireland has today launched a new map showing the location of every ATM and cash service points in the country. The public can now also notify the Central Bank if they believe there is insufficient access to cash in their community. From today (Tuesday 30 June 2026), the public can submit a local deficiency notification through an online form available on the Central Bank's website. The Central Bank will carefully assess each notification, consider the specific circumstances of...
BankPayment Provider
Met zo’n 175 professionals uit de pensioenwereld, was het AFM-pensioenevent op 4 juni afgeladen vol. Uit de enquête achteraf bleek dat een ruime meerderheid van de deelnemers tevreden was over het event. Enkelen stoorden zich aan de discussie tussen de AFM en de Pensioenfederatie bij de break-outsessie over kostentransparantie.
InsuranceAll Firms
Waarover maken pensioenspecialisten zich concreet druk in de pensioentransitie? En welke tip hebben ze voor de AFM? In deze interviewserie stellen we drie vaste vragen aan een pensioenprominent. Vandaag Jeroen Steenvoorden, ombudsman pensioenen: ‘Een goede toezichthouder is soepel op het moment dat iets goed gaat, en streng als het minder goed gaat.’
Insurance
Aflevering 8 van de AFM-pensioenpodcast 'Toezicht aan tafel' gaat over het opheffen van de leenrestrictie en transparant communiceren daarover naar je deelnemers. Verder aandacht voor fouten in digitale tools voor keuzebegeleiding. De luisteraarsvraag is dit keer van Jeroen Steenvoorden, de ombudsman pensioenen.
Insurance
Veel pensioenuitvoerders gebruiken online tools voor keuzebegeleiding. Een aantal van die tools hebben we grondig geanalyseerd. In te veel gevallen stuitten we daarbij op fouten.
All Firms
ASIC pushes for coordinated action to strengthen competitiveness of Australian markets
Broker DealerAsset ManagerFintech NSW restaurateur Giuseppe DeFrancesco first person charged by ASIC with creditor defeating criminal offences
All Firms
Rex held accountable for continuous disclosure failure, three non-executive directors did not breach duties
All Firms
Vrijwillige voortzetting van de pensioenregeling kan het mislopen van compensatie voorkomen. Stel je deelnemers in staat om hierover een passende keuze te maken. Deelnemers moeten weten dat deze keuze bestaat en wat de voorwaarden zijn.
Insurance
No description available.
All Firms
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) is een professionele en doelmatige toezichthouder die haar wettelijke taken doeltreffend uitvoert en aantoonbare resultaten boekt. Dat blijkt uit de onafhankelijke evaluatie van het functioneren van de AFM als zelfstandig bestuursorgaan (zbo) over de periode 2021–2025. In het rapport staan ook aanbevelingen voor verdere verbetering.
All Firms
Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
The Bank of England has announced changes to the **Form PL (Profit and Loss) definitions**, principally clarifying the treatment of tax line item PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600 to align more closely with ONS UK National Accounts requirements. This matters for compliance and regulatory reporting teams because it affects how income, expenditure and tax on production are classified and reported from Q1 2027, with downstream impacts on UK National Accounts, Balance of Payments statistics and firms’ regulatory reporting controls.
What Changed
- - The Bank of England will update the Form PL definitions to improve consistency and alignment with the ONS UK National Accounts requirements, specifically for income and expenditure reporting.
- The definition and reporting guidance for tax (PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600) are being revised to clarify the treatment of items classified as taxes on production and related charges.
- The updated definitions will apply to all Form PL line items, with particular emphasis on ensuring more precise classification of tax-related items within profit and loss reporting.
- The Bank of England does not anticipate major changes in reported figures but expects improved clarity and consistency in how firms map internal accounting data to Form PL categories.
- The updated definitions will replace the current Form PL guidance and become the operative standard for all reporting institutions from the Q1 2027 reporting period.
Suggested Considerations
- Review the updated Form PL definitions in full once they are published on 31 July 2026 to understand all changes to income, expenditure and tax classification.
- Map the revised Form PL tax definition (PL16 / PL.01.01.01 C0010 R1600) to internal chart of accounts and tax reporting structures, ensuring correct identification of taxes on production and related charges.
- Update internal regulatory reporting systems, data transformation rules and validation checks to reflect the new Form PL definitions ahead of the Q1 2027 reporting period.
- Revise internal reporting policies, procedures and documentation for Form PL to incorporate the updated tax treatment and any other definitional changes.
- Train finance, regulatory reporting and data teams on the revised Form PL guidance, with particular focus on the redefined tax items and their distinction from other tax and fee categories.
Key Dates
- Updated Form PL definitions are scheduled to be published by the Bank of England
- First reference period for which the updated Form PL definitions are effective
- Submission deadline for Q1 2027 Form PL reporting using the revised definitions and tax treatment
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance with the updated Form PL definitions from Q1 2027 would constitute misreporting to the Bank of England, potentially triggering supervisory scrutiny, data quality queries and remediation requirements. Persistent or material misclassification of tax and income items could affect the integrity of UK macroeconomic statistics and lead to heightened regulatory attention on a firm’s reporting controls.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
on the setting of the countercyclical buffer rate for the third quarter of 2026
Bank
Singapore, 30 June 2026… The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has imposed a civil penalty of S$120,000 on Dr Chua Han Boon Kenneth (“Dr Chua”) for insider trading in the shares of Singapore Medical Group Limited (“SMGL”), which was listed on the Singapore Exchange at the time.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
The ECB has imposed a €3.255 million administrative penalty on Banque Internationale à Luxembourg (BIL) for intentionally failing, over three quarters, to apply its approved internal models when calculating expected loss for retail and corporate defaulted exposures, leading to overstated capital and capital ratios. This case is a clear supervisory signal to Significant Institutions and Less Significant Institutions using IRB/internal models that deviations from approved model usage, especially around expected loss and IRB shortfall, will be treated as severe breaches with material sanctions exposure.
What Changed
- - The ECB has reaffirmed that institutions using internal ratings-based (IRB) approaches must apply their approved internal models consistently for expected loss calculation on defaulted retail and...
- The ECB has underscored that the IRB shortfall (difference between expected loss and accounting provisions) must be correctly calculated and deducted from regulatory capital whenever expected loss...
- The ECB has classified intentional failure to apply approved internal models to expected loss calculations as a “severe” breach under its Guide to the method of setting administrative pecuniary...
- The enforcement action confirms the ECB’s readiness to use its sanctioning powers under Article 18 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 against internal-model users that misreport capital due to...
- The case highlights that miscalculation of expected loss and IRB shortfall over multiple reporting periods, even without an explicit capital ratio breach of minima, can be sanctioned where capital...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and confirm that all regulatory capital calculations, including expected loss and IRB shortfall for defaulted exposures, consistently use the approved internal models as authorised by the ECB or national competent authority.
- Map and reconcile the internal-model implementation across risk systems, finance, and regulatory reporting to ensure that there are no manual overrides, alternative methods, or parallel calculations that deviate from the approved model specifications.
- Strengthen model risk governance by ensuring that any proposed changes to expected loss methodologies, including for defaulted retail and corporate portfolios, are formally approved by the competent authority before being used in regulatory capital reporting.
- Implement robust controls and periodic testing within Finance, Risk, and Regulatory Reporting functions to detect and prevent misapplication or non-application of approved internal models, with clear escalation procedures for identified discrepancies.
- Ensure that the calculation of IRB shortfall (difference between expected loss and accounting provisions) is independently validated and appropriately deducted from CET1 capital in accordance with CRR and ECB internal models guidance.
Key Dates
- Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 enters into force, granting the ECB sanctioning powers for prudential supervision of credit institutions (contextual basis for this enforcement)
- Start of the period during which BIL failed to apply its approved internal models to expected loss calculation for defaulted retail and corporate exposures, leading to overstated capital
- Second consecutive quarter in which incorrect expected loss and IRB shortfall calculations continued to affect reported capital and capital ratios
- Third consecutive quarter of miscalculation; end of the period identified by the ECB as affected by the breach
- The ECB publishes its decision imposing an administrative penalty of €3.255 million on BIL for the severe breach of its decision on internal models
Compliance Impact
This enforcement action indicates high supervisory sensitivity to internal model governance and capital reporting, with severe classification and multi-million euro penalties where intentional non-use of approved models leads to overstated capital. Non-compliance can result in significant administrative fines, reputational damage, supervisory remediation measures, and potential legal proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ECB source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Bank
When the FCA introduced the Consumer Duty, we set out to do something simple but transformative: ensure financial services work better for consumers. It was, by design, ambitious. And it is working. For example, most investment platforms have improved how they treat interest on clients’ cash and public confidence in banks has grown since the Duty was introduced. Wherever possible, it is also helping us to avoid prescriptive new rules.The Duty’s foundations are simple harmonising concepts that...
The FCA has announced a consultation to *refine the Consumer Duty* so that wholesale and largely business‑to‑business activities sit more clearly outside scope, while keeping the regime focused on retail consumer outcomes. This matters for compliance teams because it will reshape how the Duty applies to activities such as market making, custody, cross‑border business and multi‑party distribution chains, and will allow wholesale‑focused firms to recalibrate their frameworks, governance and monitoring obligations.
What Changed
- - The FCA is consulting on clearer scope boundaries for the Consumer Duty to confirm that wholesale, business‑to‑business activities that do not shape retail consumer outcomes should normally be out...
- The FCA will provide case studies and examples of “grey areas” to illustrate when activities are, and are not, caught by the Duty, particularly for early‑chain and wholesale‑only firms.
- The FCA is clarifying accountability in multi‑firm arrangements, confirming that each firm is responsible for its own activities, can rely on other firms to meet their obligations where appropriate,...
- The FCA plans to reduce duplication of obligations across distribution chains, including refining how the “look‑through” concept and co‑manufacturing apply where firms do not directly interact with...
- The FCA is narrowing the territorial scope of the Consumer Duty so that business conducted for genuinely non‑UK customers will generally be out of scope, aligning with the principle that local...
Suggested Considerations
- Map all business lines and activities to identify which are genuinely wholesale, early‑chain or business‑to‑business, and assess where the firm does or does not “shape consumer outcomes” at the end of the chain.
- Review existing Consumer Duty scoping decisions for activities such as market making, custody, safeguarding and other wholesale services, and prepare to adjust those decisions in line with FCA case studies and clarified boundaries.
- Re‑evaluate cross‑border business conducted for non‑UK clients to determine which products and services may fall outside the Consumer Duty under the proposed narrowed territorial scope, and document the basis for this classification.
- Analyse multi‑party distribution chains and co‑manufacturing arrangements to clearly delineate responsibilities, reliance points and escalation mechanisms where other firms are expected to meet their Consumer Duty obligations.
- Update product governance and Consumer Duty frameworks to distinguish between “manufacturers” and supporting firms, ensuring manufacturers continue to meet full Duty requirements while supporting firms apply Principle 12 and cross‑cutting rules proportionately.
Key Dates
- FCA expected to make the original Consumer Duty rules following CP21/13, establishing the baseline regime and Principle 12
- Consumer Duty comes into force for open (non‑closed‑book) products and services, triggering initial implementation across retail distribution chains
- FCA planned consultation on revisions to the Consumer Duty scope and exemptions, including clearer delineation of business‑to‑business activity, reliance arrangements in distribution chains and removal of non‑UK customers from scope
- FCA to consult on further changes to client classification, sharpening the distinction between retail and professional markets and clarifying the treatment of sophisticated investors under the Consumer Duty
- FCA expected to issue a consultation paper on Duty scope, proportionality and application to wholesale‑only and early‑chain firms, including potential changes to definitions and categorisation of manufacturers versus supporting firms
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance will remain serious for activities that truly affect retail consumer outcomes, with potential for enforcement action, redress requirements, supervisory scrutiny and reputational damage. However, for wholesale‑only and non‑UK business, firms that fail to realign their frameworks with the FCA’s refined scope may incur unnecessary compliance cost, competitive disadvantages and mis‑scoped regulatory risk.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager No description available.
Broker DealerFintech
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
What Changed
- - CSSF has published its 2025 supervisory disclosure covering supervisory measures and administrative penalties taken during the year.
- The publication serves as a public register-style disclosure of enforcement outcomes, increasing transparency around CSSF supervision and sanctioning activity.
- A related 2025 CSSF administrative sanction shows that AML/CFT non-compliance can result in a reprimand under the amended Luxembourg AML/CFT Law.
- The 28 July 2025 sanction confirms that CSSF can act where firms fail to maintain adequate professional AML/CFT obligations and related internal controls.
Suggested Considerations
- Review the firm’s AML/CFT control framework against the Luxembourg AML/CFT Law provisions that can trigger CSSF reprimands or sanctions, including governance, monitoring, and escalation controls.
- Verify that suspicious activity detection, investigation, and escalation procedures are documented, implemented, and tested for effectiveness.
- Reassess whether internal controls are sufficient to demonstrate timely compliance with professional AML/CFT obligations under CSSF supervision.
- Update remediation tracking to ensure supervisory findings are closed out promptly and supported by evidence of corrective action.
- Brief senior management on the reputational impact of public supervisory disclosures and ensure that recurring weaknesses are escalated to the board.
Key Dates
- CSSF’s supervisory disclosure covers **measures and administrative penalties for the year 2025**
- CSSF published the prior year’s supervisory disclosure page referencing the **2024** measures and penalties, showing the annual disclosure cycle
- CSSF issued an **administrative sanction** in an AML/CFT case, imposing a reprimand for non-compliance with the AML/CFT Law
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is material because CSSF enforcement disclosures can expose weaknesses to the market, counterparties, auditors, and other regulators, creating reputational and supervisory pressure. Non-compliance with AML/CFT obligations can lead to public reprimands and potentially more severe measures if deficiencies persist or are systemic.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
No description available.
Broker DealerAsset Manager
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerAsset Manager
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
Applications Open For Participation In Global Talent Programme In Cooperation With World Bank Group Wam
All Firms
ASIC calls platform trustees to account over persistent failures to safeguard super savings
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerAll Firms
ASIC secures $10.3 million in penalties against Mercer Super for systemic reporting failures
Asset Manager
WA director Trent Bowden pleads guilty to over $1.5 million investor deception
Asset ManagerWealth Manager
Wholesale financial businesses involved in retail markets will find it easier to comply with the Consumer Duty, following proposals from the FCA. The changes are part of the FCA's plans to give wholesale firms the confidence to apply the Duty proportionately. Under the proposals, firms will benefit from:Removing business for genuinely non-UK customers from the Duty’s scope where there is no clear UK link or reasonable expectation of UK protection.Clearer boundaries around what is out of scope...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank Donderdag 25 juni sprak Laura van Geest (bestuursvoorzitter AFM) bij de presentatie van de Netspar-bundel Het Nieuwe Pensioenlandschap: ‘Daarbij stond voor mij één vraag centraal: niet hoe we hier zijn gekomen, maar wat nodig is om future fit te zijn. Voor mij zit dat in iets ogenschijnlijk eenvoudigs: dat mensen begrijpen wat er gebeurt met hun pensioen en daar vertrouwen in hebben. Maar dat voor elkaar krijgen is aanzienlijk lastiger. Het fundament ligt er. Maar nu gaat het om verwachtingen...
All Firms
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA has concluded enforcement proceedings against two institutions and one individual for serious breaches of the rules of conduct governing the provision of financial services under the FinSA. To restore compliance with the law and protect investors, FINMA ordered various measures. It withdrew Swiss Fund Management AG in liquidation’s licence to manage funds. An application by BZ Berater Zentrum AG for authorisation as an independent portfol...
Asset ManagerWealth Manager
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
MAS announced a call for applications and nominations for the 2026 Global FinTech Hackcelerator and the Singapore FinTech Festival FinTech Excellence Awards.
FintechBankWealth Manager The DFSA publishes Conduct Supervisory Pulse on Personal Account Dealing
Broker Dealer
No description available.
Broker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerHedge Fund
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued a joint request for public comment on potential approaches to further harmonize regulatory frameworks applicable to portfolio margining across securities,…
Broker DealerAsset ManagerHedge Fund
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Crypto ExchangeFintech
The FCA has published a consultation paper on proposed changes to its UK Listing Rules for closed‑ended investment funds, focused on the management of conflicts of interest. Closed‑ended investment funds have a distinct structure, operating as both listed companies and investment vehicles. Shareholders appoint a board, which in turn appoints and oversees the investment manager responsible for delivering returns. Shareholder rights are central to this model, enabling investors to hold boards t...
Asset ManagerBroker Dealer
Warning: Unauthorised Retail Credit Firm Unauthorised Firm Name Loan Empower Solution Website https://www.lesolution.eu Purported address The Merrion Buildings, 18–20 Merrion Street, Dublin 2, D02 XH98, Ireland Email address used contact@lesolution.eu Phone number used +49 30 1234 5678 Authorisation in Ireland Loan Empower Solution is not authorised as a retail credit firm in Ireland. Additional information Loan Empower Solution appears to be engaged in ‘advanced fee fraud’, where a payment i...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a formal warning under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 against **Loan Empower Solution**, an unauthorised firm purporting to offer retail credit from a Dublin address while apparently engaging in **advance fee fraud**. This reinforces supervisory expectations that authorised firms operating in or into Ireland must have robust controls around unauthorised-firm risk, fraud referrals, and customer communications, particularly where clone or bogus “retail credit” offerings are involved.
What Changed
- - The CBI has added Loan Empower Solution (website: lesolution.eu) to its public list of unauthorised firms and explicitly categorised it as an unauthorised retail credit firm operating without the...
- The CBI has publicly stated that Loan Empower Solution appears to be operating an advance fee fraud model, where upfront payments are requested for credit services that are never provided.
- The CBI has confirmed that the firm is using a purported Irish business address (The Merrion Buildings, 18–20 Merrion Street, Dublin 2, D02 XH98), a non-Irish telephone number, and a specified...
- The firm’s name has been published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, reaffirming the CBI’s use of its statutory power to publicly identify entities...
- The CBI has directed the public to its unauthorised firms search and financial scams information pages, implicitly reinforcing expectations that firms promote use of these tools in their consumer...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update internal unauthorised-firm and scam monitoring procedures to ensure Loan Empower Solution and its identifiers (name, website, address, email, telephone number) are captured in watchlists, fraud rules, and staff guidance.
- Screen recent and ongoing customer transactions and communications for any references to Loan Empower Solution or similar lending scams requesting upfront “loan fees”, and escalate any matches to fraud and compliance teams.
- Update customer-facing communications and website scam warnings to highlight the risk of advance fee fraud in retail credit, referencing the need to check the CBI registers and unauthorised-firms list before engaging with lenders.
- Ensure call centre, branch, and digital support staff are trained to identify and respond to customers approached by unauthorised lenders, including how to advise customers to verify authorisation status on the CBI website and to report suspected scams.
- Incorporate checks against the CBI unauthorised firms search into onboarding, due diligence, and third-party risk management processes for any lending-related partnerships, introducers, or lead generators.
Key Dates
- CBI publishes the warning notice against Loan Empower Solution as an unauthorised retail credit firm and lists the firm under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance primarily exposes firms to conduct and financial crime risk, including facilitating fraud, failing to protect vulnerable customers, and weaknesses in perimeter controls, which can lead to CBI supervisory findings, reputational damage, and potentially enforcement action for systemic failures. The enforcement signalling is material for any firm active in retail credit or payments, and boards and senior managers responsible for consumer and financial crime risk should treat unauthorised-firm exposure as a priority issue.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankFintechPayment Provider No description available.
All Firms
ASIC sues former Keystone Asset Management directors and compliance committee members over alleged Shield failures
Asset ManagerWealth Manager
Registered Company Auditor John Gordon Owenell hands in registration following independence concerns raised by ASIC
All Firms
No description available.
FATF has launched a public consultation, flagged by the CSSF, on new **guidance for implementing the revised FATF Recommendation 16 (“travel rule”)**, with the objective of significantly increasing payment transparency by 2030. This consultation will shape how jurisdictions and supervisors (including Luxembourg/CSSF) expect payment and virtual asset flows to carry and use originator/beneficiary data, so compliance teams should treat this as an early signal of future mandatory AML/CTF requirements for both fiat and virtual asset transfers.
What Changed
- *(Based on the CSSF notice plus the 2025 FATF revisions to Recommendation 16 and existing travel‑rule standards; details may be further refined by the new guidance now under consultation.)*
- FATF is issuing implementation guidance for the updated Recommendation 16, which already increased obligations regarding payment transparency, including more granular beneficiary data and expanded...
- Cross‑border payments and value transfers above 1,000 USD/EUR are expected to include additional mandatory beneficiary information, such as beneficiary name, account or unique reference, and at least...
- Beneficiary institutions are given enhanced responsibilities to use travel‑rule information (not just receive it) for transaction monitoring, including detecting misdirected payments and indicators...
- The revised travel rule continues to apply to both traditional wire transfers and value transfers involving virtual assets, reinforcing that Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) must collect,...
Suggested Considerations
- Map and document all existing and planned cross‑border payment and value‑transfer flows (including virtual asset transfers) to identify where FATF Recommendation 16 and travel‑rule obligations currently apply or will apply by 2030.
- Review the June 2025 FATF modifications to Recommendation 16 and the current consultation materials, and perform a gap analysis against your existing AML/CTF, KYC and payments data standards, including thresholds, data fields, and monitoring use‑cases.
- Establish an internal project for travel‑rule implementation and enhancement that spans AML, operations, technology, legal and data‑protection teams, with explicit ownership and governance.
- Strengthen beneficiary‑side transaction‑monitoring rules to use incoming travel‑rule data for sanctions, fraud and AML detection, including controls to identify misdirected or unusual payments based on name, location, and other attributes.
- Review and, where necessary, update customer due diligence and KYC procedures to ensure the availability and verification of data fields that will be required to travel with transactions (for example, address, town and country, identification numbers, date of birth).
Key Dates
- FATF adopts modifications to Recommendation 16 to enhance payment transparency, including strengthened travel‑rule standards
- FATF launches public consultation on guidance for the implementation of the updated Recommendation 16
- FATF public consultation period closes; this is the deadline for private‑sector contributions highlighted by the CSSF
- FATF’s revised Recommendation 16 framework is expected to be fully effective, with jurisdictions having implemented the standard into national law or regulation by this date
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the revised travel‑rule expectations will materially increase the risk of supervisory criticism, enforcement action, and restrictions on cross‑border business, especially in higher‑risk client segments and payment corridors. Failure to implement adequate data‑collection and monitoring capabilities may also compromise sanctions and AML controls, leading to heightened legal, financial and reputational exposure.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankPayment ProviderCrypto Exchange No description available.
BankAll Firms
No description available.
The ECB has launched a **comprehensive clean‑up and re‑classification of all its supervisory guidance** (guides, reports, letters, methodologies) to streamline content, remove outdated expectations and explicitly underline that these documents are **non‑binding**. This matters for compliance teams because it changes the **reference set of applicable ECB expectations**, clarifies the status of “supervisory guidance” versus hard law, and introduces targeted revisions in key areas such as ICAAP management buffers, internal models, CRR III implementation and licensing processes.
What Changed
- - The ECB is conducting a comprehensive review of around 130 supervisory publications (guides, reports, letters, methodologies) to assess their relevance, effectiveness and clarity and to align them...
- Approximately 40 supervisory documents have been classified as outdated, superseded or no longer relevant and have been formally discontinued, with the texts remaining accessible but clearly labelled...
- The ECB has updated its classification of supervisory guidance documents to emphasise explicitly that they are non‑binding, do not create new legal obligations and do not replace binding EU or...
- The Guide to the internal capital adequacy assessment process (ICAAP Guide) will be revised to clarify supervisory expectations on the management buffer, explicitly positioning it as the bank’s own...
- The ECB has removed all content on supervisory expectations for the credit conversion factor (CCF) from the Guide to internal models, in anticipation of forthcoming EBA guidelines on CCF, thereby...
Suggested Considerations
- Review the ECB press release and associated lists of discontinued publications to identify any ECB guides, reports, letters or methodologies currently referenced in your internal policies, risk frameworks or model documentation that are now labelled as discontinued.
- Update internal policy inventories, regulatory mapping and compliance registers to reflect the new classification of ECB supervisory guidance as non‑binding and to distinguish clearly between binding EU/national law and non‑binding ECB expectations.
- For banks using the ICAAP Guide, perform a gap analysis of capital planning and management buffer practices against the forthcoming clarified expectations, ensuring internal documentation clearly differentiates management buffers from Pillar 2 requirements and guidance.
- For institutions using internal models for credit risk, remove any reliance on the ECB’s former CCF expectations by re‑mapping modelling policies and documentation to forthcoming EBA guidelines on credit conversion factors and to CRR/CRD provisions, once those guidelines are finalised.
- For risk and finance functions, review the CVA treatment in internal capital and risk methodologies to verify alignment with CRR III and ensure that internal references to ECB guidance (assessment methodology, materiality assessment) are updated to reflect the removed CVA content.
Key Dates
- ECB announces the comprehensive review of around 130 supervisory guidance publications, confirms discontinuation of about 40 outdated documents, and signals targeted and in‑depth revisions for the remaining guidance set
- Revised **Guide to the internal capital adequacy assessment process** is expected to be published “shortly” after the press release, incorporating clarified treatment of the management buffer and its relationship to Pillar 2 guidance
- Removal of supervisory expectations on **credit conversion factor (CCF)** from the **Guide to internal models** and the removal of **CVA references** from the **Guide on assessment methodology** and the **Guide on materiality assessment** are implemented as part of the ongoing review and alignment with EBA guidance and CRR III
- **Public consultations** will be launched on those guidance documents identified as needing substantial revision, ahead of finalising the updated versions
- Publication of the new **report on good practices in governance and risk culture**, replacing the existing Draft guide on governance and risk culture, following finalisation of the revised EBA Guidelines on internal governance
Compliance Impact
The immediate legal risk is limited because the ECB reiterates that its supervisory guidance is non‑binding and does not create new obligations, but misalignment with updated ECB expectations can materially affect SREP outcomes, Pillar 2 guidance, model approvals and licensing decisions. Failure to update internal frameworks, models and governance practices in line with the revised guidance and EBA/CRR III developments may therefore lead to higher capital guidance, increased supervisory findings, delays in approvals and more intensive supervisory scrutiny.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ECB source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankFintechPayment Provider
No description available.
Bank
No description available.
BankAsset ManagerAll Firms
No description available.
Bank
26 Jun 2026
Read more
All Firms
No description available.
Bank
No description available.
The CFTC has proposed amendments to Parts 15, 16, and 17 to establish a new reporting regime for certain covered event contracts, including a new **§16.03 “Covered Event Contracts”** provision. If adopted, the rule would require relevant market participants to report these contracts under the Parts 15 through 18 framework rather than under selected reporting provisions in Parts 38, 39, 43, and 45, making this a material compliance redesign for firms active in event contracts.
What Changed
- - The CFTC proposes an alternate reporting framework for certain fully collateralized event contracts, replacing reliance on certain reporting provisions in Parts 38, 39, 43, and 45 with reporting...
- The proposal would amend Part 15, Part 16, and Part 17 of the CFTC’s regulations.
- The proposal would add a new §16.03 titled “Covered Event Contracts” to Part 16.
- The proposal would require reporting pursuant to §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 for covered event contracts.
- The proposal would apply to reporting by certain reporting markets, futures commission merchants, clearing members, and foreign brokers.
Suggested Considerations
- Firms that list, clear, intermediate, or report covered event contracts should inventory all event-contract products and map each product to the current reporting regime and the proposed Parts 15 through 18 framework.
- Compliance teams should identify all reporting fields, systems, and workflows currently relying on Parts 38, 39, 43, or 45 for event-contract reporting and assess whether those processes would need redesign.
- FCMs, clearing members, and foreign brokers should review their data governance and source-of-truth controls to ensure they can produce the reporting elements required under §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 if the proposal is adopted.
- Firms should track the public-comment process and prepare comments if the proposed framework creates operational gaps, duplicated reporting, or ambiguities in product scope.
- Market participants should review reliance on existing no-action letters and prepare contingency plans for a transition from interim relief to a codified rule.
Key Dates
- Staff no-action letters began providing the interim reporting approach for certain fully collateralized event contracts
- The proposal will proceed through the public-comment process and could later be finalized, subject to Commission action
- CFTC staff issued a no-action letter regarding swap data reporting and recordkeeping for event contracts, reinforcing the temporary relief framework
- The CFTC published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on amendments to Parts 15, 16, and 17
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is moderate to high because the proposal could require firms to re-engineer reporting architecture, amend procedures, and retest controls for event-contract data submission. Non-compliance after final adoption could expose firms to CFTC supervisory findings, reporting deficiencies, and possible enforcement risk if required data are not reported correctly or on time.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CFTC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerBankAll Firms
CACEIS UK, an asset servicing bank, has been censured by the FCA and will make a £31.7m voluntary payment to WealthTek clients for failing to act on information that left clients exposed to the risk of financial crime. The FCA has now secured over £57m in total for WealthTek clients in just over a year, with action taken against CACEIS UK, Sapia Partners and Barclays Bank UK.CACEIS UK became WealthTek's sub-custodian in November 2020, meaning they were responsible for keeping its client’s ass...
BankWealth ManagerAsset Manager
No description available.
Asset Manager
De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) en De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) consulteren wijzigingen in regels voor financiële ondernemingen in Caribisch Nederland. Het betreft regels die zijn vastgelegd in een beleidsregel en een regeling: de Beleidsregel AFM en DNB toepassing en uitvoering Wfm BES en Wwft BES 2012 en de Regeling AFM en DNB nadere voorschriften Wfm BES en Wwft BES 2012 . De regels in deze beleidsregel en regeling zijn al enkele jaren niet integraal geactualiseerd. De regels worden ...
All Firms
This MMF Reporting Dashboard encompasses a set of indicators based on the data reported under Article 37 of the MMF Regulation, with data as from Q1/2020 onwards.
Asset Manager
Appendix to the Prudential Regulation Authority Annual Report 2025/26
BankInsuranceAll Firms
The Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Panel is a statutory panel established to provide advice to the PRA and the Bank on the preparation of CBA. The Panel provides independent input to the PRA’s and the Bank’s CBAs, helping to support increased transparency and scrutiny of their policymaking. This report covers the period from 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026.
All Firms
The Bank of England and PRA are both Prescribed Persons as defined by Parliament under The Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014.
The Bank of England and PRA, as Prescribed Persons under the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014, have published their whistleblowing annual report for the period 1 April 2025 – 31 March 2026, in line with the Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017. The report confirms continued operationalisation of whistleblowing channels, the assessment of disclosures under PIDA, and the systematic sharing of all disclosures (protected and non‑protected) with supervisors, which materially elevates supervisory and enforcement risk for PRA‑regulated firms.
What Changed
- - Prescribed Persons reporting obligations under the Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017 continue to apply, requiring the Bank and PRA to publish, within six...
- For the 2025/26 period, the Bank and PRA report that 271 disclosures were received and assessed against the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and their own statutory requirements to determine...
- Of the 271 disclosures, 257 were reasonably believed to be protected disclosures within Part IVA of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and within the Bank’s and PRA’s remit as Prescribed...
- Fourteen disclosures were assessed as not protected, including disclosures about firms not regulated by the Bank or PRA, issues outside the Bank’s or PRA’s regulatory remit, and individuals who do...
- Regardless of statutory protection status, the Bank and PRA’s whistleblowing team provided supervisory colleagues with all disclosures (protected and non‑protected) for consideration or for...
Suggested Considerations
- Establish clear internal processes for responding when the PRA or Bank contacts the firm following a whistleblowing disclosure, including immediate escalation to Compliance, Legal, and relevant Senior Managers, coordinated responses, and robust documentation of remedial actions.
Key Dates
- Start of the reporting period for the Bank of England and PRA’s 2025/26 Prescribed Persons whistleblowing report
- End of the reporting period for the 2025/26 whistleblowing disclosures referenced in the Bank and PRA report
- Latest date by which the Bank and PRA are required under the Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017 to publish the written annual report on disclosures for the 2025/26 period
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with robust whistleblowing arrangements and failure to address issues raised by whistleblowers can significantly increase prudential and conduct risk, trigger intensified supervisory scrutiny, and lead to enforcement action, including fines, business restrictions, and personal consequences for senior management under SMCR. The fact that all whistleblowing disclosures, including non‑protected ones, are provided to PRA supervisors amplifies the likelihood that unresolved internal issues will surface in firm‑specific supervisory reviews and risk assessments.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankInsuranceAll Firms
This Enforcement Decision Making Committee (EDMC) annual report covers the period of 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026.
The PRA’s EDMC annual report confirms that contested enforcement decisions remain structurally separated from investigation teams and executive decision-makers, with the EDMC acting as the independent final administrative decision-maker before any Upper Tribunal referral. For compliance teams, the key message is not a new rule change, but a reminder that PRA enforcement cases are handled through a formal, disclosure-heavy process with written and oral representations and an independent review of settled cases.
What Changed
- - The EDMC completed its annual reporting cycle for the period 1 March 2025 to 28 February 2026, confirming the continued operation of the PRA’s contested-case decision framework.
- The report confirms that the EDMC continues to provide functional separation between investigation/enforcement staff and decision-makers in PRA contested enforcement cases.
- The report confirms that the EDMC’s role covers enforcement cases under the Bank’s statutory regimes for prudential regulation, financial market infrastructure, resolution, securitisation, wholesale...
- The EDMC confirms that contested enforcement decisions are made independently, with disclosure of relevant material and the opportunity for both written and oral representations.
- The EDMC confirms that its decision is the final stage of administrative decision-making in contested PRA enforcement cases, after which the subject may refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.
Suggested Considerations
- Review your firm’s PRA enforcement response plan to ensure it supports rapid collection, review, and production of material that may be disclosed in a contested case.
- Ensure legal and compliance teams are prepared to make both written and oral representations to the EDMC if the firm becomes subject to a contested enforcement matter.
- Confirm that internal governance provides for independent escalation and board-level oversight when a PRA investigation enters the decision stage.
- Maintain an updated settlement strategy for PRA matters, including documented positions on fairness, scope of admissions, and mitigation, because the EDMC may review settlement processes retrospectively.
- Map exposure across all PRA enforcement regimes relevant to the business, including prudential regulation, FMI, resolution, securitisation, wholesale cash distribution, critical third parties, and S&NI banknote matters.
Key Dates
- Start of the reporting period covered by the EDMC annual report
- Remaining EDMC members, including the incoming Chair and Deputy Chair, are due to be appointed
- End of the reporting period covered by the EDMC annual report
- As of this date, the PRA enforcement team was overseeing five cases, including investigations into five firms and five individuals
- The EDMC annual report for 2025/26 was published
Compliance Impact
The report reinforces that PRA enforcement remains procedurally rigorous and independent, so weaknesses in document preservation, internal escalation, or representation strategy can materially worsen outcomes in contested cases. While no new enforcement rule is introduced here, firms should treat the report as evidence that the PRA’s decision-making architecture is stable, formal, and capable of escalating to tribunal litigation if matters are not resolved early.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAll FirmsInsurance
The Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) have published their annual reports. The PRA report includes information on our activities for the year ended 28 February 2026.
All Firms
No description available.
Bank
BNPL can help people to manage their cash flow. It can allow them to spread the cost of purchases and smooth their finances. But, as with any borrowing, BNPL also carries risks. Let me clear about this: BNPL has an important role to play. We don’t want to reduce or remove access to credit, but to ensure it is offered in a way that works for consumers. That's why we are introducing protections for consumers using BNPL. Consumers will benefit from clearer information before they borrow, proport...
FintechPayment ProviderAll Firms
Speech by Alison Walters, director of consumer finance at the Credit Week: Powering the Future of Finance event. We all recognise that consumer credit plays a vital role in the real economy and in people’s everyday lives, supporting households, enabling opportunity, and helping people manage financial pressures. But the world around us is changing, the credit market is changing and so are consumer demands and needs. With that in mind, it is important to consider whether the market today is fi...
BankFintechPayment Provider No description available.
The SFC has obtained worldwide freezing injunctions over the personal assets of Mr Lo Kai Bong and over assets held by his BVI vehicle, Major Success Group Limited, in support of ongoing section 214 SFO proceedings concerning LET Group Holdings Limited and Summit Ascent Holdings Limited. The orders, effective globally up to HK$146,859,320, signal that the SFC will aggressively use asset-freezing (including Chabra relief over third-party vehicles) to preserve value for potential investor remedies, including share repurchases, long after a company has been delisted.
What Changed
- - The Court of First Instance has granted a worldwide freezing injunction over the assets of Mr Lo Kai Bong, prohibiting him from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of his...
- The Court has concurrently granted a worldwide Chabra injunction over the assets of Major Success Group Limited, a BVI company wholly owned and controlled by Mr Lo, on the basis that its assets may...
- The injunctions apply to assets in Hong Kong and worldwide, significantly expanding enforcement risk beyond Hong Kong-situs assets for controlling shareholders and their offshore structures.
- The Court has ordered that both injunctions remain in effect at least until 26 August 2026, subject to further order, meaning the assets will be frozen through the lead-up to trial.
- The injunctions are explicitly tied to ongoing section 214 SFO proceedings seeking remedies for unfair prejudice and misconduct, including a share repurchase order for independent shareholders of LET...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and map all relationships with controlling shareholders, directors and their offshore vehicles to identify where client assets may be exposed to SFC-driven freezing orders or Chabra relief.
- Update internal litigation and regulatory investigations playbooks to explicitly cover section 214 SFO risks, including the potential for worldwide asset-freezing and receiver appointments even after an issuer is delisted.
- Implement enhanced due diligence on beneficial ownership and control structures, particularly BVI and other offshore vehicles used by controlling shareholders of Hong Kong-listed and recently delisted issuers.
- For banks, broker dealers and custodians, review current accounts, credit exposures, collateral and custody arrangements for clients who are directors, controlling shareholders or their vehicles in Hong Kong issuers, and identify those at heightened risk of SFC enforcement.
- Enhance early-warning triggers in compliance monitoring to escalate promptly when the SFC announces section 214 SFO proceedings or issues press releases suggesting asset preservation measures may be sought.
Key Dates
- Summit Ascent Holdings Limited is listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
- LET Group Holdings Limited is listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
- The SFC commences legal proceedings under section 214 SFO against Mr Lo, LET and Summit Ascent
- The SFC issues a press release giving further details of the section 214 proceedings against Mr Lo, LET and Summit Ascent
- The shares of LET and Summit Ascent are delisted from the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is high: failure to anticipate and manage section 214 SFO exposure can lead to personal asset freezes for directors and controllers, forced changes to corporate control through receivership, and significant operational and liquidity disruption for issuers and their financial counterparties. Non-compliance or inadequate governance around minority shareholder interests materially increases the risk of intrusive court orders, reputational damage and potential disqualification of key individuals.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SFC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerBank Today marks a major milestone in the modernisation of the UK's payments landscape, with the Retail Payments Infrastructure Board (RPIB) launching a consultation on the future design of the UK's next-generation retail payments infrastructure.
The Bank of England‑chaired Retail Payments Infrastructure Board (RPIB) has launched a formal consultation on the **design of the next‑generation UK retail payments infrastructure**, with responses due by 11 September 2026. This is a strategic, upstream change that will reshape core retail interbank rails (Faster Payments, Bacs, cheques) to support account‑to‑account point‑of‑sale payments, enhanced cross‑border functionality and a multi‑money ecosystem, creating significant medium‑term impacts for payment firms’ technology, access models, fraud controls and operational resilience.
What Changed
- - The RPIB has opened a consultation to develop a high‑level “blueprint” for the future UK retail payments infrastructure, which will underpin the National Payments Vision and inform the design to be...
- The consultation scope explicitly covers payment journeys, key design choices and priorities for the next‑generation infrastructure, rather than setting immediate prescriptive rules for firms.
- The next‑generation infrastructure is intended to support new payment methods, including account‑to‑account payments at the point of sale (in‑store and online) as a complement to card payments, and...
- Existing retail interbank payment systems (Faster Payments, Bacs, Image Clearing System) operated by Pay.UK will continue to run safely and resiliently during the transition, implying a multi‑year...
- The new infrastructure is being designed to support a multi‑money ecosystem, including existing commercial bank money and emerging forms of digital money (e‑money, tokenised deposits, systemic...
Suggested Considerations
- Identify internal stakeholders (payments product, technology, operations, legal, compliance, risk) and establish a formal project to coordinate your firm’s response to the RPIB consultation.
- Perform a gap analysis of your firm’s current use of Faster Payments, Bacs and cheque imaging, focusing on account‑to‑account capabilities, cross‑border flows, fraud and financial crime controls, customer authentication and operational resilience.
- Map and document key payment journeys relevant to your firm (e.g. point‑of‑sale account‑to‑account payments, bill payments, peer‑to‑peer transfers, ecommerce, cross‑border transactions) to enable substantive feedback on user needs and design priorities.
- Assess your firm’s strategic interest in account‑to‑account payments at the point of sale and enhanced cross‑border services, and identify functional requirements (APIs, messaging, reconciliation, chargeback‑like protections) that should be reflected in the consultation response.
- Review emerging regulatory publications under the National Payments Vision and Payments Forward Plan to ensure your consultation input aligns with expected regulatory outcomes on access, competition, resilience and innovation.
Key Dates
– Payments Vision Delivery Committee agrees the new public‑private model to deliver the next‑generation UK retail payments infrastructure under the National Payments Vision
– HM Treasury and the Bank of England are expected to publish conclusions on whether, and in what form, to proceed with a digital pound, which will influence infrastructure design and multi‑money functionality (date inferred as “later this year”)
– Retail Payments Infrastructure Board consultation on the design of the future UK retail payments infrastructure is launched
– Deadline for stakeholders to submit responses to the RPIB consultation on the next‑generation retail payments infrastructure
Compliance Impact
Non‑participation or limited engagement in this consultation increases the risk that future mandatory infrastructure changes will be misaligned with your business model, creating costly remediation, migration risks and potential non‑compliance with future access, resilience and fraud‑control obligations. In the medium term, failure to adapt systems, controls and governance to align with the redesigned infrastructure and National Payments Vision outcomes could threaten your ability to access core payment systems and maintain regulatory permissions.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Payment ProviderBankFintech Given at the 5th Conference on Financial Law and Regulation, University of Leeds School of Law, 24 June 2026
David Chaplin says the PRA is seeing a “sea change” in enforcement cases because firms and individuals are now engaging earlier, identifying breaches proactively, and remediating sooner. This matters because the PRA is formalising a more efficient investigative model that rewards early factual cooperation and early admissions, which can materially affect settlement outcomes and overall enforcement exposure.
What Changed
- - The PRA is now explicitly encouraging earlier engagement by investigation subjects, including proactive identification, acknowledgement, and remediation of breaches.
- The familiar enforcement pattern is changing from a late-stage admission model toward a front-loaded investigative model in which firms provide information earlier in the process.
- The PRA’s enforcement approach now places greater emphasis on written factual accounts and supporting materials during the initial investigative stage.
- Firms that participate early and make early admissions may obtain enhanced settlement discounts, while non-participants remain on a lower discount path.
- The Bank says this is not a new policy launch but an explanation of how the existing approach is operating in practice across live cases.
Suggested Considerations
- Review current investigation-response procedures to ensure the firm can produce a factually complete written account and supporting evidence at short notice.
- Build escalation protocols that trigger early internal fact-finding when a potential prudential breach is identified.
- Train relevant staff to distinguish between cooperation, factual admissions, and without-prejudice settlement positions so that engagement does not inadvertently prejudice legal strategy.
- Reassess whether current incident-management playbooks are aligned with the PRA’s expectation of early candour and remediation.
- Ensure legal, compliance, and business stakeholders can rapidly agree on breach acknowledgment, remediation steps, and document preservation.
Key Dates
- The PRA published Consultation Paper CP9/23, which proposed changes later reflected in the updated enforcement approach
- The Bank of England unveiled changes to the PRA’s enforcement approach, including the Early Account Scheme and the Enhanced Settlement Discount
- David Chaplin delivered the speech at the 5th Conference on Financial Law and Regulation at the University of Leeds School of Law
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance with the PRA’s expectations can increase the likelihood of a more intrusive investigation, weaker settlement leverage, and exposure to formal sanctions, including censures, financial penalties, suspensions, and individual prohibitions. The speech indicates that firms that fail to engage early may lose access to the practical benefits now emerging in enforcement handling.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankInsuranceAsset Manager Identification of obliged entities eligible for direct supervision by AMLA
Circular CSSF 26/914 identifies which Luxembourg obliged entities fall within the perimeter for **potential direct supervision by the future EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA)**, as part of the new EU-level AML/CFT supervisory architecture. This matters for compliance teams because in‑scope entities will face an additional EU supervisory layer, more intrusive AML/CFT oversight, and will need to prepare for alignment with AMLA’s methodologies, data requirements, and enforcement practices.
What Changed
- - The CSSF formally identifies Luxembourg “obliged entities” under AML/CFT law that are potentially eligible for direct AMLA supervision, clarifying which categories of firms fall into the EU‑level...
- The circular operationalises, at CSSF level, the EU allocation mechanism for direct supervision, building on Regulation (EU) 2024/… establishing AMLA and the forthcoming directly applicable AML...
- The CSSF establishes a process for providing information to AMLA on Luxembourg obliged entities (e.g. size, cross‑border activities, risk profile) to support AMLA’s periodic selection and review of...
- The circular clarifies that CSSF‑supervised entities identified as “eligible” remain under CSSF supervision unless and until AMLA formally designates them for direct supervision, at which point AMLA...
- The circular anticipates enhanced data and reporting requirements for entities assessed as eligible for AMLA direct supervision, including more granular information on cross‑border business,...
Suggested Considerations
- Determine whether your firm is likely to fall within the “eligible for AMLA direct supervision” perimeter by assessing your cross‑border footprint, ML/TF risk profile, group structure, and relative size against AMLA’s high‑risk and cross‑border criteria.
- Review and update the firm‑wide AML/CFT risk assessment to ensure it is robust, data‑driven, and aligned with an EU‑level supervisory perspective, including explicit consideration of cross‑border risks, complex group structures, and high‑risk products.
- Strengthen AML/CFT governance and oversight, including Board and senior management reporting, to demonstrate clear ownership of ML/TF risk, documented risk appetite, and effective challenge consistent with what AMLA expects from directly supervised entities.
- Review and, where necessary, enhance customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, screening and suspicious activity reporting frameworks to withstand more intrusive and harmonised EU‑level scrutiny.
- Map and document cross‑border business lines and passporting activities (branches, agents, tied intermediaries, distributors) to ensure you can provide complete and up‑to‑date information to the CSSF and AMLA on request.
Key Dates
- AMLA formally designates its first batch of directly supervised obliged entities at EU level, potentially including entities identified under this circular
- CSSF publishes Circular 26/914 identifying obliged entities eligible for direct supervision by AMLA and setting the framework for Luxembourg’s contribution to AMLA’s selection and supervisory process
- Periodic reviews by AMLA and the CSSF of eligible entities’ status and updates to the list of entities subject to, or proposed for, direct AMLA supervision
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is high for any entity that is, or may become, eligible for AMLA direct supervision, given the likely increase in supervisory intensity, data expectations, and EU‑level enforcement risk. Non‑compliance could result in sanctions from both AMLA and national authorities, including significant administrative fines, business restrictions, remediation mandates, and reputational damage across the EU.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankPayment ProviderCrypto Exchange OSFI launches quicker, clearer, more predictable approvals path for eligible new entrants
BankFintechPayment Provider
MAS announced that a Future of Finance Institute will be established to accelerate the adoption of new financial technologies and catalyse innovation in the financial sector.
At the ABS Annual Dinner 2026, Mr Gan Kim Yong, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Trade and Industry, and Chairman of MAS, spoke about Singapore’s role as a trusted connector in a changing world – connecting capital to growth and resilience, innovation to trust and adoption, and finance to people and the real economy.
BankPayment ProviderAll Firms
MAS and ABS are exploring four areas of enhancements to Singapore's national instant payments infrastructure as part of a PayNow Generation 2 study.
BankPayment ProviderFintech
DFSA Annual Report 2025: the DFSA records third consecutive year of double-digit…
All Firms
The Securities and Exchange Commission has appointed Kathleen M. Hutchinson as Director of the agency’s Office of International Affairs (OIA). OIA advises the Commission on international policy matters, coordinates with foreign authorities across the…
All Firms
No description available.
Crypto ExchangePayment ProviderAll Firms
Given at the World Resources Institute, London
BankAll Firms
No description available.
Bank
Speech by Nikhil Rathi, FCA chief executive at techUK's Agents of Change: Generative and Agentic AI in Financial Services 2026. On joining the FCA over five years ago, I said we would become as much a data and tech regulator as financial services regulator.Being invited to speak here today reflects that.We’re building the future together, and nowhere is that clearer than on AI.Studies suggest more than 80% of financial services firms are already adopting AI.So the question now is about scale....
All Firms
The FCA is concerned 11 traders may have shared sensitive information or coordinated trades, potentially restricting competition. Following an investigation, the FCA is concerned 11 traders may have hindered competition in commodity futures markets and infringed competition law by exchanging potentially sensitive information about their trading and/or coordinating their trading strategies with each other.The traders have proposed commitments to change the way they handle sensitive information...
Broker Dealer
Investment advice Sustainable Finance The AMF has introduced a new methodology for document-based inspections of financial investment advisor
Wealth ManagerAsset Manager
No description available.
Crypto ExchangeFintechPayment Provider
Perez Llorca Launches Operations In Abu Dhabi
All Firms
ASIC lifts bonnet on car finance costs and distribution concerns
BankFintechBroker Dealer
Published for the Treasury Select Committee
All Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerCrypto Exchange
The Energy Transition Acceleration Finance partnership (ETAF) seeks to mobilise capital into earlier-stage or higher-risk energy transition infrastructure investments where financing is not otherwise available at a sufficient scale, tenor, or risk appetite. As these investments mature and their risk profiles improve over time, ETAF aims to crowd in a broader pool of commercial and institutional investors.
Asset ManagerBankAll Firms
No description available.
The CFTC has filed a federal lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Kentucky (23 June 2026) to stop the state from using gambling‑style enforcement actions and a special transaction fee to effectively shut down CFTC‑registered designated contract markets (DCMs), including prediction markets. The case is a direct assertion of the CFTC’s *exclusive federal jurisdiction* over futures, options, and swaps, and it materially raises the compliance stakes for any CFTC‑registered market, intermediary, or participant operating in or targeted by state gambling or consumer‑protection regimes.
What Changed
- - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
- Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
- Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
- The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
- The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
- Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
- Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
- Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
- Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.
Key Dates
- CFTC files its lawsuit against Kentucky to block enforcement actions and special transaction fees against CFTC‑registered DCMs
- Key procedural milestones in *CFTC v. Kentucky* (motion practice, preliminary injunction hearings, and potential appellate review), which will shape how quickly and broadly federal preemption over prediction markets is clarified
- Progression of related CFTC suits and amicus‑briefed appeals in the Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will collectively define the jurisdictional perimeter for event contracts
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance, or mismanagement of overlapping state and federal regimes, can result in significant state‑level monetary penalties, special fees, potential orders to cease operations, and parallel federal enforcement or supervisory actions. The litigation also increases reputational and regulatory‑relationship risk for firms seen as disregarding the emerging federal–state boundary around prediction markets.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CFTC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerHedge FundCrypto Exchange MiCA Investment services End of the MiCA transitional period: ESMA sets out its expectations of professionals and warns retail investors
Crypto ExchangeFintechAll Firms
MiCA Financial services providers Europe & international ESMA Public statement: ESMA calls on unauthorised crypto-asset service providers to wind down orderly, while also safeguarding clients’ interests, as MiCA transitional period ends
Crypto ExchangeFintech
No description available.
Broker DealerAll Firms
Given at the Barclays-CEPR Monetary Policy Forum, London
Bank
No description available.
The SFC has concluded its consultation and confirmed it will **implement an investor identification regime for Hong Kong’s exchange‑traded derivatives market (HKIDR‑DM)**, mirroring the existing HKIDR-S regime for the securities market. The regime will require derivatives brokers and proprietary traders to submit client identity data for on‑exchange futures and options orders into a central repository from **Q2 2028**, creating significant new data, systems, and privacy compliance obligations.
What Changed
- - The SFC will implement the Hong Kong Investor Identification Regime for the Derivatives Market (HKIDR‑DM), extending investor ID requirements from securities (HKIDR‑S) to exchange‑traded...
- HKIDR‑DM will apply to on‑exchange orders for futures contracts, options contracts and stock options executed through the trading system of Hong Kong Futures Exchange Limited (HKFE).
- Licensed corporations and registered institutions which offer brokerage services or conduct proprietary trading in HKFE‑traded derivatives will be required to submit clients’ names and identity...
- The operational model of HKIDR‑DM will be similar to HKIDR‑S, implying the use of unique client identifiers and order‑level tagging across trading, middle office and reporting systems.
- Implementation of HKIDR‑DM is targeted for the second quarter of 2028, subject to successful completion of system testing and market rehearsals.
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct a gap analysis comparing existing HKIDR‑S securities processes with expected HKIDR‑DM derivatives requirements, covering data fields, identifiers, and order tagging for futures and options.
- Identify all business lines and systems that submit or route HKFE on‑exchange futures, options and stock options orders, and map required integration points with the HKIDR‑DM centralised data repository.
- Design and implement or adapt a client identification and coding framework (e.g. investor IDs or broker‑to‑client numbers) for derivatives clients, ensuring consistency across securities and derivatives where clients trade both.
- Review and update client onboarding, KYC and data collection forms to ensure capture of all identity information required under HKIDR‑DM, including for existing derivatives clients.
- Develop and implement data protection and privacy controls to manage personal data submitted under HKIDR‑DM, including access controls, retention policies, and compliance with Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.
Key Dates
- SFC consultation on HKIDR‑DM published (page last updated on this date)
- End of three‑month consultation period; last date for submissions to SFC on HKIDR‑DM proposals
- Target implementation of HKIDR‑DM, concurrent with HKEX’s launch of the Orion Derivatives Platform, subject to completion of system testing and market rehearsals
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with HKIDR‑DM is likely to result in an inability to submit derivatives orders to HKFE, regulatory breaches of SFC conduct requirements, and potential enforcement action, including fines and licence implications. The impact is therefore high for any firm active in Hong Kong’s exchange‑traded derivatives market, requiring multi‑year planning and investment in systems and controls.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SFC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerBankHedge Fund No description available.
Bank
This May 2026 report contains an update of the latest consumer price developments in Singapore, prepared by MAS and the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
All Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
BankBroker DealerInsurance Good morning. It is a pleasure to welcome you this morning to the Central Bank of Ireland and to the tenth annual Macroprudential Conference, organised jointly with the Deutsche Bundesbank, the Nederlandsche Bank, and the Sveriges Riksbank. Let me begin by thanking the scientific committee for bringing together such a distinguished group of policymakers and researchers, and for developing a programme that is both ambitious and timely. Let me also note that it is the first time the conference ...
BankAll Firms
1) high-risk jurisdictions on which enhanced due diligence and, where appropriate, counter-measures are imposed2) jurisdictions under increased monitoring of the FATFVersion of 19 June 2026
CSSF published a new **Annex to Circular CSSF 22/822** on **22 June 2026**, updating the Luxembourg regulator’s reference list of FATF **high-risk jurisdictions** and **jurisdictions under increased monitoring**. For compliance teams, this matters because AML/CFT country-risk scoring, enhanced due diligence triggers, and sanctions-style controls must be aligned to the current FATF position reflected by CSSF.
What Changed
- - CSSF republished the annex to Circular CSSF 22/822 in a Version of 19 June 2026, meaning firms should treat this as the current Luxembourg reference point for FATF jurisdiction screening and...
- The annex distinguishes between high-risk jurisdictions subject to enhanced due diligence and, where appropriate, counter-measures, and jurisdictions under increased monitoring that require...
- The publication incorporates the FATF’s current statements on jurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT/CPF deficiencies, which is the basis for operational country-risk controls used by...
- The related Circular CSSF 22/822 remains the framework document that instructs professionals to use FATF statements when assessing jurisdictional ML/TF/PF risk.
Suggested Considerations
- Review your AML/CFT country-risk methodology and update it to reflect the 19 June 2026 FATF/CSSF jurisdiction list.
- Re-screen customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, and transactions against the updated high-risk and monitored jurisdiction lists.
- Apply enhanced due diligence for relationships and transactions involving high-risk jurisdictions, and escalate where counter-measures may be required.
- Reassess risk ratings for customers linked to jurisdictions under increased monitoring and document the rationale for any continued onboarding, retention, or exit decisions.
- Update automated screening rules, transaction-monitoring scenarios, and onboarding checklists so they use the current CSSF annex version.
Key Dates
- Circular CSSF 22/822 was issued, establishing the framework for using FATF statements on high-risk jurisdictions and jurisdictions under increased monitoring
- The annex was updated to this version date, reflecting the current FATF jurisdiction lists and associated risk posture
- CSSF published the annex on its website, making the updated reference document operationally relevant for supervised firms
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance can lead to supervisory findings, remediation orders, and possible enforcement action where firms fail to apply risk-sensitive AML controls consistent with CSSF/FATF expectations. The practical impact is highest for onboarding, correspondent-like relationships, cross-border payments, and any business line exposed to higher-risk jurisdictions.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
On 18 June 2026, Monevium Ltd (Monevium) entered special administration. Adam Henry Stephens and Christopher Allen of S&W Partners LLP (S&W) were appointed as special administrators. Monevium is authorised by the FCA to provide payment services. On 28 February 2024, Monevium agreed to a voluntary undertaking, which restricted the activities it can carry out. See details on the Financial Services Register.
Payment Provider
The FCA has set out plans to drive greater consistency of standards in self-invested pensions (SIPPs), while maintaining the flexibility and broad investment choice they offer. Most SIPP providers are already doing the right thing and providing a good service to their customers. However, the FCA has historically found cases of poor due diligence, weak record keeping and gaps in how firms protect money and assets. To drive greater consistency, the FCA is proposing clear standards of due dilige...
Wealth ManagerAsset Manager
Property developer David McWilliams charged over $10 million fraud scheme
Asset ManagerAll Firms
ESMA publishes the register of external reviewers under the EuGB Regulation 22 June 2026 Supervision The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published the register of firms authorised to act as external reviewers of European Green Bonds. External reviewers play a key role in ensuring that the use of proceeds of European Green Bonds is allocated in line with the EU Taxonomy requirements. They are also vital in boostin...
Asset ManagerAll Firms
The Central Bank of Ireland has today launched a public consultation seeking views on its approach to Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and on its approach to consultation with stakeholders. The consultation forms part of the Central Bank’s ongoing work to deliver a more effective and efficient regulatory framework, building on our recent new supervisory approach and roadmap of regulatory initiatives . It reflects the Central Bank’s commitment to ensuring that regulation remains clear, coher...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has launched a public consultation (closing 30 September 2026) on its **Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) framework** and on how it consults with stakeholders, as part of its wider programme to make Irish financial regulation more effective, efficient, and proportionate. For compliance teams, this is a key opportunity and a warning: the way the CBI designs, justifies, consults on, and reviews future rules will be formalised and made more evidence‑based, which will directly affect the cost, complexity, and predictability of future regulatory change across all sectors.
What Changed
- - The CBI has opened a public consultation on its approach to Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), seeking views on how it should weigh evidence, assess costs and impacts, and structure its analysis...
- The consultation also covers the CBI’s approach to stakeholder consultation, including how it engages with industry, civil society, consumer representatives, the public, policymakers, and peer...
- The initiative sits within the CBI’s broader “more effective and efficient regulatory framework” programme, which includes a new supervisory approach and a roadmap of regulatory initiatives,...
- The CBI aims to make regulation clear, coherent and proportionate, explicitly linking rule‑making to protections for consumers, investors, and financial stability, and to the resilience of the...
- The CBI is moving towards a more structured, transparent, and evidence‑based policymaking process, where the rationale for regulatory interventions, the analysis of options, and the assessment of...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct an internal review of your firm’s experience with recent CBI consultations (e.g. Consumer Protection Code, governance, outsourcing, AML, reporting) and document challenges, costs, and data gaps that could be addressed through a more robust RIA and consultation framework.
- Prepare and submit a response to the CBI consultation by 30 September 2026, either directly or via relevant industry associations, setting out detailed expectations on how RIA should address compliance costs, operational impacts, proportionality for smaller firms, and implementation lead times.
- Update your regulatory affairs or public policy strategy to explicitly incorporate the emerging CBI RIA framework, including criteria for when to engage, escalation thresholds for high‑impact proposals, and internal approval processes for consultation submissions.
- For Irish‑authorised groups operating cross‑border, align your approach to CBI RIA engagement with EU‑level impact assessment practices (e.g. European Commission and ESAs) to ensure consistency in messaging and evidence on cumulative regulatory burden and competitiveness.
- Monitor subsequent CBI publications (including the forthcoming feedback statement, revised Corporate Governance Codes, and sectoral plans) to identify where the new RIA framework is being applied and to anticipate where the CBI may seek additional data or structured feedback from firms.
Key Dates
– CBI publishes its roadmap “Regulating & Supervising Well – a more effective and efficient framework”, committing to a public consultation on a new Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Framework in H1 2026 and outlining a multi‑year programme of regulatory and supervisory reforms from H1 2026 to H1 2028
– CBI launches the public consultation on its approach to RIA and stakeholder consultation, alongside references to its new supervisory approach and roadmap of regulatory initiatives
– Target window identified in the roadmap for the public consultation on the new RIA Framework; this is now operationalised by the consultation launched on 22 June 2026
– CBI will consider all submissions and publish a feedback statement setting out its finalised approach to RIA and consultation, which will then guide the design of future regulatory initiatives
– Roadmap foresees drafting of revised Corporate Governance Codes for consultation, which are likely to be shaped by, and potentially used to pilot, the new RIA framework and consultation approach once finalised
Compliance Impact
In the short term, the consultation does not impose new binding obligations but shapes the procedural framework for all future CBI rule‑making, making early engagement strategically important for managing long‑term compliance cost and regulatory uncertainty. Over the medium term, once the RIA and consultation frameworks are finalised, firms that fail to engage effectively in consultations may find themselves facing more onerous or misaligned requirements with limited scope for later challenge or adjustment.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerInsurance Good regulation matters. It matters for consumers and for investors. It matters for firms and the wider economy, and for resilience and the stability of the financial system. In the Central Bank, regulation is central to how we deliver our safeguarding outcomes: protecting consumers and investors, maintaining financial stability, supporting the safety and soundness of firms, and protecting the integrity of the financial system. As I have said before, good regulation should be forward looking,...
All Firms
Application of the Guidelines of the European Banking Authority on ancillary services undertakings specifying the criteria for the identification of activities referred to in Article 4(1)(18) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (EBA/GL/2026/01)
What Changed
- - The CSSF has formally applied the EBA Guidelines on ancillary services undertakings specified in EBA/GL/2026/01 for identifying activities under Article 4(1)(18) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
- Firms must assess whether a non-bank activity or group entity qualifies as an ancillary services undertaking under the EBA criteria, rather than relying on internal labels or informal business...
- The regulatory perimeter analysis now needs to consider whether relevant activities are performed within a banking group in a way that affects prudential consolidation and supervisory treatment.
- Institutions should expect the CSSF to use the EBA framework as the benchmark for determining whether an activity is sufficiently connected to banking support functions to fall within the ancillary...
- Compliance evidence will need to show a documented, reproducible assessment of each potentially relevant activity against the EBA identification criteria.
Suggested Considerations
- Review all group entities and business lines to identify activities that may fall within the definition of an ancillary services undertaking under Article 4(1)(18) CRR.
- Document a formal assessment methodology for classifying activities against the EBA/GL/2026/01 criteria.
- Reconfirm the prudential consolidation perimeter and ensure all ancillary service entities are correctly included or excluded, with the reasoning retained for supervisory review.
- Update legal entity inventories, regulatory mapping, and governance documents so they align with the CSSF’s adopted EBA framework.
- Test whether existing internal reporting, risk management, and control frameworks capture any newly identified ancillary services undertakings.
Key Dates
- Circular CSSF 26/913 is published and the CSSF confirms application of EBA/GL/2026/01
- Firms should apply the CSSF’s expectations from the date the circular becomes applicable, if that date is specified in the full circular text or accompanying CSSF notice
- Affected firms should complete internal perimeter reviews and any resulting governance or reporting updates by the first supervisory reporting cycle after application
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is moderate to high because the main risk is misclassification of entities or activities within the prudential perimeter, which can lead to supervisory findings, reporting errors, or consolidation issues. Non-compliance may result in CSSF remediation expectations, delayed approvals, or corrective supervisory action if a firm’s entity mapping is inconsistent with the EBA criteria.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAll Firms
The Bank of England has today published its policy statement and draft Code of Practice (rules) for systemic stablecoin issuers.
The Bank of England has issued a policy statement and draft **Code of Practice** setting out the prudential and conduct framework for **sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoin issuers**, replacing earlier consultation proposals with a more business‑viable model. For compliance teams, the key changes are a revised backing‑asset composition (70% gilts / 30% BoE deposits vs the previously consulted 60%/40%) and a shift from **per‑holder limits** to a **£40 billion per‑coin issuance guardrail**, plus a clear timetable to finalise rules by end‑2026 and enable UK‑regulated systemic stablecoins from 2027.
What Changed
- - The Bank of England has published a policy statement “Sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins” (22 June 2026) and a draft Code of Practice that will constitute the primary rulebook for systemic...
- The regime applies only to systemic sterling‑denominated stablecoins used for UK payments, i.e. stablecoins recognised as systemic under Banking Act 2009 tests where disruption could threaten UK...
- The previous proposal that at least 40% of backing assets be unremunerated central bank deposits and up to 60% in short‑term UK government debt has been revised so that up to 70% of backing assets...
- Backing assets must remain highly liquid and low‑risk, with central bank deposits used explicitly to support prompt redemption in stress, while the expanded gilt component is intended to improve the...
- The BoE has dropped the earlier concept of temporary per‑holder limits (for example, £20,000 per individual and £10 million per business that were consulted on in 2025) and replaced them with a...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct a regulatory perimeter and recognition analysis to determine whether any issued or planned sterling‑denominated stablecoin could meet the Banking Act 2009 systemic tests and therefore fall under the BoE systemic stablecoin regime.
- Review and update treasury and investment policies for stablecoin backing assets to ensure the portfolio structure can comply with the revised requirement of up to 70% short‑term UK government debt and the remainder in BoE deposits.
- Perform detailed liquidity and redemption stress‑testing to evidence that central bank deposits and gilt portfolios can support prompt redemption under extreme but plausible scenarios while remaining within the £40 billion issuance guardrail.
- Re‑calibrate business plans and revenue models for systemic stablecoin issuance to reflect the increased allowable share of interest‑bearing gilts, the absence of per‑holder limits, and continued constraints on paying interest to coinholders.
- Design and implement governance and risk‑management frameworks that meet BoE expectations for systemic payment systems, including Board‑level oversight, risk appetite for digital money, and clear accountability for prudential and operational risks.
Key Dates
- UK Government publishes its National Payments Vision, which provides the policy backdrop for a UK regime on digital money, including stablecoins
- BoE consultation paper “Proposed regulatory regime for sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins” is published, setting out the initial framework, including 60% cap on gilts and per‑holder limits
- BoE Financial Stability Paper on “The role of holding limits for sterling‑denominated systemic stablecoins and a potential digital pound” is published, exploring the macro‑prudential rationale for quantitative limits
- BoE intends to finalise the Code of Practice and supporting rules for systemic sterling‑denominated stablecoins, following the consultation feedback
- Sarah Breeden speech “Talking ’bout next generation” elaborates on digital money and the proposed stablecoin regime
Compliance Impact
The regime is high‑impact and prudentially stringent, and non‑compliance could result in refusal of systemic recognition, restrictions on issuance, enforcement actions under the Banking Act 2009, and forced wind‑down or restructuring of stablecoin businesses. Given the 2027 go‑live and the depth of prudential, safeguarding, and operational changes required, firms intending to issue or support systemic sterling stablecoins face a multi‑year transformation programme with material supervisory scrutiny.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
FintechPayment ProviderBank For the first time, investors and market participants can access a single, real-time source of prices and trading activity across the UK bond market, following the launch of its bond consolidated tape, operated by ETS Connect UK. Until now, data on bond trades was scattered across multiple sources, making it difficult to get a clear and complete picture of market activity. The new service brings it all together in one place.The launch builds on changes to the UK's bond market transparency rul...
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerWealth Manager
No description available.
Insurance
This Market Notice sets out the schedule for sales in Q3 2026 of gilts held in the Asset Purchase Facility (APF) for monetary policy purposes.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Bank
implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
All Firms
implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
All Firms
Version 1
Asset Manager
under Article 5(4)(b)(iv) of the Law of 2013 and/or Article 101(3)(b), fourth indent of the Law of 2010 as introduced by the Law of 3 March 2026, transposing Directive (EU) 2024/927 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2024
Asset Manager
No description available.
BankPayment Provider
No description available.
The CSSF has introduced two **mandatory standardised application forms** for authorisation of UCITS **domestic mergers** under the Luxembourg Law of 17 December 2010 and **outbound cross‑border mergers** where the receiving UCITS is located in another EU Member State under Directive 2009/65/EC. From 19 June 2026, any new UCITS merger authorisation request of these types must use the new forms and be filed by email with the full supporting documentation required by the applicable UCITS merger provisions.
What Changed
- - The CSSF has created a standardised “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS domestic merger” specifically for merger authorisation requests where both merging and receiving UCITS are...
- The CSSF has created a standardised “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS outbound cross‑border merger” for mergers where the merging UCITS is Luxembourg‑authorised and the receiving UCITS...
- Use of the two new forms is mandatory for all new merger authorisation applications submitted to the CSSF from 19 June 2026 onwards; legacy formats (ad‑hoc letters or bespoke templates) may no longer...
- Each application form must be “duly completed” and accompanied by all documents required under the applicable UCITS merger regulations, including the common draft terms of merger, updated prospectus...
- The CSSF has specified a centralised submission channel for these applications: completed forms and supporting documentation must be sent to amendments.uci@cssf.lu, aligning merger filings with the...
Suggested Considerations
- Identify all current and planned UCITS domestic and outbound cross‑border merger projects and determine which will have CSSF authorisation requests submitted on or after 19 June 2026 so that the new forms are used.
- Download and review in detail the “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS domestic merger” and “Application form for authorisation of a UCITS outbound cross‑border merger” and map each field of the forms to existing internal data sources and documents.
- Update internal UCITS merger procedures and checklists to replace any existing CSSF filing templates with the new standardised forms and to include the requirement that all merger authorisation applications are submitted to amendments.uci@cssf.lu.
- Train legal, product, operations and compliance staff involved in UCITS mergers on how to complete the new forms accurately, including coordination of information across the prospectus, KIIDs/KIDs, common draft merger terms, depositary statements and shareholder communications.
- Review and, where necessary, update board and governance templates (board minutes, resolutions approving merger terms) to ensure they produce all information that the new forms require to be confirmed or attached.
Key Dates
- CSSF communiqué published announcing the two new merger authorisation forms for UCITS domestic mergers and UCITS outbound cross‑border mergers
- **Start of mandatory use of the new forms** for all **new merger authorisation applications** filed with the CSSF; applications submitted from this date must use the new templates and be sent to amendments.uci@cssf.lu
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance (e.g. using outdated templates or submitting incomplete forms) is likely to result in the CSSF treating the file as inadmissible or incomplete, delaying merger authorisation and potentially requiring postponement of planned merger effective dates. Repeated deficiencies or failure to comply with the standardised process may also raise supervisory concerns about the firm’s governance and regulatory controls around UCITS product actions.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundWealth Manager ASIC bans Brett Anthony Newbound from providing financial services for 10 years and cancels licenses of Freedom Wealth Services Pty Ltd
Wealth Manager
Full Federal Court dismisses ASIC appeal on HCF Life unfair contract term finding
Insurance
Former Metigy CEO David Fairfull sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment
Fintech
ESMA contributes to global CCP fire drill exercise 19 June 2026 CCP In November 2025, 38 central counterparties (‘CCPs’) from across the world, together with clearing members, conducted a coordinated fire drill exercise simulating the failure of a hypothetical common participant. Known as the CCP Global International Default Simulation (CIDS), the exercise aimed to promote preparedness and coordination across jurisdictions. ESMA participated in the lead authorities’ group together with Bundes...
ESMA has announced its participation as a lead authority in the 2025 CCP Global International Default Simulation (CIDS), a coordinated multi-jurisdictional default-management “fire drill” involving 38 CCPs and their clearing members, simulating the failure of a common participant in November 2025. This is not a new binding rule but it signals heightened supervisory expectations on default management, cross-CCP coordination, porting, and operational resilience, which EU CCPs and clearing members should treat as de facto supervisory standards.
What Changed
- - Supervisory expectations are raised for standardisation and reduction of fragmentation in CCP default-management procedures and communication conventions, with a strong push toward harmonised...
- Lead authorities explicitly promote greater use of portal-based solutions (rather than ad hoc email or bespoke channels) for communication, information sharing, and auction-related workflows between...
- Authorities call for more realistic testing of porting arrangements, including end-to-end operational tests that reflect real-life constraints (documentation, client consent, timing of transfers, and...
- The lead authorities propose considering a voluntary “market stress overlay” module in future CIDS exercises, creating a coherent cross-CCP macro stress scenario to test whether operational capacity...
- ESMA confirms that global CCP fire drills are now a core component of system-wide resilience expectations, effectively embedding regular multi-CCP default simulations into ongoing supervisory...
Suggested Considerations
- CCPs should review and update their default management procedures to align with emerging cross-CCP standards, including harmonised communication conventions, standardised information templates, and coordinated auction timelines.
- Clearing members should conduct a cross-CCP gap analysis of their default-management playbooks to ensure they can support simultaneous auctions and calls from multiple CCPs without creating operational bottlenecks.
- CCPs and clearing members should implement or upgrade portal-based communication and workflow tools for default events, replacing fragmented email- or spreadsheet-based processes where feasible.
- Clearing brokers and client-clearing firms should test and, where necessary, redesign their porting arrangements (including client consent, documentation, booking models, and operational capacity) to ensure they can port positions and collateral under stressed but realistic timelines.
- Risk and operations teams at CCPs and clearing members should incorporate findings from the 2023 and 2025 CIDS exercises into their internal default-management training, drills, and board reporting on operational resilience.
Key Dates
– Week-long 2023 Global CCP fire drill coordinated by ESMA and other authorities, simulating the default of a hypothetical major clearing member across more than 30 CCPs
– Kick-off meeting for the second industry-led multi-CCP default simulation (CIDS 2025) organised by CCP Global in Singapore, setting parameters and expectations for the 2025 exercise
– Start of the 2025 CCP Global International Default Simulation (CIDS) multi-CCP fire drill window (up to 7 November 2025 for some CCPs), simulating the failure of a hypothetical common participant
– Debrief meeting in Singapore for CIDS 2025 participants to discuss operational outcomes, bottlenecks, and potential improvements
– ESMA and the lead authorities publish the 2025 CIDS key findings and recommendations, outlining expectations for further progress in standardisation, porting, portal-based solutions, and potential market stress overlay modules
Compliance Impact
The immediate legal impact is indirect, as the publication itself does not amend EMIR or introduce binding RTS/ITS, but it clearly elevates supervisory expectations on default management, porting, and operational resilience for CCPs and clearing members. Failure to adapt to these expectations may expose firms to supervisory criticism, remediation demands, and heightened scrutiny of their default management, operational resilience, and governance frameworks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager No description available.
Asset Manager
No description available.
Asset Manager
Good morning and thank you to BIPAR for inviting me to speak at your event today, as we approach the start of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. As the financial sector continues to evolve, the contribution of intermediaries remains as important as ever. Around 2,500 of the 3,300 firms the Central Bank of Ireland supervises are retail intermediaries. They provide a critical distribution channel for insurance, pensions, investments and mortgages. The extensive network o...
All Firms
No description available.
Bank
No description available.
Bank
Per 19 juni treedt de herziene Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive (DMFSD) in werking. De DMFSD bevat regels ter bescherming van consumenten bij het online sluiten van overeenkomsten voor financiële diensten. De regels gaan over precontractuele informatie, een ontbindingsrecht voor consumenten en bepalingen voor online interfaces. De regels voor online interfaces zijn complex en belangrijk voor de bescherming van consumenten. Daarom vragen we de markt om extra aandacht voor dez...
BankFintechCrypto Exchange The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has today published a consultation on the internal model approach to market risk (IMA), which represents the final piece of Basel 3.1’s implementation in the UK.
The PRA has launched a consultation on targeted adjustments to the **Basel 3.1 internal model approach (IMA) for market risk**, confirming that IMA will still go live in the UK on 01 January 2028 while refining key aspects of profit-and-loss attribution (PLA), modellability, mixed IMA/standardised use, and operational requirements. These changes matter for compliance teams because they alter how trading book risks can qualify for IMA capital treatment, affect the transition path from standardised to IMA, and require updates to model governance, documentation, and implementation plans ahead of the Basel 3.1 go‑live dates in 2027 and 2028.
What Changed
- - The PRA confirms that the Basel 3.1 internal model approach for market risk (FRTB‑IMA) will be implemented in the UK on 01 January 2028, with no further delay to the already-announced date.
- The PRA proposes to extend the monitoring period for the profit and loss attribution (PLA) test from one year to three years before PLA outcomes are used to drive capital consequences for IMA trading...
- The PRA proposes a more targeted approach for positions with limited trading data, adjusting the identification of risks that cannot be modelled under IMA so that more positions can be treated as...
- The PRA proposes to modify the treatment of positions subject to a mix of IMA and standardised approaches, to avoid scenarios where capital requirements increase mechanically as firms gradually...
- The PRA proposes operational simplifications and amendments to the IMA rules to improve proportionality, including simplifications in how firms evidence modellability, run tests, and manage the...
Suggested Considerations
- Review the PRA consultation on the Basel 3.1 market risk internal model approach in detail and map each proposed change (PLA monitoring, modellability, mixed‑use treatment, operational simplifications) to current and planned IMA designs and policies.
- Update the Basel 3.1 implementation roadmap for market risk to reflect that all non‑IMA Basel 3.1 rules start in January 2027, while IMA goes live on 01 January 2028, ensuring dependencies between standardised and IMA implementations are clearly sequenced.
- Reassess the design, calibration, and governance of the profit and loss attribution framework to accommodate a three‑year monitoring period, including data retention, desk‑level analytics, exception management, and documentation of PRA engagement during the monitoring phase.
- Perform an inventory of trading book risk factors and positions with limited trading data and assess how the PRA’s more targeted approach to non‑modellable risks will change modellability classifications, capital impacts, and desk‑level model scope.
- Analyse current and planned use of mixed IMA and standardised approaches across desks to ensure that migration pathways do not inadvertently increase capital requirements and adjust transition plans, capital forecasts, and management information accordingly.
Key Dates
- All Basel 3.1 rules other than the internal model approach for market risk come into force in the UK, including the new market risk standardised approaches and trading book boundary rules
- The PRA’s adjusted internal model approach for market risk (FRTB‑IMA), as refined through this consultation, comes into effect; IMA capital requirements and associated reporting and testing obligations apply from this date
Compliance Impact
Failure to adapt Basel 3.1 IMA implementation plans to the PRA’s adjusted framework could result in higher than necessary capital requirements, delayed or refused IMA permissions, and potential supervisory findings on model risk management and governance. For firms with significant trading books, misalignment with the new IMA rules will have material prudential, profitability, and strategic implications.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker Dealer
Consultation paper 9/26
The PRA has issued CP9/26, a consultation on targeted adjustments to the **Basel 3.1 market risk Internal Model Approach (IMA)** that was finalized in PS1/26. The main compliance significance is that it refines how firms can use market risk models, including capital caps, collective investment undertaking treatment, reporting/disclosure, and other operational clarifications, while preserving the PRA’s objective of robust model standards and closer international consistency.
What Changed
- - The PRA is consulting on a targeted set of adjustments to the market risk IMA rules and related policy materials that were finalized in PS1/26.
- The proposals include replacing the existing partial caps on IMA capital with a permission-based cap on IMA capital at the full ASA level.
- The PRA proposes to adjust the treatment of collective investment undertakings (CIUs) by introducing a 90% de minimis look-through threshold for IMA inclusion.
- The PRA proposes to extend the ASA treatment of index-tracking funds to IMA.
- The PRA proposes to update reporting and disclosure obligations so they align with the revised IMA framework.
Suggested Considerations
- Review the proposed IMA amendments in CP9/26 against current Basel 3.1 implementation plans and identify where trading desk, model, and capital calculations would change.
- Assess whether any current or planned IMA portfolios would be affected by the proposed permission-based cap at the full ASA level.
- Recalculate the implications of the proposed 90% CIU de minimis look-through threshold for portfolio classification and capital treatment.
- Check whether index-tracking fund positions should be re-mapped under the proposed extension of ASA treatment to IMA.
- Update reporting and disclosure implementation workstreams to reflect the PRA’s proposed alignment changes.
Key Dates
- PS1/26 finalized the PRA’s market risk IMA rules that this consultation seeks to adjust
- CP9/26 is in force as an open consultation for industry response
- Consultation responses are due to the PRA
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is material but targeted: firms using, or planning to use, the IMA must update model governance, capital methodology, and reporting/disclosure processes to match the revised framework. Failure to adapt could lead to miscalculated market risk capital, supervisory challenge, delayed approvals, or remediation expectations if a firm relies on outdated IMA assumptions.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original PRA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAll Firms
Warning regarding unregulated entities
Broker DealerAll Firms
Peter Routledge, Superintendent at the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), gives OSFI Domestic Stability Buffer (DSB) Announcement
Bank
OSFI lowers Domestic Stability Buffer to 3.0% so Canada's largest banks can deploy more capital
Bank
No description available.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerAsset Manager
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued a joint request for public comment on potential opportunities to further update, clarify, and harmonize certain derivatives product definitions and…
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
No description available.
Crypto ExchangeFintech
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission today issued a joint request for public comment on potential opportunities to harmonize, modernize, and streamline data reporting requirements in their regulation of the…
Broker DealerBankAll Firms
The Bank's Court of Directors acts as a unitary board, setting the organisation's strategy and budget and taking key decisions on resourcing and appointments. Required to meet a minimum seven times per year, it has five executive members from the Bank and up to nine non-executive members.
Bank
Per 20 november 2026 treedt de herziene richtlijn consumentenkrediet (CCDII) in werking. Aanbieders van consumptief krediet krijgen te maken met nieuwe en aangepaste verplichtingen. Daarnaast gaan voorheen uitgezonderde kredietvormen, zoals achteraf betalen ('buy now, pay later’), óók vallen onder de Wft. Check of uw onderneming vergunning- of registratieplichtig wordt en vraag op tijd uw vergunning aan. De AFM neemt nu al aanvragen in behandeling, vooruitlopend op de definitieve implementatie.
BankFintechPayment Provider
Following the publication of the Monetary Policy Summary and minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meeting
BankAll Firms
The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is responsible for making decisions about Bank Rate.
Bank
Inflation forecasts have been revised upwards notably, to 3.5 per cent this year and 2.9 per cent in 2027 Weaker consumer spending expected in 2026 but continued growth in MDD is projected over the forecast horizon with MNE-related investment playing a prominent role GDP fell sharply in the first quarter of 2026, highlighting its sensitivity to the (onshore and offshore) activities of a small number of multinational enterprises A swift resolution to the conflict would see oil and gas prices f...
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
ASIC expands list of known entities involved in lead generation
Wealth ManagerFintechAll Firms
$35 million penalty sought as HSBC admits to scam protection failures, and implements compensation plan
Bank
Federal Court orders $35 million penalty against HSBC for scam protection failures
Bank
No description available.
Bank
No description available.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms
Accountantsorganisaties zijn een belangrijke schakel in de naleving van de sancties tegen Rusland. Zij moeten niet alleen zelf voldoen, maar ook controleren of controlecliënten zich daaraan houden. Zo niet, dan zijn stappen nodig. Daar mag de maatschappij op vertrouwen. Accountantsorganisaties met een reguliere vergunning zijn zich bewust van sanctierisico’s bij controlecliënten met Russische activiteiten, blijkt uit onderzoek van de AFM en BFT. Beide organisaties hebben onderzoek gedaan vanu...
All Firms
Drax Group PLC (Drax) has announced the FCA has closed its investigation into the company.We undertook an extensive investigation following concerns raised regarding disclosures to the market about the sustainability of Drax’s Canadian biomass. We did not find evidence that justified any further action.Thousands of pages of complex material were reviewed as part of the investigation, and individuals from the company interviewed. Our focus was on areas within our remit, specifically whether Dr...
The FCA concluded its investigation into Drax without taking action after an extensive review of “thousands of pages” and interviews with company personnel, focused on whether Drax’s annual reports and accounts from 2021 to 2023 contained misleading statements or material omissions about biomass sustainability. This matters because it shows the FCA continues to scrutinize **listed-company disclosures** on ESG and sustainability claims, especially where prior regulatory findings or public controversies may indicate potential market disclosure risk.
What Changed
- - The FCA has closed its investigation into Drax Group PLC and will take no further action.
- The FCA confirmed that it reviewed whether Drax’s 2021, 2022 and 2023 annual reports and accounts contained misleading statements or omitted important information for investors.
- The FCA stated that its focus was limited to matters within its remit as a listed-company regulator, not a general review of Drax’s broader operations.
- The FCA’s approach confirms that sustainability-related market disclosures can be assessed under listed-company continuing disclosure obligations where they affect investor understanding.
- The FCA indicated that it will close cases where evidence does not support proportionate action, even after a substantial investigation.
Suggested Considerations
- Review annual report drafting controls to ensure sustainability statements are supported by underlying source data and governance evidence before publication.
- Map ESG and environmental claims to the exact disclosure obligations that apply to listed issuers, including continuing disclosure and annual report requirements.
- Test whether statements about biomass sourcing, carbon impact, or sustainability performance could be viewed as misleading without full context or qualifying information.
- Maintain a defensible audit trail showing how disputed environmental data, third-party evidence, and management judgments were validated before disclosure.
- Escalate any controversy involving regulator findings, whistleblower allegations, or media investigations to disclosure committees and legal counsel early in the reporting cycle.
Key Dates
- Period covered by the FCA’s review of Drax’s annual reports and accounts
- Period covered by the FCA’s review of Drax’s annual reports and accounts
- Period covered by the FCA’s review of Drax’s annual reports and accounts
- Ofgem announced conclusions on Drax’s reporting of biomass profiling data, which later formed the background to the FCA’s interest
- The FCA closed the investigation and confirmed that no further action would be taken
Compliance Impact
The practical severity is moderate to high for listed issuers because the FCA’s review shows it will investigate potentially misleading sustainability disclosures and expects accurate, investor-relevant reporting. Non-compliance can lead to enforcement exposure, remediation costs, reputational damage, and intensified scrutiny of future ESG statements even where no action is ultimately taken.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All Firms
No description available.
Asset Manager
No description available.
Broker DealerAll Firms
Speech by Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight, delivered at the International Bar Association (IBA) Anti-Corruption Conference. I’ve been practising law for over 3 decades now.Starting out, I thought every case would be like the ones on US television: dramatic, with a big reveal and resounding outcome, all packed into a single 30-minute episode. But real law looks nothing like television. Hollywood doesn’t show the months, if not years, of work befor...
All Firms
ESMA 2025 Annual Report: focus on stronger supervision, regulatory simplification, and innovation 17 June 2026 About ESMA Board of Supervisors Management Board Press Releases The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has today published its Annual Report for 2025 , highlighting a year of progress in strengthening EU’s financial markets through enhanced supervision, regulatory simplification and innovation. Set against a backdrop...
Asset ManagerBroker DealerCrypto Exchange
Index-linked treasury stocks are gilts issued by the UK Government. They pay out twice a year, with the amount indexed to the Retail Prices Index.
All Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank
No description available.
All Firms
Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm / Crypto-Asset Service Provider Unauthorised Firm Name Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE) Website • www.lambestoneholding.com • www.secured.lambestoneholding.com • www.lambestone.com/en/ Email address used • support@lambestone.com • thomas.clark@lambestone.com • support@lambestoneholding.com Telephone Numbers used • + 44 7935319927 • + 44 2045798184 • + 579 9845330 • + 1 782 612 0080 • + 16472438410 • + 442081500056 Authorisatio...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning that **“Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE)” is an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm / crypto‑asset service provider** and is not authorised to operate or provide services in Ireland. The entity is a scam “clone firm” that has misappropriated the name, address and CRO number of a legitimate company, which heightens impersonation risk for regulated firms and underscores the need for robust client‑onboarding, fraud‑prevention and name‑screening controls.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally designated Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised investment firm, investment business firm and crypto‑asset service provider for Ireland, and has published its...
- The warning confirms that Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE) is not authorised to operate as an investment firm or to provide crypto‑asset services in Ireland, and therefore may not lawfully provide...
- The CBI explicitly identifies Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE) as a “clone firm” that has copied the name, address and CRO number of a legitimate company in the Companies Registration Office (CRO)...
- The CBI clarifies that there is no connection whatsoever between the legitimate CRO‑registered company and the scam entity, thereby protecting the reputation of the genuine firm and reducing...
- The warning includes a non‑exhaustive list of websites, email domains and telephone numbers used by the clone (multiple .com domains, support and individual email accounts, and international phone...
Suggested Considerations
- Update internal sanctions, fraud, and high‑risk entity screening lists immediately to include Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE), its known websites, email addresses and telephone numbers, and ensure these are used in client onboarding, periodic KYC reviews and transaction monitoring.
- Instruct client‑facing and dealing staff not to refer clients to, or accept instructions from, Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE) or any individual using the listed domains, emails or phone numbers, and document this in internal guidance.
- Review and enhance client‑due‑diligence procedures to include explicit checks for clone‑firm indicators, including mismatches between a firm’s claimed regulatory status and the CBI online registers, as well as verification against CRO records.
- Implement a formal process to monitor and log Central Bank of Ireland warning notices (and similar notices from ESMA, other EU national competent authorities, FCA, etc.) and to propagate relevant alerts across first‑ and second‑line control functions.
- Conduct targeted staff awareness and training sessions for front‑office, call‑centre, and complaints‑handling teams on clone‑firm typologies, with Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE) used as a current example of CRO‑identity cloning.
Key Dates
- CBI issues and publishes the warning notice that Lambestone Holding Limited (CLONE) is an unauthorised investment / investment business firm / crypto‑asset service provider and that its name is listed under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is high: dealing with, introducing business to, or failing to protect clients from clearly identified unauthorised and clone firms can expose regulated entities to supervisory criticism, enforcement risk, and significant conduct‑risk and reputational damage. While the CBI warning is aimed primarily at the public, regulators increasingly expect supervised firms to evidence proactive monitoring of such notices and to embed them into financial crime and consumer‑protection controls.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Unauthorised Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name MakoTrade Website address https://www.makotrade.net Email address used support@Makotrade.com Authorisation in Ireland MakoTrade purporting to be part of the BlauStein Investitionen Gruppe is not authorised as an investment firm or an investment business firm in Ireland. Notes: Any person wishing to contact the Central Bank with information regarding such firms / persons may telephone (01) 224 ...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) issued a warning on **17 June 2026** stating that **MakoTrade** is **not authorised in Ireland** as an investment firm or investment business firm and that it is purporting to be part of the **BlauStein Investitionen Gruppe**. For compliance teams, this is a clear indicator of an **unauthorised-firm / potential clone-style scam risk**, requiring immediate counterparty, marketing, and client-onboarding controls to prevent customer harm and reputational spillover.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally identified MakoTrade as an unauthorised investment firm / unauthorised investment business firm in Ireland.
- The warning confirms that MakoTrade is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland, regardless of any claimed affiliation with the BlauStein Investitionen Gruppe.
- The CBI has published the firm’s website address and email address used as part of its warning notice, signaling an active consumer-protection alert.
- The publication falls under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, which is the statutory basis for naming the unauthorised firm.
- The CBI directs the public to its financial scams guidance and provides a reporting route for information about unauthorised firms.
Suggested Considerations
- Screen all new and existing client introductions, counterparties, and external inquiries against the CBI warning list and treat MakoTrade as unauthorised unless independently proven otherwise.
- Block or escalate any payments, transfers, or onboarding requests involving MakoTrade, its website, its email domain, or any claimed BlauStein Investitionen Gruppe affiliation.
- Update fraud and scam detection playbooks to include the CBI’s warning notice as a trigger for enhanced due diligence and referral to financial crime teams.
- Notify relationship managers, client-facing staff, and call-centre teams that MakoTrade must not be represented as authorised in Ireland.
- Review client complaints, inbound leads, and suspicious payment patterns for any contact with the listed website or email address and preserve evidence for reporting.
Key Dates
- The Central Bank of Ireland issued the warning notice naming MakoTrade as an unauthorised investment firm
Compliance Impact
The practical severity is high because CBI unauthorised-firm warnings are designed to stop ongoing consumer harm and often indicate a scam or clone-style impersonation risk. Firms that fail to detect, block, or escalate dealings with such entities can face conduct, fraud, AML, and reputational consequences, especially if customer money is routed through their systems.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All FirmsAsset ManagerBroker Dealer Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name AllianceBernstein Limited (CLONE) Email Address’s • clientservices@abprivatemanagement.com • info@abprivatemanagement.com Authorisation in Ireland AllianceBernstein Limited (Clone) is not authorised to operate as an investment firm or investment business firm in Ireland. Additional Information This scam firm cloned the details (name and address) of the legitimate Central Bank authorised firm in order to ad...
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally published AllianceBernstein Limited (CLONE) under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 as an unauthorised firm.
- The warning confirms that the clone is not authorised to provide investment firm or investment business firm services in Ireland.
- The CBI identifies the use of cloned identity details—specifically the legitimate firm’s name and address—as a deceptive tactic intended to add legitimacy to the scam.
- The notice provides the specific scam email addresses used by the unauthorised entity, which should be treated as fraud indicators in screening and client-education controls.
- The CBI reiterates that consumers and counterparties can report suspicious firms directly to the regulator and that the publication sits within its broader anti-scam warning framework.
Suggested Considerations
- Verify that any entity claiming to be AllianceBernstein Limited is matched against the CBI authorisation register before any onboarding, trading, mandate acceptance, or payment activity.
- Block or escalate any contact using the email addresses clientservices@abprivatemanagement.com and info@abprivatemanagement.com as potential fraud indicators.
- Update fraud and onboarding controls to detect clone-firm impersonation, including mismatches in firm name, address, domain, and regulator reference details.
- Notify client-facing teams and operations staff that the legitimate authorised firm has no connection with the clone entity and that enquiries should be independently verified.
- Refresh customer communications and website warnings to remind clients to confirm authorisation status before sharing funds or instructions.
Key Dates
- The Central Bank of Ireland issued the warning notice identifying AllianceBernstein Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised investment firm/investment business firm
Compliance Impact
The severity is high because the publication signals an active unauthorised-firm scam that can lead to client losses, reputational damage, and potential control failures if firm verification processes are weak. Firms that ignore clone warnings may inadvertently facilitate fraud, miss suspicious activity indicators, or expose clients to non-compensable losses.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerAll Firms
Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm / Crypto-Asset Service Provider Unauthorised Firm Name SMH Markets (Clone) Website https://smh-markets.com/ Email addresses used • support@smh-markets.com • complaints@smh-markets.com • privacy@smh-markets.com • legal@smh-markets.com • bryan.stone@smh-markets.com Phone number used • +1 6479481664 • +1 787 945 2353 • +35315314800 Authorisation in Ireland SMH Markets is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland. Thi...
Asset ManagerBroker DealerCrypto Exchange Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Unauthorised Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (CLONE) Website https://larlfs.com/ Email addresses used • enquiries@larlfs-eu.com • info@larlfs.com • liam.mccarthy@larlfs-eu.com Authorisation in Ireland LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (Clone) is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland. Additional Information This firm is cloning the identity of the legitimate Central Bank authorised fi...
On 17 June 2026, the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) issued a Section 53 warning naming “LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (CLONE)” as an unauthorised investment firm that is fraudulently cloning the identity of the authorised firm LARL Financial Services Limited (C176004). The notice highlights active misuse of a genuine CBI authorisation number and branding, reinforcing the need for regulated firms and distributors to strengthen counter‑fraud due diligence, verification of counterparties, and investor communications around clone scams.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally designated “LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (CLONE)” as an unauthorised investment firm / unauthorised investment business firm and has added it to its public list of...
- The CBI has confirmed that LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (CLONE) is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland and is falsely claiming to be regulated by the CBI under reference...
- The CBI has identified specific scam touchpoints used by the clone, including the website larlfs.com and email domains larlfs-eu.com and larlfs.com, enabling firms to update internal watchlists and...
- The CBI has explicitly clarified that there is no connection whatsoever between the clone entity and the legitimate authorised firm LARL Financial Services Limited (C176004), thereby protecting the...
- The warning reiterates the CBI’s use of its Section 53 powers to publish the name of firms that either provide financial services without appropriate authorisation or hold themselves out as regulated...
Suggested Considerations
- Update internal sanctions, fraud, and high‑risk entity lists to include “LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (CLONE)” and the domains larlfs.com and larlfs-eu.com, and block these from use in onboarding, payments, and trading systems.
- Conduct an immediate review of current and recent client files, leads, and referrals to identify any exposure to or interaction with the clone entity, and where found, assess whether suspicious transaction reports or fraud notifications are required under local AML and financial crime rules.
- Issue client communications or website notices, especially if your firm’s name is similar to LARL Financial Services, warning clients about clone scams, clarifying official contact points, and instructing clients never to rely on unsolicited contact or unverified email domains.
- Update fraud‑awareness and conduct‑risk training materials for staff to cover CBI warnings on clone firms, the specific red flags (misuse of legitimate authorisation numbers, mismatched contact details, unverified websites), and the internal process to verify a firm’s authorisation status.
- Review existing distribution and introducer agreements to ensure there is an explicit prohibition on counterparties using the firm’s name, logo, or authorisation details in any way that could facilitate cloning or misrepresentation of regulatory status.
Key Dates
- CBI publishes the Warning Notice naming “LARL F.S / LARL Financial Services (CLONE)” as an unauthorised firm under Section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 and confirms that it is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with expectations around verification of authorisation status, management of clone‑firm risk, and client protection could result in significant conduct‑risk events, potential regulatory scrutiny, civil claims from mis‑sold or defrauded clients, and reputational harm. Failure to detect or respond to interactions with known unauthorised firms may be viewed by the CBI as evidence of inadequate systems and controls in areas such as financial crime prevention and client onboarding.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm/ Investment Business Firm/Alternative Investment Firm Manager Unauthorised Firm Name Oristan Ireland Designated Activity Company (CLONE) Website • www.oristanirelanddac.com • https://oristanireland-dac.com/ • https://oristan-ire.com/ • https://oristanportal.com/ Email address used • info@oristanirelanddac.com • j.armstrong@oristanirelanddac.com • r.gorman@oristanirelanddac.com • r.gorman@oristan-ireland.com • glenmiller@oristanirelanddac.com Phone number(...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning notice under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 regarding **“Oristan Ireland Designated Activity Company (CLONE)”**, an unauthorised firm falsely claiming to be the CBI‑authorised Oristan Ireland DAC and using multiple websites, emails, and Irish phone numbers to deceive consumers. This is part of a broader pattern of clone-firm scams targeting Irish and EU investors and requires compliance teams to tighten client‑onboarding, name‑screening, and website/email verification controls to prevent dealings with unauthorised entities.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally identified “Oristan Ireland Designated Activity Company (CLONE)” as an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm / alternative investment fund manager and...
- The CBI confirms that the clone firm is not authorised in Ireland to provide investment services, investment business services, or AIFM activities, despite using the name, address and CBI...
- The warning enumerates specific fraud infrastructure used by the clone: four domains (including “oristanirelanddac.com”, “oristan-ire.com” and “oristanportal.com”), multiple email addresses...
- The CBI explicitly clarifies there is no connection whatsoever between the legitimate authorised Oristan Ireland DAC and the clone entity or its websites.
- The firm’s name is published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, reinforcing the statutory basis for public warning notices against unauthorised firms.
Suggested Considerations
- Update internal unauthorised / fraud firm watchlists and screening tools to include “Oristan Ireland Designated Activity Company (CLONE)” and all associated domains, email addresses and phone numbers listed in the CBI notice.
- Implement or enhance name‑matching and clone‑detection controls in onboarding processes to distinguish between the legitimate Oristan Ireland DAC (as per the CBI register) and any entity using the clone websites or contacts.
- Review and adjust KYC/CDD procedures to ensure that unusual or mismatched email domains, websites, or phone numbers (particularly those not appearing on the CBI register or official corporate filings) trigger enhanced due diligence and formal second‑line review.
- Conduct a targeted communication and training for relationship managers, sales staff, call‑centre agents and client‑facing teams on the Oristan clone case and recent CBI clone‑firm warnings, with practical red‑flag indicators and escalation channels.
- Review current fraud‑risk and AML / financial crime frameworks to confirm that clone‑firm risks (including identity theft of authorised entities) are explicitly covered in risk assessments, controls, and monitoring scenarios.
Key Dates
– CBI warning notice published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 identifying Oristan Ireland Designated Activity Company (CLONE) as an unauthorised firm
Compliance Impact
Clone‑firm exposure engages both consumer protection / conduct risk and financial crime risk, and failure to detect or respond appropriately could lead to client losses, mis‑selling exposure, civil liability, and regulatory criticism for inadequate systems and controls. Given the pattern of CBI warnings, regulators are likely to expect demonstrable, risk‑based controls around verification of counterparties and claimed authorisations, making this a high‑priority enhancement area for compliance teams.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager ASIC helps strengthen the fight against imposter scams in financial services
All Firms
Former Star Entertainment executives Mathias Bekier and Paula Martin disqualified and ordered to pay penalties
All Firms
ASIC successful in High Court Block Earner appeal
FintechCrypto Exchange
No description available.
InsuranceAsset ManagerBroker Dealer
Statement from the Bank of England
Bank
Stress-testing Markets Financial Crisis Other professionals Executive & other private individuals Professional investors Journalists Investment services providers Investment management companies The Banque de France,...
BankAsset ManagerInsurance
In its SREP Market Overview 2025, the AFM notes that many firms have their foundations in order, but that implementation is lagging behind. Internal control and IT risks, in particular, require improvement. The message is clear: ensure that policies are not merely in place, but that they demonstrably work in practice.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms
Advanced AI models can speed up the process of identifying and combining vulnerabilities. As a result, organisations have less time to address vulnerabilities and mitigate incidents. Small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, with less advanced security or older systems, may be relatively more vulnerable. The AFM is therefore calling on organizations to strengthen their basic security, patch management, monitoring and incident response.
All Firms
No description available.
Asset Manager
No description available.
Crypto Exchange
No description available.
Asset ManagerAll Firms
Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat den Anhang der Verordnung vom 10. April 2024 über Massnahmen gegenüber Personen und Organisationen, welche die Hamas oder den Palästinensischen Islamischen Dschihad unterstützen (SR 946.231.09), geändert.
All Firms
Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs 7 der Verordnung vom 8. Juni 2012 über Massnahmen gegenüber Syrien (SR 946.231.172.7) publiziert.
The Swiss Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) has amended **Annex 7 of the Ordinance of 8 June 2012 on Measures against Syria (SR 946.231.172.7)**, updating the list of sanctioned persons, entities, and organisations. The associated changes have been implemented in SECO’s SESAM sanctions database and become **legally binding for Swiss financial intermediaries as of 16 June 2026 at 23:00**, triggering immediate screening, asset-freeze, and reporting obligations under Swiss sanctions and AML law.
What Changed
- - The WBF has amended Annex 7 of the Ordinance of 8 June 2012 on Measures against Syria (SR 946.231.172.7), changing the list of sanctioned persons, companies, and organisations connected to Syria.
- The Swiss sanctions database SESAM (SECO Sanctions Management) has been updated to reflect these changes, and SECO has published the amended list on its website.
- The updated measures, including asset-freeze and prohibition obligations, enter into force on 16 June 2026 at 23:00, making the revised Syria list immediately enforceable for Swiss-supervised...
- Financial intermediaries are explicitly required to implement the applicable prohibitions, including restrictions on making funds or economic resources available to listed persons, entities, and...
- Financial intermediaries must freeze the assets and economic resources of the persons, companies, and organisations newly listed, relisted, or otherwise affected by the Annex 7 amendment.
Suggested Considerations
- Perform an immediate update of sanctions screening lists and tools to incorporate the revised Syria Annex 7 entries as reflected in the SESAM database.
- Identify all customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, and transactions that match or potentially match the updated Syria sanctions list, including retrospective screening where systems permit.
- Freeze without delay all assets and economic resources held or controlled by persons, entities, or organisations that are newly listed or affected by changes under the updated Annex 7.
- Block any new or pending transactions that would make funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to persons and entities designated under the updated Syria list.
- Report all affected business relationships and frozen assets to SECO in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Syria sanctions ordinance and SECO guidance.
Key Dates
- Original Ordinance on Measures against Syria (SR 946.231.172.7) entered into force, establishing the sanctions framework and Annex 7
- WBF amended the list of sanctioned persons, companies, and organisations in Annex 7 of the Syria sanctions ordinance and updated the Swiss SESAM sanctions database; SECO published the updated list on its website
- The amended measures, including changes to the Annex 7 Syria sanctions list, enter into force at 23:00, from which time financial intermediaries must fully apply the new listings and obligations
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance exposes firms to FINMA enforcement measures, including coercive administrative actions, reputational damage, and potentially severe regulatory sanctions for failures in sanctions implementation and AML controls. Breaches of Swiss sanctions and AML obligations can also create criminal liability risks for institutions and responsible individuals, particularly where prohibited economic resources are made available or suspicious activity is not reported.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FINMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerInsurance At the Lujiazui Forum 2026, Mr Chia Der Jiun, Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, shared perspectives on the economic outlook, the need to build resilience amid an environment of high policy uncertainty, expanding regional economic and financial cooperation, and continued support for international financial institutions.
All Firms
OSFI announcement on the Domestic Stability Buffer
Bank
ASIC and APRA announce FAR changes to reduce administrative burden
All Firms
No description available.
FintechBroker DealerBank
No description available.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
Good afternoon and thank you for inviting me to speak today. Last week, the ECB’s Governing Council decided to raise interest rates by 0.25%. This is the first change since June 2025 – the first increase since 2023 – and brings the main policy rate, the Deposit Facility Rate, to 2.25%. Our decision is a response to inflation pressures from higher oil prices and other supply disruptions arising from the war in the Middle East. My colleagues and I on the Governing Council were unanimous in maki...
All Firms
Press release 26/12
Bank
The revised Insurance Supervision Act and Insurance Supervision Ordinance came into force on 1 January 2024, bringing about significant changes to the insurance intermediary market. Two and a half years later, FINMA took stock at a symposium in Bern attended by industry experts. It noted positive progress in client protection, but also emphasised that many people are still operating without authorisation. Around 12,000 untied insurance intermediaries are authorised by FINMA.
Insurance
Speech by Emad Aladhal, director of retail banking at the Later Life Lending Summit. IntroductionIn the years ahead, housing wealth will become an increasing part of how many people provide for their retirement. But it continues to be seen as an option of last resort, if thought about at all.Knowing I had this speech, as an experiment at a recent BBQ I had a conversation with my friends about retirement and savings – none of whom work in financial services. They talked about their employers’ ...
BankFintechWealth Manager implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
All Firms
Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat Änderungen des Anhangs 8 der Verordnung vom 4. März 2022 über Massnahmen im Zusammenhang mit der Situation in der Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) publiziert.
On 15 June 2026, the Swiss Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) amended **Annex 8** of the Swiss Ordinance of 4 March 2022 on measures in connection with the situation in Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) and published the updated sanctions list on its website. The changes, which enter into force the same day at 23:00, require Swiss financial intermediaries to immediately update their sanctions screening, freeze assets of newly listed parties, and report affected relationships to SECO while also fulfilling their anti‑money‑laundering (AML) duties under the Anti‑Money Laundering Act (GwG).
What Changed
- - Annex 8 of the Ordinance of 4 March 2022 on measures in connection with the situation in Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) has been amended by the WBF to update the list of sanctioned persons and...
- The WBF has published the updated Annex 8 and associated sanctions-list changes on its website, making these changes the operative reference for Swiss sanctions screening and asset-freeze obligations.
- The amended measures enter into force on 15 June 2026 at 23:00, creating an immediate and time‑critical requirement for financial intermediaries to align their controls with the new Annex 8 content.
- Financial intermediaries are instructed to implement all prohibitions arising from the Ordinance, including any new or expanded restrictions connected to the updated Annex 8 listings.
- Financial intermediaries must freeze the assets of persons and entities newly designated or otherwise affected by the Annex 8 amendment and ensure no prohibited transactions or services are carried...
Suggested Considerations
- Review the updated Annex 8 of SR 946.231.176.72 as published by the WBF and obtain the latest Swiss sanctions-list data (including from SESAM/SECO where used) before the 23:00 effective time.
- Update internal sanctions screening lists, vendor‑provided screening tools and watchlist filters to incorporate all new and amended entries in Annex 8.
- Run an immediate batch screening of all customers, beneficial owners, controlling persons, counterparties, securities holdings and payment flows against the updated Annex 8 once the changes are operative.
- Identify all existing and pending business relationships that match updated Annex 8 entries and classify them as sanctioned in internal systems.
- Freeze without delay any assets, accounts, securities, or other economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by persons and entities listed in Annex 8, in line with the Ordinance.
Key Dates
– Original Ordinance on measures in connection with the situation in Ukraine (SR 946.231.176.72) enters into force, establishing the framework for Annex 8 sanctions and related financial measures
– WBF amends Annex 8 of the Ordinance and publishes the changes on its website, updating the list of sanctioned persons and entities
– The amended measures under Annex 8 enter into force at 23:00, from which time financial intermediaries must have implemented the new prohibitions, asset freezes, and reporting processes
Compliance Impact
The change has a high compliance impact because failure to implement sanctions immediately upon entry into force can constitute a breach of Swiss supervisory law and the Ordinance, potentially leading to criminal sanctions, administrative enforcement by FINMA, and significant reputational damage. Non‑compliance may also trigger AML enforcement exposure where institutions fail to conduct required clarifications or to report suspicions to MROS.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FINMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager Given at Airmic Annual Conference 2026
Insurance
implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities
All Firms
amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
All Firms
No description available.
BankPayment Provider
Situation as at 30 April 2026
All Firms
Situation as at 31 May 2026
All Firms
Situation as at 31 March 2026
All Firms
Situation from May 2025 to May 2026
All Firms
Situation as at 31 March 2026
Asset Manager
Situation as at 30 April 2026
Bank
Situation as at 31 March 2026
All Firms
Situation from May 2025 to May 2026
All Firms
Situation from May 2025 to May 2026
All Firms
16 Jun 2026
Read more
All Firms
Singapore, 16 June 2026 – The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), on the advice of the Securities Industry Council (SIC or the Council), today issued a revised Code on Take-overs and Mergers (the Code). The amendments to the Code aim to protect the competitive process of take-over and merger transactions, improve certainty and timeliness of schemes of arrangement, and enhance disclosures to investors and shareholders.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerAll Firms
Changes to OSFI's Executive Leadership Team
All Firms
No description available.
BankFintech
No description available.
BankAll Firms
No description available.
BankAll Firms
amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/980 as regards the reduced content and the standardised format and sequence of the EU Follow-on prospectus and the EU Growth issuance prospectus
Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
The first meeting of the RTGS CHAPS Industry Forum
BankPayment ProviderAll Firms
No description available.
Asset Manager
ASX admits misleading conduct relating to CHESS replacement project
Broker Dealer
ASIC permanently bans Abdullah Popal from financial services and credit
Wealth ManagerAll Firms
No description available.
The CSSF is flagging to the market a new **CNC Q&A 26/037** that clarifies the distinction between **statutory (legal) annual accounts** and **annual accounts prepared for contractual or voluntary purposes**, and an interview indicating an upcoming **overhaul of Luxembourg accounting legislation**. This matters for compliance and finance teams because mislabeling or misusing “statutory” accounts, or applying CNC doctrine inconsistently, can create legal, regulatory, lending, and investor‑information risks, and the announced legislative reform implies future adjustments to accounting policies, reporting processes, and governance.
What Changed
- - The CSSF formally draws regulated entities’ attention to CNC Q&A 26/037, elevating it as a key interpretative reference on the concepts of annual accounts prepared for legal/statutory purposes...
- The CNC Q&A 26/037 provides clarified definitions of “comptes annuels établis à fins légales” (statutory annual accounts) and “comptes annuels établis à des fins contractuelles ou sur base...
- The Q&A gives practical answers to frequently asked questions from preparers about when accounts qualify as statutory versus merely contractual or voluntary, and how this affects applicable...
- The Q&A addresses related issues, such as the extent to which CNC doctrine and Luxembourg GAAP must be followed for contractual or voluntary accounts, and the risks of presenting non‑statutory...
- The CSSF also highlights an interview with the CNC chairman announcing that Luxembourg accounting legislation will undergo a refonte (major overhaul), signaling that current CNC doctrine, including...
Suggested Considerations
- Obtain and review the full CNC Q&A 26/037 and the CNC chairman’s interview (French‑language originals), ensuring that finance, accounting, and compliance teams understand the clarified distinctions between statutory and contractual/voluntary annual accounts.
- Map all sets of financial statements prepared by each Luxembourg entity (statutory accounts, covenant‑based or lender‑specific accounts, group reporting packages, management accounts, etc.) and classify each set as statutory or contractual/voluntary in line with CNC Q&A 26/037 definitions.
- Update internal accounting policies and manuals to explicitly define statutory versus contractual/voluntary annual accounts, specify the applicable accounting principles and disclosures for each, and describe any differences in measurement, presentation, or scope.
- Assess current practices for communicating financial information to lenders, investors, regulators, and other stakeholders to confirm that non‑statutory accounts are not labeled or presented in a way that could be misinterpreted as statutory accounts approved under Luxembourg company law.
- Implement clear labeling and disclosure conventions on the face of financial statements and in accompanying notes (e.g., in engagement reports, board minutes, and management communications) to distinguish statutory annual accounts from any contractual or voluntary accounts.
Key Dates
– Publication of the interview with the CNC chairman in Paperjam announcing that Luxembourg accounting legislation will be overhauled
– CSSF press release published, drawing attention to CNC Q&A 26/037 and the CNC chairman’s interview and signaling supervisory expectations that entities consider this doctrine when preparing annual accounts
Compliance Impact
Failure to correctly distinguish and label statutory versus contractual/voluntary annual accounts can lead to breaches of Luxembourg company law, mis‑disclosure to investors, lenders, and regulators, and increased enforcement risk from the CSSF and other authorities. Misalignment between CNC doctrine and practice may also complicate audits and regulatory reviews, leading to qualified opinions, remediation requirements, or sanctions in severe cases.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerInsurance Q&A CNC 26/037 titled “A reminder of the differences between annual accounts prepared for statutory purposes and annual accounts prepared for contractual purposes or on a voluntary basis” and interview with the chairman of the CNC (Mr. Yvan Thommes)
The CSSF is formally directing market participants’ attention to new guidance from the Luxembourg Commission des normes comptables (CNC) clarifying the distinction between **statutory annual accounts** and **contractual/voluntary annual accounts**, and to an interview announcing a forthcoming overhaul of Luxembourg accounting law. This matters for compliance and finance functions because it affects how firms label, prepare, approve, file and use financial statements in regulatory, contractual and investor contexts, and foreshadows medium‑term changes to the Luxembourg accounting framework.
What Changed
- - The CSSF endorses and promotes CNC Q&A 26/037 as the reference clarification on the concept of “comptes annuels établis à fins légales” (statutory annual accounts) versus annual accounts prepared...
- The Q&A provides clear criteria to distinguish statutory accounts from non‑statutory accounts, including their legal basis, approval process, filing and publication obligations, and permissible use...
- The CNC guidance clarifies that statutory annual accounts must fully comply with Luxembourg accounting law (including mandatory layouts, valuation rules and disclosures), whereas...
- The CNC addresses frequent practical questions from preparers, including whether financial statements prepared for banks, covenants, shareholders’ agreements, management incentive plans or...
- The CSSF communicates that misunderstandings between statutory and contractual accounts remain common, implicitly warning against the risk of using non‑statutory statements in contexts where...
Suggested Considerations
- Identify all sets of financial statements prepared by the firm or its Luxembourg entities (statutory, covenant/banking, shareholder/management, group‑reporting, voluntary) and map which are statutory annual accounts under Luxembourg law and which are contractual or voluntary.
- Review the CNC Q&A 26/037 in detail and update internal accounting manuals and group reporting policies to embed the CNC’s definitions, terminology and criteria for statutory versus non‑statutory annual accounts.
- Implement a clear labelling and disclosure convention so that all non‑statutory financial statements explicitly state their nature (contractual or voluntary) and are not presented or communicated as statutory annual accounts.
- Update templates for board and shareholder approvals, minutes and resolutions to ensure that the correct set of statutory annual accounts is approved for legal purposes such as profit appropriation, dividend distribution, capital reduction and regulatory filings.
- Review all contractual arrangements (loan agreements, bond indentures, shareholder agreements, management incentive plans and service contracts) to determine whether they require statutory annual accounts or allow contractual/adjusted accounts, and align documentation and practice accordingly.
Key Dates
– Publication of the interview with the CNC chairman in Paperjam announcing that Luxembourg accounting legislation will be subject to a comprehensive overhaul
– CSSF communiqué published, formally drawing attention to CNC Q&A 26/037 and the CNC chairman’s interview, and thereby activating supervisory expectations that firms take these clarifications into account
– Effective dates for the planned overhaul of Luxembourg accounting legislation remain to be defined; firms should anticipate consultation and transition periods once draft law is published
Compliance Impact
Misclassification or misuse of contractual/voluntary accounts where statutory annual accounts are legally required can lead to breaches of Luxembourg company law, invalid shareholder resolutions, misstatements in regulatory or investor reporting, and potential CSSF supervisory findings. Consistent application of the CNC guidance will be expected in future inspections and could influence audit opinions and governance assessments.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer Meeting held 15 December 2025
Bank
Meeting held 10 March 2026
Bank
Meeting held 15 April 2026
Bank
Meeting held 24 April 2026
Bank
Meeting held 29 April 2026
Bank
No description available.
Asset Manager
Sections 16 and 16b of the Dutch Audit Firms Supervision Act (Wta) ensure that Auditors occupy a central position within the audit firm, enabling them to act in the public interest. Auditors must have a decisive influence within the audit firm. Following market consultation, the Netherlands Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) provides further clarity on the application of these provisions in its supervisory approach. These requirements also apply to audit firms that admit external investors.
The AFM published a refined interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b after market consultation, saying the rules require auditors to occupy a central governance role and to have decisive influence in audit firms. The guidance matters because the AFM will assess not only formal ownership and voting structures but also whether investor rights, shareholder agreements, and approval rights undermine auditors’ real control, especially in firms with private equity or other external capital.
What Changed
- - The AFM has refined its interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b after receiving market feedback, while keeping the core principle that auditors must remain central and influential in the firm.
- The AFM now expressly states that auditors must have decisive influence within the audit firm, not merely formal status or nominal voting rights.
- The AFM confirms that the requirements also apply when an audit firm admits external investors, including private equity investors.
- The AFM indicates that it will look at the actual exercise of control, not just the legal form, when assessing compliance with the Wta.
- The AFM’s interpretation allows investor participation only so long as it does not prevent auditors from using their majority rights in practice or from acting in the public interest.
Suggested Considerations
- Audit firms must review their governance model to confirm that auditors genuinely hold a central position in both management and ownership decision-making.
- Audit firms must test whether their current structure gives auditors decisive influence in practice, not just on paper.
- Audit firms with external capital must review shareholder agreements, voting agreements, veto rights, and reserved matters to ensure these do not override auditor control.
- Audit firms must assess whether approval rights are limited to fundamental matters and do not extend to routine business control or editorial influence over audit judgments.
- Compliance teams must map who actually determines day-to-day policy and who can block or steer decisions in practice.
Key Dates
- Deadline for submitting consultation responses on the interpretation of Wta Articles 16 and 16b
- AFM publishes the refined interpretation and feedback statement on Wta Articles 16 and 16b
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is high because the AFM is signaling a substantive supervisory focus on whether investor-backed governance models preserve auditor independence and real control. Firms that rely on formal majority ownership without effective auditor decision-making power may face supervisory intervention, remediation demands, or pressure to restructure governance arrangements.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original AFM source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All Firms
At the 9th Asia-Pacific Precious Metals Conference, Mr Gan Kim Yong, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, and Chairman, MAS announced areas of progress on four key building blocks – reliable clearing and settlement systems, secure vaulting, relevant products, and clear standards.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager No description available.
Broker Dealer
The Securities and Exchange Commission has appointed John Moses as Director of the agency’s Office of Investor Education and Assistance, which provides services and resources to help investors build their financial futures and protect against investment…
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerCrypto Exchange
A New Era For Global Banking Dhabi Launches At Adgm
BankFintech
Federal Court orders record $300 million penalties in ASIC’s case over ‘egregious’ Union Standard and CFD operator misconduct
Broker DealerAll Firms
ASIC disqualifies Shashikumari Agrawal, wife of convicted Mansa Group director, from managing corporations for 5 years
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
In his latest blog, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf explains the ECB Governing Council decision to raise interest rates by 0.25 per cent. This first change since June 2025 brings the Deposit Facility Rate to 2.25 per cent. He supported the decision and, along with his colleagues on the Governing Council, is committed to delivering our 2 per cent inflation target over the medium term.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerAll Firms
This Market Notice covers changes to the Bank’s collateral eligibility framework for the Sterling Monetary Framework (SMF).
Broker DealerBankAsset Manager
The High Court today confirmed the appointment of special administrators for Euro Exchange Securities UK Limited (EES). EES did not seek to overturn the court’s initial decision, which saw the firm cease trading with immediate effect last week.EES agreed it is not in the company’s interests to seek to return to normal trading and will work with the appointed special administrators to ensure client money is returned as quickly as possible.Duncan Perring and James Bennett of Teneo Financial Adv...
Payment ProviderFintech
The Securities and Exchange Commission today proposed amendments to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e) of Regulation NMS.“After two decades of Rule 611, it is high time that the Commission review its unintended consequences that have hindered — rather than…
The SEC has proposed to **rescind Regulation NMS Rules 611 (Order Protection Rule) and 610(e) (quotations access fee cap)**, fundamentally re‑opening how U.S. equity markets handle trade‑through protection and access fee limits. For compliance teams at equity trading venues and intermediaries, this is a structural market‑microstructure change that will eventually require re‑engineering best‑execution, routing, and surveillance frameworks that are currently built around Rule 611’s trade‑through regime and Rule 610(e)’s fee cap.
What Changed
- - The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (17 CFR 242.611), which currently requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably...
- The rescission would eliminate the current requirement on trading centers to prevent executions at prices inferior to protected quotations displayed on other trading centers, subject to the present...
- The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 610(e) of Regulation NMS, which currently imposes caps on access fees that trading centers may charge for the execution of quotations in NMS stocks, intended to...
- The proposal would remove the regulatory framework that links protection of top‑of‑book quotations with capped access fees, allowing market forces and competition to shape routing behavior, fee...
- The proposal would likely be accompanied by conforming amendments to related definitions and cross‑references in Regulation NMS that currently rely on or reference Rules 611 and 610(e).
Suggested Considerations
- Map all current policies, procedures, and controls that explicitly reference or rely on Rule 611 (Order Protection Rule) and Rule 610(e) (access fee caps), including best‑execution frameworks, routing policies, fee schedules, and surveillance rules.
- Conduct a system inventory of smart order routing, execution algorithms, and venue connectivity logic that prevents trade‑throughs of protected quotations and enforces access‑fee caps, and identify components that would need redesign if Rules 611 and 610(e) are rescinded.
- Review and, if necessary, update best‑execution policies and client disclosures to decouple best‑execution rationales from mechanical Rule 611 compliance, preparing a framework that can operate in an environment without trade‑through prohibitions or fee caps.
- Enhance governance processes to monitor the SEC rulemaking, assign ownership (e.g., to a market structure working group), and prepare internal impact assessments and board‑level briefings on potential business, conduct, and conflict‑of‑interest implications of rescission.
- Develop scenario analyses and playbooks describing how routing strategies, venue selection, and payment‑for‑order‑flow or other economic arrangements would be adjusted in the absence of Rule 611 and Rule 610(e).
Key Dates
– Potential SEC adoption of a final rule rescinding Rules 611 and 610(e), including any specified effective and compliance dates
– SEC proposal to rescind Regulation NMS Rules 611 and 610(e) is published, starting the public comment period
– End of the initial public comment period on the proposal to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e)
Compliance Impact
Rescission would not immediately apply until a final rule and effective date, but once effective it will require a fundamental re‑design of U.S. equity order‑routing, best‑execution, and surveillance frameworks that have been built around Regulation NMS’s order‑protection architecture. Non‑compliance with any new framework (and with ongoing best‑execution and conduct duties during and after the transition) could lead to enforcement actions, client disputes, and significant market conduct risk, even if the specific NMS provisions are removed.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SEC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerBankAsset Manager By letter of 1 June 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) prohibited Equity Research Ventures PTE. LTD., which claims to be based in Singapore, from offering to the public the capital investment under the name of “Co-Investment AlleAktien Wealth x SpaceX”. Bafin imposed the prohibition because the company had infringed the German Capital Investment Act (VermAnlG). Equity Research Ventures PTE. LTD. is therefore not authorised to offer capital investments under the name of ...
Asset ManagerWealth Manager
On 9 June 2026, Amplifi Capital (U.K.) Limited (Amplifi) entered administration. Robert Spence and Gareth Slater of Interpath Advisory were appointed joint administrators. Amplifi is authorised by the FCA. Amplifi trades under the names Reevo Money and My Community Finance. Reevo Money provided personal loans to consumers. My Community Finance acted as a credit broker, introducing customers to credit unions; My Community Bank (MCB) and Castle Community Bank (CCB) which issued loans and saving...
FintechBank
No description available.
The CFTC is proposing to revise its whistleblower award framework to make smaller awards more predictable by presuming a **30% award rate for claims of $5 million or less**, subject to Commission judgment. This is a significant compliance development because it aligns more closely with SEC whistleblower methodology and may encourage more whistleblower submissions tied to Commodity Exchange Act violations, increasing the need for firms to detect issues early and respond quickly.
What Changed
- - The CFTC proposes a 30% presumption for whistleblower awards of $5 million or less.
- The presumption remains subject to Commission discretion and application of relevant regulatory factors.
- The proposal is modeled on SEC Rule 21F-6(c) to further harmonize CFTC and SEC whistleblower frameworks.
- The CFTC says the change is intended to improve the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of award processing.
- The proposal would affect how the CFTC’s Whistleblower Office evaluates award claims under Part 165.
Suggested Considerations
- Review whistleblower intake, escalation, and investigation procedures to ensure the firm can identify potential CEA violations before they become external whistleblower submissions.
- Update training for front office, operations, compliance, and management personnel on CFTC whistleblower protections and the increased incentive structure.
- Assess whether confidentiality, reporting, and non-retaliation controls are sufficiently documented to withstand scrutiny if a whistleblower complaint arises.
- Reconfirm that internal policies do not discourage employees from communicating with the CFTC or otherwise create retaliation risk.
- Monitor the Federal Register publication date and decide whether the firm, trade association, or counsel should submit a comment during the open comment period.
Key Dates
- The CFTC published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on amendments to its whistleblower rules
- The public comment period closes 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register
- The CFTC may finalize, modify, or withdraw the proposal after reviewing public comments
Compliance Impact
The practical impact is moderate to high because the proposal raises the attractiveness of reporting to the CFTC and may increase the likelihood of externally originated enforcement matters. Firms that fail to maintain strong internal reporting channels, prompt investigations, and anti-retaliation safeguards face higher risk of enforcement, litigation, and reputational harm if a whistleblower report is filed.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CFTC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerHedge Fund On 27 May 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bafin) imposed an administrative fine amounting to €80,000 on Resolution Capital Limited. The reason for this fine was a breach of supervisory duties in connection with a contravention of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). In November 2025, Resolution Capital Limited failed to submit a voting rights notification within the prescribed period.
BaFin has imposed an €80,000 administrative fine on Resolution Capital Limited for a **breach of supervisory duties** linked to a **late voting rights notification** under sections 33 et seq. of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). The case underscores that failure to ensure timely major shareholding notifications is treated not only as a technical reporting breach but as an organisational and governance failure, with potential fines up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue for legal entities.
What Changed
- - BaFin has reaffirmed that shareholders must notify both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days when their voting rights reach, exceed, or fall below specified thresholds under sections 33 et...
- BaFin explicitly links late or missing voting rights notifications to contraventions of section 33 et seq. WpHG, which can trigger administrative fines.
- The publication clarifies that BaFin may impose fines either for each individual contravention or for a breach of supervisory duties, broadening enforcement beyond isolated reporting errors to...
- For legal entities, BaFin reiterates that the maximum possible fine for such infringements is €10 million or up to 5% of total revenue, whichever is higher under the WpHG regime.
- BaFin emphasizes that a breach of supervisory duties arises where a firm fails to take sufficient organisational measures to prevent or significantly impede contraventions, signalling expectations...
Suggested Considerations
- Map all holdings in German listed equities and associated financial instruments to WpHG voting rights thresholds and implement automated monitoring to detect when thresholds are reached, exceeded, or fallen below.
- Establish and document internal procedures to ensure that both the issuer and BaFin are notified within four trading days whenever WpHG thresholds are triggered, including clear allocation of responsibilities and escalation paths.
- Review and strengthen organisational measures (policies, systems, controls) to prevent or significantly impede late or missed voting rights notifications, evidencing compliance with supervisory duty expectations under WpHG.
- Conduct a gap analysis of existing major shareholding and transparency procedures against WpHG requirements, and remediate identified weaknesses, including in data feeds, trade capture, and aggregation of voting rights across entities and portfolios.
- Train front‑office, operations, and compliance staff on WpHG voting rights notification obligations, including thresholds, calculation methodologies, timelines, and dual notification requirements to issuers and BaFin.
Key Dates
- Resolution Capital Limited failed to submit a required voting rights notification within the prescribed four‑trading‑day period, constituting a contravention of sections 33 et seq. WpHG
- BaFin imposed an administrative fine of €80,000 on Resolution Capital Limited for a breach of supervisory duties linked to the November 2025 notification failure
- BaFin published the enforcement measure (“Resolution Capital Limited: BaFin imposes administrative fine”) on its website
- The BaFin publication was modified, indicating finalisation or minor updates to the public notice
Compliance Impact
The enforcement action demonstrates that BaFin views deficiencies in voting rights notification processes as serious supervisory failings, with significant financial penalties and reputational risk. Non‑compliance can result in fines up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue for legal entities, as well as heightened regulatory scrutiny of governance and control frameworks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BaFin source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundBroker Dealer No description available.
Bank
Euribor panel to include KBC Bank 11 June 2026 Benchmarks Press Releases On 27 May 2026, the European Money Markets Institute (EMMI), the administrator of Euribor, announced the inclusion of KBC Bank in the Euribor panel. ESMA and the Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) welcome the inclusion of KBC Bank in the panel as a positive development that contributes to strengthening the robustness and reliability of this critical benchmark. Verena Ross, ESMA Chair, said: “The ad...
Bank
No description available.
Bank
Introduction Good morning, I am delighted to be here and many thanks to Patricia at FSI for the invitation. 1 You have a busy agenda today, discussing some of the key issues currently facing the financial sector and financial regulators. As the title of this conference suggests, we are living through a time of fragmentation; and, as I said earlier this week, this is coming alongside a period of rapid technological transformation. 2 While they say that there is nothing permanent except change ...
All Firms
Version 1.4
Asset ManagerHedge Fund
11 Jun 2026
Read more
All Firms
Singapore, 12 June 2026… The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) announced that the revised framework for Single Family Offices (SFOs) will take effect on 15 June 2026. The revised framework provides a simple, streamlined process for SFOs to establish operations in Singapore, whilst enhancing overall monitoring of SFOs.
Family Office
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerCrypto ExchangeFintech
No description available.
Bank
No description available.
Bank
No description available.
BankAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
Asset management The AMF has decided to withdraw the authorisation of the asset management company Xerys Invest
Asset Manager
No description available.
The CFTC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Regulation 40.11 and add Appendix F to Part 40 to create a **structured, time‑bound framework** for reviewing event contracts that may involve the activities enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) (terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or unlawful conduct). This proposal matters because it will formalize how the CFTC determines whether such event contracts are **contrary to the public interest** and therefore cannot be listed or cleared by CFTC‑registered entities, with particular consequences for prediction markets and sports, political, and other “gaming” event contracts.
What Changed
- - The NPRM would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to embed a formal analytical framework for assessing whether an event contract involves an activity enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and, if so,...
- The NPRM would add Appendix F to Part 40 to set out the factors, tests, and procedural steps the Commission will apply when reviewing specific event contracts referencing enumerated activities.
- The proposal would define key statutory terms, including at minimum “involve” and “gaming,” to clarify when an event contract is considered to touch an enumerated activity under CEA Section...
- The NPRM would establish a 90‑day review process for the Commission to evaluate event contracts that may implicate enumerated activities, including procedural protections such as notice, opportunity...
- The proposed framework would codify public‑interest factors the Commission will apply when deciding whether a particular contract involving an enumerated activity is contrary to the public interest...
Suggested Considerations
- Map and inventory all existing and planned event contracts listed or cleared through CFTC‑registered entities to identify those that may “involve” terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or conduct unlawful under federal or state law.
- Conduct a legal analysis of how the proposed definitions of “involve” and “gaming” would apply to your current product set, particularly sports, political, entertainment, and other contest‑based contracts, and document the rationale.
- Review and update internal product‑approval and new‑contract listing procedures to incorporate the proposed 90‑day CFTC review process, including timelines, documentation standards, and decision gates tied to Section 5c(c)(5)(C).
- Develop or update written policies and controls to ensure that contracts potentially involving enumerated activities are escalated for legal, compliance, and regulatory‑affairs review before submission to the CFTC.
- For DCMs and SEFs, enhance product‑submission templates to clearly address the proposed Appendix F public‑interest factors, including description of the underlying event, potential for unlawful activity, market integrity risks, and consumer‑protection considerations.
Key Dates
– Earlier CFTC NPRM on event contracts was published in the Federal Register as “Event Contracts; Proposed Rule, 89 FR 48968,” later withdrawn on 06 February 2026; the new NPRM effectively replaces that initiative with a more targeted framework
– CFTC formally withdrew the 2024 Event Contracts proposed regulatory action (91 FR 5386), clearing the path for the current, more targeted NPRM on enumerated activities
– CFTC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on prediction markets and a staff advisory to DCMs, launching a broader process to develop a tailored regulatory framework for prediction markets
– Comment deadline for the March 2026 prediction‑markets ANPRM, which this NPRM is described as addressing in part and which may lead to additional rulemaking
– CFTC announces the new NPRM on amendments to Regulation 40.11 and addition of Appendix F to Part 40 regarding event contracts involving enumerated activities
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the final rules emerging from this NPRM could result in the CFTC determining that listed or cleared contracts are contrary to the public interest, leading to forced delisting, enforcement exposure, and reputational damage for CFTC‑registered entities. The impact is particularly significant for firms whose business models rely on sports, political, and other “gaming” event contracts, as entire product lines may become impermissible if they are found to involve enumerated activities in a way that is contrary to the public interest.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CFTC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerFintechCrypto Exchange No description available.
Bank
No description available.
BankAll Firms
No description available.
Asset Manager
My thanks to the Tánaiste and his Department for the invitation to be here today. I am delighted to take part in this National Financial Literacy Strategy Stakeholder Forum. It is an important event as part of a necessary collaborative approach across public and private stakeholders in delivering Ireland’s National Financial Literacy Strategy – a strategy in which Central Bank of Ireland is proud to participate. As we are here in the oldest continuously operating maternity hospital in the wor...
All Firms
Super stragglers dampen progress on death benefits delivery for grieving Australians
All Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
Blue Owl Strengthens Global Presence With Opening Of Abu Dhabi Office
Asset Manager
Copper Me Expands Its Adgm Footprint After Receiving In Principle Approval From Fsra For Virtual Asset Custody And Investment Services
Crypto ExchangeBroker Dealer
Administrative sanction imposed on Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A.
The CSSF has announced that an **administrative sanction was imposed on Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A. on 5 March 2026**, but it has not yet published the underlying decision or grounds. For compliance teams, this signals that the CSSF continues to actively use sanctions against Luxembourg wealth/asset management entities and that a detailed decision is likely forthcoming, which may contain important precedents on governance, AML/CFT or conduct requirements.
What Changed
- At this stage, based on the CSSF notice alone, no new legal or regulatory requirements are introduced; the publication is a transparency notice that a sanction decision exists.
- the Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector (LFS), the Law of 17 December 2010 on undertakings for collective investment, the Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs, and the Law of 12 November 2004 on the...
- the CSSF’s established practice of publishing individual sanction decisions, which typically detail shortcomings in organisational requirements, internal controls, oversight of delegates, conduct of...
- the legal provisions breached (for example, Articles 109–111 and 148 of the Law of 2010 or Articles 2-2, 3 and 8-4 of the AML/CFT Law, by analogy with other CSSF sanctions),
- the factual deficiencies identified (e.g., weaknesses in governance, delegate oversight, AML risk assessment, customer due diligence), and
Suggested Considerations
- Monitor the CSSF website for publication of the detailed PDF decision relating to the administrative sanction of 5 March 2026 against Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A.
- Once available, review the full decision to identify the specific legal bases (e.g. LFS, Law of 2010, Law of 2013, AML/CFT Law) and control failures cited by the CSSF.
- Map the identified weaknesses from the decision against your firm’s governance, internal control, delegate oversight and AML/CFT frameworks to identify any similar risk areas.
- Update internal compliance risk assessments to reflect the enforcement themes highlighted in this and recent CSSF sanctions, including the weighting of enforcement risk for organisational and AML/CFT deficiencies.
- Review and, where necessary, strengthen board and senior management oversight arrangements, including the documentation of decisions, challenge and escalation processes, in anticipation of CSSF expectations evidenced in the forthcoming decision.
Key Dates
- CSSF imposes the administrative sanction on Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A. (date of decision)
- CSSF publicly announces the administrative sanction and the existence of a PDF decision (date of publication on CSSF website)
Compliance Impact
The specific financial and qualitative impact of this particular sanction is not yet public, but recent CSSF cases show that deficiencies in governance, delegate oversight and AML/CFT controls can lead to significant fines, public censure and supervisory follow-up. Non-compliance increases the likelihood of intrusive inspections, remediation programmes under CSSF scrutiny, and reputational risk with clients and counterparties.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Wealth ManagerAsset ManagerFamily Office
On 27 May 2026, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) prohibited the public offering of participation certificates of AMAGVIK Int. AG, based in St. Gallen, Switzerland, due to a violation of the German Capital Investment Act (VermAnlG). For this reason, AMAGVIK Int. AG may not offer its own participation certificates to the public in Germany.
BaFin has issued a final enforcement measure prohibiting AMAGVIK Int. AG, a Swiss issuer, from publicly offering its participation certificates (capital investments) in Germany due to the absence of a BaFin-approved prospectus under the German Capital Investment Act (Vermögensanlagengesetz – VermAnlG). This action underscores that any public offer of capital investments into Germany – including cross‑border offers from non‑German entities – must be preceded by an approved sales prospectus that meets VermAnlG content and form requirements.
What Changed
- - AMAGVIK Int. AG is expressly prohibited from offering its own participation certificates (a form of capital investment) to the public in Germany due to non-compliance with VermAnlG prospectus...
- BaFin has confirmed that the prohibition measure is final and binding, meaning the firm has no remaining ordinary legal remedies to continue the offering in Germany without a compliant prospectus.
- The case reiterates that public offers of capital investments in Germany require prior publication of a sales prospectus approved by BaFin, containing the minimum information mandated by VermAnlG.
- BaFin’s prospectus approval is limited to verifying completeness, understandability, coherence, and consistency of the information, and does not assess factual correctness of the data, the...
- Issuers of capital investments remain fully liable for the accuracy of the information in the prospectus and must clearly state in the prospectus that BaFin does not check correctness of content,...
Suggested Considerations
- Verify immediately whether any existing or planned offerings of participation certificates or other VermAnlG‑covered capital investments to German investors are supported by a BaFin‑approved prospectus, and suspend public offers where no such prospectus exists.
- Review all cross‑border distribution arrangements to ensure non‑German issuers offering capital investments into Germany understand and comply with VermAnlG prospectus obligations before any public marketing or solicitation.
- Implement or strengthen internal controls requiring legal/compliance sign‑off that a BaFin‑approved prospectus is in place (and properly filed) prior to any public offering of capital investments, especially for retail distribution.
- Update product governance and new product approval policies to explicitly cover VermAnlG capital investments, including participation certificates, and to require checks against BaFin’s prospectus database before onboarding or recommending such products.
- Enhance due diligence procedures on third‑party issuers (including Swiss and other non‑EU issuers) to confirm prospectus approval status, prospectus content compliance, and clear disclosure that BaFin does not verify correctness or product quality.
Key Dates
- BaFin issues a warning about offers from Gallus Immobilien entities and AMAGVIK Int. AG being made without the legally required sales prospectus, signalling early supervisory concern with these products
- BaFin formally prohibits the public offer of AMAGVIK Int. AG participation certificates in Germany due to violation of the Vermögensanlagengesetz prospectus requirement
- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice on its website, making the prohibition publicly known to investors, intermediaries, and other market participants
- The BaFin prohibition becomes final (bestandskräftig), confirming that AMAGVIK Int. AG may not publicly offer its participation certificates in Germany absent full compliance with VermAnlG prospectus rules
- BaFin modifies/updates the publication, indicating continuing attention to the case and ensuring market participants have the latest information on the enforcement status
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance with VermAnlG prospectus requirements for public offerings of capital investments in Germany can result in formal prohibition orders, reputational damage, potential civil liability to investors, and supervisory follow‑up on distributors and intermediaries connected to the products. The AMAGVIK Int. AG case demonstrates BaFin’s willingness to escalate from warnings to binding enforcement, making this a high‑impact area for cross‑border product distribution and investor protection compliance.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BaFin source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer No description available.
Payment ProviderCrypto ExchangeFintech
No description available.
All Firms
Buying a home is different now to even a decade ago.People are living longer, the way they work has changed and, for many, how much they earn can vary month-to-month. People will also carry mortgage debt for longer and use it more flexibly across their lives.That’s why we’re proposing changes to help more people to access a mortgage – including first-time buyers, older borrowers and the self-employed.More flexibility for how people live nowWe want to give mortgage lenders the flexibility to t...
BankFintech
First-time buyers, older borrowers and the self-employed could find it easier to get a mortgage, as the FCA sets out next steps to help reform the market. Its proposed mortgage rule changes would give lenders more flexibility to consider individual circumstances and develop products that better meet people's needs – while maintaining strong consumer protections.They include:Reducing barriers for lenders to offer flexible repayments for people with variable income, like the self-employed, and ...
BankFintech
Court finds south-west Sydney car dealership and former director engaged in unlicensed lending and charged unlawful fees
Fintech
ASIC permanently bans former responsible manager Gerard Duffy from providing financial services
Wealth Manager
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
The West Kowloon Magistrates’ Court has sentenced Pegasus Entertainment’s former chairman and controlling shareholder, Wong Pak Ming, to five months’ imprisonment and a fine equal to the profits realised by his sister, following conviction for insider dealing under Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). The case underscores SFC’s readiness to pursue custodial sentences where a connected person misuses inside information, including where trading is carried out through or for relatives funded by the insider, and highlights the evidential weight the courts will place on electronic communications such as WhatsApp messages.
What Changed
- - The case confirms that advising another person to trade, while in possession of non‑public, price‑sensitive information obtained in the capacity of chairman and controlling shareholder, constitutes...
- The sentencing outcome reinforces that insider dealing offences in Hong Kong now routinely attract immediate custodial sentences, rather than fines alone, where there is deliberate misuse of inside...
- The decision illustrates that trading by close family members funded by the insider, and executed before public announcement of a controlling-stake disposal, will be treated by the SFC and the courts...
- The case demonstrates that electronic communications (e.g. WhatsApp messages giving timing and price instructions) will be treated as direct evidence of advising another person to deal and of...
- The SFC has signalled, through public statements accompanying the sentencing, that it will continue to pursue criminal prosecutions for insider dealing to “protect investors and uphold confidence in...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update insider dealing and market misconduct policies to explicitly address advising or inducing family members or connected persons to trade on inside information, including where trading is funded by the insider.
- Implement or tighten pre‑clearance and restricted‑list procedures for directors, senior management and controlling shareholders, ensuring controls extend to trading through relatives, nominees, family vehicles and related accounts.
- Establish or reinforce clear written guidance to all “connected persons” (including family members where appropriate) explaining what constitutes inside information under the SFO, and explicitly prohibiting trading or advice based on such information before disclosure.
- Enhance monitoring of employee, director and connected‑person dealings, including periodic attestations requiring disclosure of accounts held by spouses, siblings and close relatives that trade in related listed securities.
- Update training programmes for directors, senior executives and licensed representatives to include this case as a recent Hong Kong example of criminal insider dealing, emphasising the risk of imprisonment and confiscatory orders.
Key Dates
- Pegasus Entertainment Holdings Limited is listed on the Growth Enterprise Market of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
- Pegasus transfers its listing from GEM to the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
- Upon receipt of earnest money from a buyer for his controlling stake, Wong begins transferring funds to his sister, who starts buying Pegasus shares on the same day
- By this date, Wong is sending multiple WhatsApp messages to his sister advising on timing and price of share purchases (continuing through to October 2017)
- Wong’s sister’s purchase period ends, by which time she has acquired over nine million Pegasus shares, largely funded by Wong
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with Hong Kong’s insider dealing provisions can result in criminal prosecution, immediate custodial sentences, fines equal to or exceeding illicit profits and recovery of SFC investigation costs, as seen in this case. Beyond monetary and liberty risks, individuals and firms face significant reputational damage and potential regulatory action against licensed entities and responsible officers.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SFC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerBankWealth Manager No description available.
All Firms
Version 3.1
Asset ManagerHedge Fund
Version 3.1
Asset ManagerHedge Fund
The FCAhasstartedcivil proceedings against Mr Neil Woodford andW4.0.The FCAallegesthat Mr Woodford and W4.0 are providing regulated investment advice and making financial promotions through the subscription-based platform, www.w4pz.com, without authorisation.In the FCA’sview, the activitybreachessections 19 and 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).The FCA is seekingan injunction against Mr Woodford and W4.0 tostop them carrying on the potentiallyunlawfulactivities.W4.0 is ...
The FCA has commenced civil proceedings against Neil Woodford and W4.0 (W Four Point Zero FZE LLC, UAE‑registered), alleging they provided regulated investment advice and made financial promotions to UK consumers via subscription platform www.w4pz.com without FCA authorisation, in breach of sections 19 and 21 FSMA 2000. The case underscores that overseas structures, subscription “community” models, and model‑portfolio or strategy platforms aimed at UK users will be treated as carrying on UK‑regulated activities and financial promotions if they effectively target or advise UK investors.
What Changed
- - The FCA has publicly confirmed that providing model portfolios, strategies or investment recommendations via a subscription website can constitute regulated investment advice and financial...
- The FCA is treating digital “community platforms” and strategy‑copying services as potentially regulated activities, not merely education or general commentary, where users are expected to implement...
- The FCA has explicitly framed such activity as breaching the general prohibition in section 19 FSMA (carrying on a regulated activity in the UK without authorisation or exemption) when done without...
- The FCA has explicitly framed such online communications as breaching the financial promotion restriction in section 21 FSMA where no authorised firm approves or issues the promotions.
- The regulator has commenced civil proceedings and is actively seeking an injunction from the court to force the immediate cessation of the allegedly unlawful advice and promotion activities.
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct an immediate perimeter review of all digital, subscription‑based, model‑portfolio, and strategy‑distribution offerings to determine whether they constitute regulated investment advice or arranging, requiring FCA permission.
- Review all online content, marketing materials, newsletters, videos, and “community” communications to identify any that could amount to a financial promotion to UK consumers and ensure they are issued or approved by an authorised firm under section 21 FSMA, or fall clearly within an exemption.
- Update internal policies and product‑governance frameworks for research, commentary, and model portfolios so that any service intended to be implemented by clients is classified and treated as a regulated activity where relevant.
- For groups using non‑UK entities to host platforms or provide content, perform a jurisdictional analysis and document how UK‑facing activities are controlled, authorised, or carved out to avoid a breach of FSMA sections 19 and 21.
- Implement or strengthen pre‑clearance procedures for senior individuals (particularly previously sanctioned or restricted persons) seeking to launch new client‑facing propositions, ensuring that any new business line is assessed for authorisation and promotion requirements before launch.
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance exposes firms and individuals to civil proceedings, injunctive relief, financial penalties, and potentially prohibition orders, alongside significant reputational damage. The case demonstrates the FCA’s willingness to litigate perimeter breaches for digital and overseas platforms, making this a high‑risk area for firms operating at or near the border of regulated advice and promotions.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerFintech The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission established joint data standards under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022. The final rule establishes technical standards for data submitted to certain financial regulatory agencies. Eight additional…
The SEC has adopted **joint data standards** under the Financial Data Transparency Act of 2022 (FDTA) to govern how data is formatted and submitted to specified U.S. financial regulators, including the SEC. This materially raises the bar on data structure, tagging, and interoperability for regulatory reporting and disclosures, requiring firms to shift from document-centric to **machine‑readable, standardized data** across multiple reporting regimes.
What Changed
- - The SEC, jointly with seven other U.S. financial regulators, has established mandatory technical data standards for information submitted to those agencies pursuant to the Financial Data...
- The joint standards apply to regulatory data collections within each participating agency’s remit (e.g., SEC filings and reports, certain prudential and market data submissions), and are intended to...
- The rule requires use of structured, non‑proprietary, machine‑readable formats (such as XML, JSON, XBRL, or similar open standards) where data is collected electronically, moving away from...
- The standards require use of public, non‑exclusive data dictionaries and taxonomies, so that data elements (e.g., fields, metrics, identifiers) are consistently defined and tagged across different...
- The rule embeds interoperability requirements, so that the same data element (for example, a LEI, CUSIP, counterparty ID, asset class, or exposure type) is reported using harmonized definitions and...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct a comprehensive mapping of all current and upcoming regulatory data submissions to the SEC and other FDTA‑covered agencies to identify which reports are likely to be brought under the joint data standards.
- Review and update data governance frameworks so that key data elements (counterparty identifiers, instrument identifiers, balances, exposures, classifications) are uniquely defined, consistently sourced, and traceable across internal systems in alignment with anticipated joint taxonomies.
- Assess existing regulatory reporting systems and vendor solutions (including XBRL tools, data warehouses, and filing platforms) and develop an upgrade plan to support the new machine‑readable, standardized formats and schemas.
- Establish an internal FDTA/joint data standards implementation program, with clear ownership (e.g., finance, regulatory reporting, data management, IT) and a cross‑functional steering committee to oversee design, testing, and rollout.
- Engage with technology, regtech, and data vendors to confirm their timelines for supporting the new SEC and cross‑agency standards and to obtain updated taxonomies, schemas, and validation rules as soon as they are published.
Key Dates
– SEC press release date and effective date of the joint data standards rule (exact calendar date to be taken from the final rule and press release)
– SEC and other participating agencies publish technical specifications, schemas, and implementation guides for specific forms and data collections that will transition to the joint data standards
– Phased compliance dates for particular reporting forms and regimes as each agency completes its implementation plans under the FDTA; individual forms will have distinct first‑applicable reporting periods and transition windows
Compliance Impact
The impact is high, because the rule drives structural changes to how regulatory data is formatted, governed, and submitted, with material systems and process implications across multiple reporting regimes. Non‑compliance may result in rejected filings, late‑filing violations, enforcement risk, and increased scrutiny over the accuracy and reliability of reported data.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SEC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer No description available.
All Firms
Further details concerning the AMLA webinar of 10 June 2026 from 10 am to 12 pm CEST
All Firms
We set out next steps on issuing new rules and guidance on Money Market Funds (MMFs), following Government plans to replace the current rules. On 15 May, the Government set out its expectation that it will lay legislation that will replace the UK Money Market Funds Regulation. Read the Government statement.Money Market Funds (MMFs) play an important role in the financial system. MMFs are widely used for cash management and provide an alternative or complement to bank deposits for a broad rang...
The FCA has confirmed its *updated approach* to UK money market fund (MMF) reforms, signalling that most detailed MMF requirements will move from retained EU law into FCA rules and guidance, with a new overarching “adequate resilience” liquidity rule and revised expectations for weekly liquid assets (WLA). The key compliance implication is a shift from hard, uniform liquidity minima to a combination of existing regulatory minima plus *supervisory expectations* of 40% WLA for stable NAV MMFs and 20% WLA for variable NAV MMFs, alongside confirmation that “delinking” and enhanced KYC measures will proceed.
What Changed
- - The FCA will introduce a new overarching rule requiring that all UK‑domiciled MMFs must hold sufficient liquidity for “adequate resilience”, explicitly linking fund liquidity to financial stability...
- The FCA will retain the current minimum WLA requirements from the existing UK Money Market Fund Regulation (UK MMFR) in its rules, instead of the previously consulted increases to 50% WLA for all...
- The FCA will issue guidance setting out strong supervisory expectations that stable NAV MMFs should hold 40% WLA and variable NAV MMFs should hold 20% WLA to meet the new resilience requirement,...
- The FCA makes clear that falling below the 40%/20% WLA supervisory expectations should only occur to meet redemption requests or due to factors beyond the manager’s control, and should be rare, with...
- The FCA will retain existing minimum daily liquid asset (DLA) requirements from UK MMFR in rules and does not plan to issue new guidance on DLA levels, but expects DLA and WLA together to be...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis comparing current MMF liquidity management frameworks (DLA, WLA, and stress‑testing assumptions) against the forthcoming FCA “adequate resilience” rule and the 40% (stable NAV) / 20% (variable NAV) WLA supervisory expectations.
- Update MMF liquidity policies, board‑approved risk appetites, and internal limits to reflect the new WLA expectations, including documentation of when and how funds may temporarily operate below 40%/20% WLA and the governance required to approve such deviations.
- Implement enhancements to liquidity monitoring and MI reporting so that portfolio managers, risk, and compliance have near‑real‑time visibility of DLA and WLA levels, breaches of internal and supervisory thresholds, and redemption‑driven use of liquidity buffers.
- Review and update fund prospectuses, KIIDs/KIDs, and investor disclosures to ensure that descriptions of MMF liquidity management, the availability of liquidity management tools, and the operation of stable NAV structures are accurate under the new FCA regime.
- Revise and strengthen investor KYC procedures for MMFs to capture concentration risks and potential correlated outflows, including segmentation of investor types, monitoring of large holders, and scenario analysis around key client redemption behaviour.
Key Dates
– FCA publishes CP23/28 “Updating the regime for Money Market Funds,” consulting on higher liquidity minima (15% DLA and 50% WLA), delinking, enhanced KYC, and broader resilience measures
– HM Treasury and the FCA publish the joint policy statement “Reforms to Money Market Fund Regulations,” confirming the Government’s intention to replace the UK MMFR with a new framework and that most MMF requirements will be set in FCA rules and guidance, including higher liquidity expectations
– FCA issues its statement “FCA update on reforms to the UK Money Market Fund Regulation,” setting out updated proposals, including retention of current minimum WLA in rules, the new “adequate resilience” liquidity rule, and supervisory expectations of 40% WLA for stable NAV and 20% WLA for variable NAV MMFs, and indicating that CP23/28 measures such as delinking and enhanced KYC will largely be taken forward
– The UK’s new MMF regime is expected to be in place, subject to Parliamentary approval of the enabling legislation, after which the detailed FCA rules and guidance (including the new resilience rule and WLA expectations) will apply
– HM Treasury will lay the statutory instrument replacing the UK MMFR with the new legislative framework under which FCA rules and guidance for MMFs will be made
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the new FCA MMF rules and supervisory expectations is likely to be treated as a significant prudential and conduct issue, exposing firms to supervisory intervention, potential restrictions on MMF operations, and enforcement action where governance or disclosure failures are identified. Given the explicit financial stability focus of these reforms, regulators can be expected to scrutinise outlier funds and firms that do not align internal practice with the 40%/20% WLA expectations or that cannot evidence robust liquidity and KYC frameworks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundBank The FCA has secured a confiscation order of £452,286.80 against convicted fraudster Daniel Pugh. Mr Pugh, 36, is serving a 7 years and 6 months prison sentence for defrauding investors out of £1.3m.Run from his bedroom in Devon, Pugh used Facebook adverts to target investors and promised them wholly unrealistic returns, claiming these would be generated by trading across various markets.Only 19% of the funds collected from investors were traded and the scheme was, in effect, a Ponzi scheme, w...
All Firms
Long term investment Shares Artificial intelligence Retail investors Journalists Special edition of the AMF Barometer: while artificial intelligence is still not widely used in investment practices, it is winning over more young investors
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerAll Firms
Palmer Leisure Coolum Pty Ltd pleads guilty to takeover law breaches
All Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerAll Firms
Deputy Governor McMunn's speech to IOB Funds and Asset Management Forum on 8 June 2026.
Asset ManagerAll Firms
No description available.
The CSSF has launched a consultation on national **Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset (WLA) Levels**, aligned with the European Commission’s 2026 MMF report, which defines “market resilience” WLA benchmarks above the MMFR regulatory minimums. This signals a move toward **enhanced liquidity risk management and intensified supervisory scrutiny** for Luxembourg‑authorised MMFs whose WLA levels fall below these resilience benchmarks, even if they remain above the legal minimum.
What Changed
- - The CSSF, in coordination with the European Commission, AMF (France) and Central Bank of Ireland, is consulting on national guidance that operationalises the Commission’s “market resilience” levels...
- The guidance will introduce non-binding but supervisory‑relevant WLA benchmarks designed to indicate when an MMF’s liquidity profile may warrant closer scrutiny and additional supervisory engagement.
- The consultation builds on the European Commission’s 11 May 2026 report, which identifies WLA benchmarks of 20% for VNAV MMFs and 40% for LVNAV and CNAV MMFs, compared with the MMFR regulatory minima...
- The guidance is intended to support more consistent and well‑calibrated supervision of MMFs across the EU, specifically on liquidity resilience under stress.
- MMFs that fall below the identified “market resilience” WLA levels, even while remaining compliant with the MMFR minimum percentages, can expect increased supervisory scrutiny, closer monitoring and...
Suggested Considerations
- Review the CSSF consultation paper “Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels” in detail and map the proposed WLA resilience benchmarks against existing MMF liquidity policies, procedures and internal limits.
- Perform a quantitative impact analysis comparing each MMF’s historical and current WLA levels against both MMFR minimum requirements and the Commission’s market resilience benchmarks (20% for VNAV; 40% for LVNAV and CNAV) to identify potential shortfalls or pressure points.
- Assess and, where necessary, update MMF liquidity risk management frameworks to incorporate explicit internal WLA targets, triggers and escalation procedures linked to the new resilience benchmarks, including governance oversight and board reporting.
- Integrate the proposed WLA resilience levels into stress testing programmes under Article 28 MMFR, ensuring scenarios reflect the ability of funds to maintain or restore WLA around the benchmark levels under severe but plausible market stress.
- Revisit know‑your‑investor / liability profile analysis under Article 27 MMFR to ensure that internal WLA targets adequately reflect investor concentration, redemption behaviour, dealing frequency and distribution channels.
Key Dates
– European Commission publishes its report on the adequacy of the MMFR and FAQs, identifying market resilience WLA levels for VNAV and CNAV/LVNAV MMFs
– CSSF informs the market of the Commission’s MMF report and FAQs and flags the identified WLA “market resilience” benchmarks
– CSSF publishes the communiqué launching the consultation on “Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels.”
– Deadline for stakeholders to submit electronic responses on the consultation to the CSSF at opc_prud_risk@cssf.lu
Compliance Impact
The immediate legal impact is limited because the text is a consultation on guidance, not a binding rule change, but the direction of travel is towards higher de‑facto liquidity expectations and more intrusive supervision where WLA levels fall below resilience benchmarks. Non‑alignment with the eventual guidance is likely to result in increased supervisory challenge, potential remediation demands and heightened risk that liquidity weaknesses are escalated within the CSSF’s prudential risk framework.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundBank
Firms are using AI to drive efficiency, support decision-making and deliver better outcomes for consumers and markets. We want to support that innovation. But it must be safe, responsible and well governed.We have been clear that we are not going to introduce new regulations for AI. Instead, we’ll rely on existing frameworks, including the Consumer Duty, the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR), and our expectations on governance and controls.We recognise that AI can raise new and...
All Firms
Consultation Paper
The CSSF has launched a consultation on new **Guidance on Money Market Fund (MMF) Weekly Liquid Asset Levels**, signalling its intention to clarify supervisory expectations on the calibration and use of weekly liquid asset (WLA) buffers under the EU Money Market Funds Regulation (MMFR). This matters for compliance teams because it will likely drive changes to MMF liquidity risk frameworks, escalation triggers, governance around liquidity thresholds, and potentially the design of internal stress tests and contingency plans.
---
What Changed
- Given the consultation nature and the absence of a published consultation text in the extract, the following points reflect what compliance teams should reasonably anticipate and prepare for, based...
- The CSSF is consulting on formal guidance that will specify how MMFs domiciled in Luxembourg should determine, monitor, and maintain weekly liquid asset levels under the EU Money Market Funds...
- The guidance is expected to operationalise the MMFR WLA requirements (for example, minimum weekly liquidity levels and interaction with redemption activity) by setting out supervisory expectations on...
- The consultation will likely address the interaction between WLA levels and the use of liquidity management tools (such as gates, fees, or suspensions), including expectations on when and how...
- The CSSF is expected to clarify how MMFs should incorporate WLA targets and thresholds into their internal risk management policies, including stress-testing assumptions, early warning indicators,...
Suggested Considerations
- Review the CSSF consultation paper in full as soon as it is available and identify all proposed expectations relating to weekly liquid asset levels, monitoring, and escalation.
- Map the proposed CSSF guidance against current MMF liquidity policies, prospectus disclosures, and internal procedures to identify gaps and potential areas needing enhancement.
- Assess whether existing MMF weekly liquidity monitoring tools, dashboards, and reporting are sufficient to meet anticipated CSSF expectations on frequency, granularity, and early warning indicators.
- Evaluate the current escalation framework for declining WLA levels, including board and senior management involvement, and update governance documentation to align with the likely CSSF approach to thresholds and decision‑making.
- Review MMF stress‑testing methodologies to ensure that scenarios adequately capture severe but plausible redemption and market stress in relation to WLA levels and that results are integrated into risk appetite and contingency planning.
Key Dates
– Expected date for CSSF to publish final guidance on MMF weekly liquid asset levels, following review of consultation feedback
– CSSF publishes consultation communiqué “Guidance on Money Market Fund Weekly Liquid Asset Levels” and opens consultation on its proposed guidance
– Expected closing date for industry comments on the consultation (to be confirmed once the full consultation paper and response deadline are made available by CSSF)
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the forthcoming CSSF guidance, once finalised, could result in supervisory findings, remediation programmes, and potential restrictions on MMF activities, particularly in stressed markets where liquidity management failures are highly scrutinised. Given MMFs’ systemic importance, firms should treat this as a high‑impact development for liquidity risk management, board oversight, and investor protection.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundBank
Consumers are being warned to be wary of misleading car finance 'money tips' adverts issued by claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms on social media. As part of the joint regulatory taskforce, the FCA has identified a growing number of adverts that appear to offer independent advice from an individual but are in fact paid promotions from CMCs and law firms encouraging people to sign up for motor finance claims.Consumers should be aware that some adverts:Pose as impartial advice fro...
FintechAll Firms
implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
All Firms
On 4 June 2026, the FCA required Euro Exchange Securities UK Limited (EES) to cease carrying out any regulated electronic money or payment services and, on the FCA’s application, interim managers were appointed by the Court over EES. Serious concerns around the way EES operated its business indicated there were significant risks of financial crime. This includes systemic weaknesses in the firm’s financial crime framework and safeguarding arrangements, alongside its ownership and governance. T...
Payment Provider
No description available.
All Firms
Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat den Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) geändert.
Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung (WBF) hat am 4. Juni 2026 den Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) angepasst, wodurch die schweizerischen Sanktionen gegen Sudan aktualisiert wurden. Dies verpflichtet beaufsichtigte Institute, ihre Sanktions- und Embargoprüfungen umgehend an die neuen gelisteten Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen anzupassen und sicherzustellen, dass sämtliche Vermögenssperren und Meldepflichten nach schweizerischem Sanktions- und Geldwäscherecht eingehalten werden.
What Changed
- - Der Anhang 2 der Verordnung vom 25. Mai 2005 über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18) wurde durch Entscheid des WBF aktualisiert, was Änderungen an der Sanktionsliste (gelistete natürliche...
- Die aktualisierte Sanktionsliste zu Sudan ist für alle von der Verordnung erfassten Finanzintermediäre unmittelbar verbindlich und ist bei der Prüfung von Kunden, wirtschaftlich Berechtigten,...
- Vermögenswerte von neu gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen müssen gemäss Verordnung unverzüglich eingefroren und dürfen weder direkt noch indirekt zur Verfügung gestellt werden.
- Bereits bestehende Geschäftsbeziehungen zu neu gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen sind zu suspendieren bzw. abzuwickeln, soweit dies mit den gesetzlichen Vermögenssperren vereinbar ist.
- Institute sind verpflichtet, gefundene Treffer (Treffer bei Konten, Depots, Zahlungs- oder Handelsgeschäften) zu gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen den zuständigen Bundesstellen nach den...
Suggested Considerations
- Führen Sie umgehend einen Abgleich aller Kunden-, Konten- und wirtschaftlich Berechtigten-Stammdaten sowie relevanter Transaktionen gegen die aktualisierte Sudan-Sanktionsliste gemäss Anhang 2 der Verordnung SR 946.231.18 durch.
- Identifizieren und dokumentieren Sie alle Treffer (Hits) zu gelisteten Personen, Organisationen oder Einrichtungen und prüfen Sie diese formal (True Hit vs. False Positive) unter Anwendung eines dokumentierten, vier-Augen-prüfenden Verfahrens.
- Frieren Sie Vermögenswerte von bestätigten gelisteten Personen oder Einrichtungen unverzüglich ein, blockieren Sie Transaktionen und verhindern Sie jede direkte oder indirekte Bereitstellung von wirtschaftlichen Ressourcen, in Übereinstimmung mit der Sudan-Verordnung.
- Erstatten Sie umgehend die erforderlichen Meldungen an die zuständigen Bundesstellen (insbesondere SECO bzw. die im Sanktionsrecht vorgesehenen Behörden) sowie – soweit einschlägig – Verdachtsmeldungen an die Meldestelle für Geldwäscherei (MROS).
- Aktualisieren Sie Ihre Sanktions- und AML-Richtlinien, Arbeitsanweisungen und Kontrollpläne, um die neuen Sudan-spezifischen Listungen und Prozesse zur Vermögenssperre und Meldung explizit zu berücksichtigen.
Key Dates
- Erlass der Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18), die den rechtlichen Rahmen für schweizerische Sudan-Sanktionen schafft
- Das WBF beschliesst und veröffentlicht die Änderung des Anhangs 2 der Verordnung über Massnahmen gegenüber Sudan (SR 946.231.18); die aktualisierte Sanktionsliste tritt in Kraft und ist ab diesem Datum anzuwenden
Compliance Impact
Die Änderung des Anhangs 2 der Sudan-Verordnung erhöht das unmittelbare Sanktions- und Geldwäschereirisiko für Schweizer Finanzintermediäre bei unzureichender Listenpflege, Überwachung und Meldeprozessen. Verstösse gegen schweizerische Sanktionsbestimmungen können zu erheblichen aufsichtsrechtlichen Massnahmen durch FINMA, strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen sowie schwerwiegenden Reputationsschäden führen.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FINMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerPayment Provider On 28 April 2026, Solvenza Limited (Solvenza) entered administration. Louise Longley and Julian Pitts of BTG Begbies Traynor (Central) LLP (Begbies) were appointed joint administrators. Solvenza (Firm Reference Number: 718517) is regulated by the FCA, authorised to carry out debt purchasing and debt collection activities, which provide debt resolution solutions to consumers.The joint administrators are responsible for managing the affairs of Solvenza during the administration process.Debt Col...
Fintech
On 21 May 2026, Silicon Marketing Limited (Silicon) entered administration. Carrie James and Nick Parsk of Oury Clark were appointed as joint administrators. Silicon (Firm Reference Number: 674008) is regulated by the FCA, authorised to carry out debt purchasing and debt collection activities, which provide debt resolution solutions to consumers. The joint administrators are responsible for managing the affairs of Silicon during the administration process.The joint administrators have advised...
Fintech
Central Bank of Ireland has today (Friday 5 June 2026) published its Annual Report and Annual Performance Statement for 2025 . Speaking on publication of the report, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf said: “2025 was a year of significant uncertainty and adjustment. “Inflation across advanced economies continued to moderate from the highs experienced in previous years. In the euro area, we kept interest rates at levels necessary to ensure that inflation returns sustainably to our 2% target even as geo...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has published its 2025 Annual Report and Annual Performance Statement, signalling concrete shifts in supervisory approach, consumer protection expectations, and regulatory implementation priorities across digitalisation, financial crime and new EU regimes. For compliance teams in Irish‑authorised firms, this is effectively a roadmap of how CBI will supervise in 2026–2027: enhanced conduct standards under the modernised Consumer Protection Code, intensified focus on financial crime and digital risks (including AI), and more assertive enforcement capacity via a new dedicated prosecutions team.
What Changed
- - The modernised Consumer Protection Code entered into effect in 2025, updating the existing Irish conduct framework to reflect digital delivery of financial services and strengthen protections in...
- Requirements on informing consumers effectively were tightened, implying higher expectations on clear, fair, not misleading disclosures across digital and traditional channels, and more robust...
- New or enhanced obligations concerning consumers in vulnerable circumstances now apply, requiring firms to identify, record and respond to vulnerability and to embed vulnerability considerations into...
- Mortgage switching processes are subject to strengthened conduct standards, increasing expectations on how options are presented, how customers are supported to switch, and how potential conflicts or...
- Insurance auto‑renewal practices are now more tightly controlled, requiring clearer pre‑renewal information, active consent and controls to mitigate consumer detriment from inertia or unsuitable...
Suggested Considerations
- Map the modernised Consumer Protection Code requirements against existing policies, procedures and customer journeys to identify and remediate gaps, particularly in digital channels, disclosure, sales practices and complaints handling.
- Update vulnerable customer policies, customer‑facing procedures, training materials and systems flags to ensure systematic identification, recording and tailored treatment of consumers in vulnerable circumstances.
- Review mortgage switching processes and documentation to ensure customers receive clear, comparative information on switching options, are not subject to unreasonable barriers or retention tactics, and that conflicts of interest are controlled and documented.
- Conduct a comprehensive review of insurance auto‑renewal practices (including communications, timing, consent mechanisms and pricing) and implement changes to align with the strengthened consumer protection expectations.
- Strengthen fraud and scam prevention frameworks by enhancing customer education, warnings, authentication, monitoring, incident response and redress processes, with particular focus on online and mobile channels.
Key Dates
– CBI established a dedicated team to investigate and prosecute offences under financial services legislation
– The modernised Consumer Protection Code came into effect for Irish‑regulated firms
– CBI implemented its new supervisory approach centred on four safeguarding outcomes and reorganised into multi‑disciplinary supervisory teams
– CBI’s Innovation Sandbox focused on combatting financial crime, with seven projects selected on information sharing, identity verification and fraud prevention
– CBI published “Regulating & Supervising well – a more effective and efficient framework,” detailing its simplified and outcomes‑focused regulatory framework
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the modernised Consumer Protection Code, new supervisory expectations, and EU‑level regimes such as MiCA, DORA and the EU AI Act can lead to administrative sanctions, reputational damage, and increasingly, investigation and prosecution by CBI’s dedicated enforcement team. Given the integrated, outcomes‑focused supervisory model, weaknesses in any of conduct, prudential, operational resilience or financial crime controls are more likely to trigger broad‑based supervisory interventions and enforcement scrutiny.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerPayment Provider In his latest blog, Governor Gabriel Makhlouf writes about the release of the latest Annual Report and Annual Performance Statement. He uses his blog to reflect how the Central Bank delivered on its mandate for the people of Ireland and gives an overview of the economic outlook, summarises achievements and provides an update on the financial position at the end of last year.
All Firms
Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name FTI Finance Limited (CLONE) Website • https://client.ftifinanceltd.com/auth/login • https://ftifinance-ltd.com/ • https://ftifinancelimited.com Email address used • support@ftifinancelimited.com • support@ftifinance-ltd.com Authorisation in Ireland FTI Finance Limited (CLONE) is not authorised to operate as an investment firm or investment business firm in Ireland. Additional Information This scam firm clo...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 in relation to **FTI Finance Limited (CLONE)**, an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm using multiple websites and email domains to impersonate a legitimately authorised firm of the same name. The notice formally confirms that this entity is not authorised to provide investment services in Ireland and highlights a **clone scam** targeting investors, which requires immediate enhancement of client‑facing controls, due diligence, and fraud‑risk processes in all Ireland‑facing businesses.
What Changed
- - CBI has formally designated “FTI Finance Limited (CLONE)” as an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm and published its details on the Central Bank’s unauthorised firms warning...
- The CBI explicitly clarifies that FTI Finance Limited (CLONE) is not authorised to operate as an investment firm or investment business firm in Ireland and therefore cannot legally provide MiFID‑type...
- The warning identifies specific websites associated with the clone entity that must be treated as high‑risk indicators in client and transaction screening:
-...
- The warning identifies specific email addresses used by the clone, which should be added to firms’ fraud and sanctions‑style screening lists:
- support@ftifinancelimited.com
-...
- CBI confirms that the scam entity has cloned the details of a CBI‑authorised firm of the same name, underscoring a continuing supervisory focus on clone firm scams and the expectation that regulated...
Suggested Considerations
- Screen existing and new customers against the details in the CBI warning and immediately block or enhance review of any relationships, communications, or transactions involving the listed websites or email domains linked to FTI Finance Limited (CLONE).
- Update internal fraud and financial crime watchlists to include the name “FTI Finance Limited (CLONE)” as well as the specific domains and email addresses identified in the CBI notice.
- Enhance customer‑facing verification processes to require staff to confirm the regulatory status of any firm claiming to be FTI Finance Limited against the CBI public register before onboarding, referral, or execution of transactions.
- Review and update client communications, investor education materials, and website FAQs to highlight the risks of clone firms, directing clients to verify authorisation using the CBI register and to consult CBI’s financial scams information.
- Train front‑office, call‑centre, compliance, and fraud‑operations staff on the characteristics of clone investment scams, including this specific case, and embed clear escalation procedures for suspected clone activity.
Key Dates
- CBI publishes the warning notice on FTI Finance Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013
Compliance Impact
Failure to implement appropriate controls to prevent dealings with unauthorised or clone firms can expose regulated entities to CBI supervisory findings, enforcement action, and significant conduct risk, including client loss and litigation. The publication also raises financial crime and fraud‑risk expectations, so inadequate response may be treated as a failure of governance, customer due diligence, and consumer protection frameworks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBankWealth Manager Investment firms could save around £20m a year under new proposals from the FCA to simplify climate reporting for investment products. The FCA estimates it could deliver these savings by replacing detailed product-level reports based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) with simpler, more targeted information for retail investors, in line with the Consumer Duty.The changes aim to give investors clearer insight into how climate risks – such as floods, storms and ot...
Asset Manager
Administrative sanction imposed on a registered alternative investment fund manager
The CSSF has published an administrative sanction dated 17 April 2026 imposed on a **registered alternative investment fund manager (registered AIFM)**, but the public notice contains no detail on the nature of the breach, legal basis, or penalty level, which are presumably only available in the linked PDFs. For compliance teams, this is another data point that the CSSF is actively enforcing the AIFMD and related Luxembourg implementing laws against even registered (sub‑threshold) AIFMs, not only fully authorised managers.
Because the body text and PDFs are not accessible from the prompt, the analysis below focuses on the **regulatory framework and typical CSSF enforcement themes** that are most likely relevant, and how compliance teams at AIFMs should respond.
---
What Changed
- There are no formal rule changes announced in the short notice itself; however, the enforcement action reinforces several practical expectations that compliance teams should treat as de‑facto...
- CSSF confirms that registered alternative investment fund managers are fully subject to Luxembourg’s AIFM framework, including the Law of 12 July 2013 on alternative investment fund managers and the...
- CSSF reiterates, through enforcement practice, that registration status (sub‑threshold AIFM) does not shield managers from administrative sanctions where organisational, conduct, reporting, or...
- CSSF continues its policy of public naming and shaming through publication of administrative sanctions, signalling that reputational impact is a key component of its deterrence strategy.
- The sanction underscores the CSSF’s readiness to use its full sanctioning toolkit under the AIFM Law, which can include monetary fines, public statements, and prohibitions or restrictions on...
Suggested Considerations
- Obtain and review the full CSSF sanction decision PDFs published with the 17 April 2026 administrative sanction to identify the specific legal provisions, facts and control failures cited.
- Map the identified breaches (e.g. governance, risk management, reporting, valuation, delegation, marketing, or conduct of business) against your firm’s current policies and procedures under the Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs and the AIFMD framework.
- Perform a targeted gap analysis for registered AIFMs, focusing on whether “light” registration has led to under‑resourced compliance, risk, valuation, or reporting functions that could attract similar enforcement.
- Review and, where necessary, update internal governance arrangements, including board oversight, documented decision‑making, and escalation processes for regulatory issues, to align with CSSF expectations evidenced in recent sanctions against AIFMs and management companies.
- Test the effectiveness of regulatory reporting and disclosure processes (including Annex IV reporting, investor disclosures, periodic reporting, and prospectus/issuing document accuracy) to ensure they are complete, timely and consistent with CSSF rules.
Key Dates
- CSSF adopts an administrative sanction decision against a registered alternative investment fund manager
- CSSF publishes the administrative sanction notice on its website, including links to the detailed sanction decision in PDF form
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is medium to high: while the publication does not create new rules, it underscores that the CSSF will actively sanction even registered AIFMs and publicly disclose those sanctions, increasing both regulatory and reputational risk for weakly controlled managers. Firms that treat registration as a “lighter” supervisory regime without proportionate controls are particularly exposed to similar action.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundWealth Manager
The Bank of England has published a joint review with the FCA on how the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for financial market infrastructure (FMI) is working. The Bank of England and the FCA (the authorities) cooperate on the supervision of FMIs.The authorities consulted with FMIs to assess the effectiveness of cooperation between the Bank and FCA over the past 12 months.Following the responses, the authorities have concluded that the arrangements for cooperation remain effective with appro...
The Bank of England and FCA have completed their 2025/26 joint review of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) governing cooperation on the supervision of UK financial market infrastructures (FMIs) and have concluded that current arrangements remain effective, well‑coordinated and free from material duplication. For compliance teams at FMIs and connected firms, this confirms regulatory expectations around information‑sharing, supervisory engagement and coordinated oversight by the two authorities, but does not introduce new rules or materially change existing supervisory practice.
What Changed
- - The Bank of England and FCA confirm, following consultation with FMIs over the last 12 months, that the existing MoU framework for supervisory cooperation on financial market infrastructures...
- The authorities explicitly reaffirm their commitment to efficient coordination to enhance the effectiveness of supervision, signalling continued emphasis on timely, accurate and proactive information...
- The statement maintains, rather than revises, the current allocation of responsibilities between the Bank of England (as primary prudential and systemic supervisor for FMIs) and the FCA (as conduct,...
- The authorities confirm the continuation of an annual review process of the MoU, including consultation with supervised FMIs to obtain feedback on how coordination is working in practice, embedding...
- The publication sits alongside the underlying 2025 MoU text (and the broader multi‑regulator MoU framework with FCA, PRA and PSR), reinforcing that FMIs should align their governance, reporting and...
Suggested Considerations
- Confirm internally that your firm’s regulatory engagement framework recognises the Bank of England–FCA MoU and clearly allocates responsibilities for managing relationships with both authorities in line with their respective roles.
- Review and, where necessary, update internal regulatory communications and escalation procedures to ensure that information relevant to both the Bank of England and FCA can be shared consistently, accurately and on a timely basis, in anticipation of coordinated supervisory expectations.
- Prepare to continue providing structured, constructive feedback during the annual MoU review process by maintaining records of supervisory interactions with each authority, including instances of overlap, gaps, or divergent expectations.
- Align incident management, operational resilience and major change approval processes with the expectation that both authorities may need to be informed and coordinated, and verify that notification playbooks and contact trees reflect this dual‑regulator structure.
- For groups operating multiple FMIs or cross‑border infrastructures, map where other regulators rely on the Bank of England/FCA supervisory cooperation (for example, via substituted compliance or recognition regimes) and integrate this into your global regulatory engagement strategy.
Key Dates
– The Bank of England and FCA wrote to CCPs, RIEs and RCSDs to request feedback on the effectiveness of cooperation under the MoU based on firms’ interactions during 2024
– The authorities conducted the annual joint review of the MoU for FMIs, considering the responses received from supervised entities over the preceding 12 months and assessing the effectiveness of coordination and duplication
– The Bank of England and FCA will continue to review the MoU each year, including soliciting feedback from FMIs, to confirm that supervisory cooperation remains effective and to identify potential enhancements
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance would not typically arise directly from the MoU review outcome itself, but FMIs that fail to align with the coordinated expectations and information‑sharing practices of the Bank and FCA risk fragmented supervisory relationships, increased scrutiny, and potential enforcement where underlying prudential, conduct, or operational resilience requirements are not met. Effective engagement with both regulators remains critical to maintaining authorisation, recognition status and continued operation of systemically important market infrastructure.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerBroker Dealer
No description available.
Wealth Manager
Joint statement from the Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority
Broker DealerPayment Provider
Adgms Fsra Issues Notice Regarding Unauthorised Domains Misusing Sarwas Name
Wealth ManagerAll Firms
ASIC cancels the registered agent status of Registration Pty Ltd and Biz Australia Pty Ltd
All Firms
No description available.
The SFC and HKMA have concluded a joint consultation to amend the Clearing Rules for OTC derivative transactions by standardising the calculation periods used to determine mandatory clearing obligations. From 1 March 2027, two fixed annual periods—1 March to 31 May and 1 September to 30 November—will be designated as calculation periods, replacing the current practice of periodically updating the list via legislative amendments. This change increases regulatory certainty and reduces the need for frequent rule‑changes, but requires firms to adjust their internal systems, position‑monitoring processes, and compliance calendars to align with the new permanent schedule.
What Changed
- - The Clearing Rules will be amended to designate two fixed calendar periods each year—1 March to 31 May and 1 September to 30 November—as calculation periods for determining mandatory clearing...
- The new standard calculation periods will apply from 1 March 2027 onwards, creating a permanent formulaic approach that generates future calculation periods without requiring further legislative...
- The existing approach of periodically updating the list of calculation periods in the Clearing Rules via legislative amendments will be replaced by this once‑and‑for‑all standardisation.
- The Prescribed Days associated with each calculation period will also be aligned with the new standard periods, providing greater clarity on when clearing obligations are triggered and when positions...
- The change is intended to increase certainty for derivative dealers in identifying future calculation periods and to facilitate more effective internal planning and compliance monitoring.
Suggested Considerations
- Map current OTC derivative portfolios and position‑monitoring systems to the new standard calculation periods (1 March–31 May and 1 September–30 November) and update internal calendars and compliance checklists accordingly.
- Review and amend internal policies, procedures, and control frameworks for mandatory clearing, including position‑sizing methodologies, threshold calculations, and record‑keeping requirements, to reflect the permanent calculation‑period structure.
- Coordinate with legal and compliance teams to track the progress of the legislative amendments and ensure that internal implementation timelines align with the expected effective date of 1 March 2027.
- Update trade capture, risk, and reporting systems to flag trades and positions that fall within the new calculation periods and to generate alerts when clearing thresholds are approached or breached.
- Train relevant front‑office, middle‑office, and compliance staff on the new calculation‑period regime, including the timing of Prescribed Days and the implications for trade execution, clearing decisions, and documentation.
Key Dates
– SFC and HKMA proceed with the legislative process to introduce the proposed amendments to the Clearing Rules, following the conclusion of the consultation
– SFC and HKMA issue the joint consultation paper on standardising calculation periods under the Clearing Rules
– Deadline for market participants to submit comments on the proposed amendments to the Clearing Rules
– Proposed amendments to the Clearing Rules come into effect, designating 1 March to 31 May and 1 September to 30 November each year as standard calculation periods
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the amended Clearing Rules could result in regulatory enforcement action, including fines, public censure, or restrictions on trading activities, as well as reputational damage and potential operational disruption if positions are not properly cleared within the prescribed periods. The shift to a permanent, formulaic approach also increases the importance of robust internal monitoring and governance, as firms will no longer be able to rely on ad hoc legislative updates to guide their compliance calendars.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SFC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager No description available.
BankInsuranceAll Firms
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced five new members of the Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee. The new members were appointed to four-year terms and will join the 15 current …
All Firms
Mbrif Partners With Numou To Expand Financing Pathways For Innovation Led Businesses In The Uae
FintechBank
Innovation Crypto-assets Artificial intelligence Cyber resilience: the AMF calls on financial market participants to strengthen their cybersecurity arrangements in response to rapidly evolving threats associated with artificial intelligence
Asset ManagerCrypto ExchangeBroker Dealer Situation as of 31 March 2026
Asset Manager
Press release 26/11
Asset ManagerWealth Manager
The FCA has opened an enforcement investigation into Consultation Claims Limited (CCL) following concerns about its conduct in the period April 2025 to December 2025 in relation to motor finance claims. The FCA is investigating concerns that consumers may have been signed up during the period April 2025 to December 2025 without their consent, with some allegations that signatures have been forged. The FCA is investigating the full customer journey, including how customers were contacted, what...
Fintech
The latest meeting of the Synchronisation thematic engagement working group
BankPayment ProviderFintech
ASIC disqualifies NSW director Genna Raber for 5 years
All Firms
Fashion and beauty retailers trading under the Zara, H&M and Sephora brands pay $596,000 in infringement notices for failing to lodge financial reports on time
All Firms
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA has once again reviewed numerous money laundering risk analyses and is supplementing Guidance 05/2023 with further observations and insights for both banks and FinIA institutions. In doing so, it recognised the progress made, but also identified further room for improvement.
BankFintech
Met een aantal aandachtspunten wil de Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) financiële ondernemingen wijzen op de omgang met cliëntenonderzoek bij politiek prominente personen, politically exposed persons (PEPs). Uit een AFM-onderzoek blijkt dat ondernemingen bijvoorbeeld niet altijd maatwerk verrichten, terwijl elke PEP anders is en andere risico’s kent.
BankAsset ManagerBroker Dealer Annual report Institutional Other professionals Executive & other private individuals Retail investors Fintech Journalists Investment services providers Investment management companies Listed companies and issuers ...
All Firms
No description available.
The CSSF has published a Feedback Report following a thematic review of the **valuation framework for less liquid and illiquid assets**, focused primarily on Luxembourg AIFMs managing AIFs in asset classes such as private equity, real estate, infrastructure, private debt and fund of funds, and on UCITS “trash ratio” positions under Article 41(2) of the UCI Law. All Luxembourg IFMs are explicitly expected to benchmark their existing valuation frameworks against the CSSF’s observations and recommendations and to implement corrective measures, with valuation risk confirmed as a key supervisory priority for 2026.
What Changed
- - The CSSF publishes a dedicated Feedback Report on the thematic review of valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets and formally expects IFMs to use it as guidance for implementing...
- All Luxembourg IFMs are required to conduct a benchmarking exercise of their valuation frameworks against the CSSF’s observations and recommendations set out in the new Feedback Report.
- Where gaps or weaknesses are identified through this benchmarking, IFMs are expected to implement corrective measures to strengthen their valuation policies, procedures and lifecycle controls for...
- The thematic review scope formally covers AIFMs of AIFs investing in less liquid and illiquid assets (including private equity, real estate, infrastructure, private debt and fund of funds), and, on...
- The CSSF explicitly links this thematic work to previous supervisory exercises (ESMA CSA on valuation, CSSF self‑assessment questionnaires, and on‑site inspection feedback) and consolidates...
Suggested Considerations
- Perform a structured benchmarking of existing valuation policies, procedures, methodologies and controls against the detailed observations and recommendations in the CSSF Feedback Report on valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets.
- Document, at IFM and fund level, all identified gaps or weaknesses in the current valuation framework, including for AIFs in illiquid strategies and UCITS Article 41(2) trash ratio positions.
- Develop and approve a remediation plan with clear owners, milestones and target dates to address identified shortcomings in valuation governance, methodologies, model validation, data sources and control processes.
- Review and, where necessary, update valuation policies and procedures to ensure they explicitly cover less liquid and illiquid assets, stressed market conditions, use of external valuers, and documentation standards across the investment lifecycle.
- Enhance valuation governance by clearly defining roles and responsibilities (including segregation from portfolio management where applicable), escalation procedures, and oversight by the board/senior management.
Key Dates
– CSSF thematic review launched by dedicated questionnaire to IFMs, with work conducted through 2024 and 2025 (contextual start of the current thematic exercise)
– CSSF conducts off‑site and on‑site work as part of the dedicated thematic review on valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets
– Valuation risk for less liquid and illiquid assets is confirmed as a key supervisory priority, implying heightened supervisory focus and potential follow‑up actions during the year; no hard implementation deadline is set but prompt action is implicitly expected
– CSSF publishes the Communication and Feedback Report on the thematic review and formally expects IFMs to perform a benchmarking exercise and implement corrective measures as needed
Compliance Impact
Failure to benchmark and remediate valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets exposes IFMs to material supervisory risk, including targeted reviews, formal remedial orders or sanctions, particularly given the CSSF’s designation of valuation risk as a key supervisory priority in 2026. Deficient valuation practices also heighten the risk of NAV errors, investor detriment and potential civil liability or reputational damage.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundWealth Manager Opening remarks to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy (BANC) – June 4, 2026
BankAll Firms
No description available.
The CFTC has rescinded its long‑standing **“no-deny” settlement policy** in Appendix A to Part 10, which had barred settlements where defendants wished to continue denying the Commission’s allegations. This change applies **both prospectively and retrospectively**, as the CFTC will no longer enforce existing no‑deny provisions in prior settlements, materially altering settlement dynamics, post‑settlement communications, and reputational risk management for CFTC‑regulated entities.
What Changed
- - The CFTC has rescinded the policy in Appendix A to Part 10 that prevented the Commission from accepting settlement offers where a respondent or defendant continued to deny the allegations in a...
- The CFTC will now accept settlements even where the settling party publicly denies or continues to deny the CFTC’s allegations, provided other settlement terms are satisfied.
- The CFTC has stated that it will not enforce existing no-deny (neither‑admit‑nor‑deny) provisions in settlements that have already been entered.
- If a settling party breaches an existing no-deny provision, the CFTC will not allege breach of contract, seek to reopen the matter, ask a district court to vacate the settlement, or reopen an...
- The rescission does not alter the CFTC’s discretion to:
- settle with defendants who decline to admit facts or liability; or
- negotiate and require admissions of facts or liability in...
Suggested Considerations
- Review all existing CFTC settlement orders, consent orders, and related agreements to identify any no‑deny or neither‑admit‑nor‑deny clauses and update internal records to reflect that the CFTC has stated it will not enforce those provisions.
- Update internal enforcement and litigation playbooks to incorporate the new settlement flexibility, including explicit guidance that public denials post‑settlement may be possible but should be subject to legal and reputational risk review.
- Revise board- and senior‑management reporting on CFTC enforcement risks and settlement strategy to reflect the rescission of the no‑deny policy and the availability of settlements without waiving the ability to contest allegations in public communications.
- Implement or update communications and investor‑relations protocols governing post‑settlement statements, ensuring any public denials or clarifications are coordinated with legal, compliance, and, where relevant, parallel regulators or criminal authorities.
- For ongoing CFTC investigations or settlement negotiations, instruct external and internal counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek terms that preserve the firm’s ability to deny or contest aspects of the CFTC’s allegations after settlement.
Key Dates
– CFTC adopts Appendix A to Part 10, establishing the policy of not accepting settlements where the respondent or defendant continues to deny the allegations
– Federal Register publication date referenced in the CFTC’s final rule rescinding Appendix A to Part 10 (Rescission of Policy Regarding Denials in Settlements of Enforcement Actions, 91 FR 29892)
– CFTC issues Press Release 9247‑26 publicly announcing that it has rescinded the policy and will not enforce existing no‑deny provisions
– The rescission of Appendix A to Part 10 becomes effective as a final rule upon publication in the Federal Register; from this date, the CFTC will not apply the no‑deny policy in new settlements and will not enforce existing no‑deny clauses
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance arises less from violating the rescinded policy itself and more from mismanaging post‑settlement communications, which may create new litigation, regulatory, or disclosure risks if statements are misleading, inconsistent with other settlements, or inaccurate. Failure to update settlement and communications practices could undermine risk management, investor confidence, and relationships with multiple regulators, even if formal CFTC sanctions for “breaching” past no‑deny clauses are no longer expected.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CFTC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerAsset ManagerHedge Fund No description available.
Crypto ExchangeBroker Dealer
No description available.
Broker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
The CSSF has issued a feedback report on a thematic review of the **valuation framework for less liquid and illiquid assets**, signalling intensified supervisory focus on how Luxembourg investment fund managers value complex, hard‑to‑price positions. This matters because it will drive stricter expectations around valuation governance, model oversight, data validation, and the interaction between valuation, liquidity management, and investor protection for funds holding such assets.
Although the specific 2026 feedback report text is not yet available, it clearly follows and deepens the CSSF’s 2023 Feedback Report on ESMA’s CSA on Valuation and its 2026 supervisory priorities on valuation, with a narrower focus on less liquid and illiquid assets.
What Changed
- Based on the prior CSSF feedback on valuation and the indicated thematic focus, compliance teams should expect the following concrete expectations to apply specifically to less liquid and illiquid...
- Investment fund managers must maintain concise, centralised, and comprehensive valuation policies and procedures that explicitly cover all asset types, including less liquid and illiquid instruments,...
- Valuation policies must define and justify the valuation methodologies and models used for less liquid and illiquid assets, including the hierarchy of methods, model selection criteria, and...
- Firms must perform robust model governance for valuation models used on less liquid and illiquid assets, including independent model review (by staff not involved in model development), back‑testing,...
- Valuation frameworks must explicitly address stressed market conditions for illiquid and thinly traded assets, including triggers for stress conditions, alternative valuation methodologies under...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct a comprehensive gap analysis of existing valuation policies and procedures against the CSSF’s feedback on valuation, with specific attention to less liquid and illiquid assets, and document all identified weaknesses and remediation actions.
- Update and formally approve valuation policies and procedures to clearly define methodologies, model hierarchies, and data source selection for less liquid and illiquid assets, including explicit provisions for stressed market conditions.
- Implement or enhance a formal valuation model governance framework for illiquid asset models, including independent model validation, periodic back‑testing, documentation of assumptions, and at least annual model reviews.
- Review and, where necessary, redesign organisational arrangements to ensure the operational and hierarchical independence of the valuation function from portfolio management, and adjust remuneration policies to avoid performance‑linked incentives for valuation staff.
- Strengthen controls over external pricing providers and external valuers by documenting selection criteria, performing initial and ongoing due diligence, challenging methodologies, and periodically back‑testing third‑party valuations of illiquid assets.
Key Dates
– CSSF publishes its Feedback Report on the ESMA Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on Valuation, setting out broad expectations for valuation frameworks, including for less liquid assets
– Deadline by which all IFMs managing UCITS and/or AIFs were required to complete a comprehensive assessment of their valuation frameworks and implement necessary corrective measures in line with the 2023 CSSF Feedback Report on valuation
– CSSF identifies valuation as an ongoing key supervisory priority for the investment fund sector in its 2026 priorities, with specific focus on IFM valuation organisation and processes
– CSSF publishes the new Feedback Report on the thematic review of valuation frameworks for less liquid and illiquid assets, signalling renewed and more granular supervisory scrutiny of this area
– CSSF is expected to conduct follow‑up supervisory work (off‑site reviews and on‑site inspections) to test implementation of its expectations on valuation of less liquid and illiquid assets; firms should plan remediation programmes within months rather than years
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance exposes firms to heightened risk of CSSF supervisory measures, including remediation orders, restrictions on activities, and possible enforcement actions, especially where valuation weaknesses have led or could lead to investor detriment. Given the CSSF’s explicit supervisory priority on valuation, firms with significant illiquid exposures should treat this as a high‑impact issue requiring proactive remediation and robust documentation.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundBank Statistical Notices update the definitions and guidance contained in the Banking Statistics Yellow Folder
The Bank of England (BoE) is implementing **Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1** for all LIVE statistical submissions relating to end‑May 2026 data, due from mid‑June 2026, replacing v1.3.0. Although reporting requirements and definitions do not change, the move to v1.3.1 is **mandatory for affected returns**, is **not backwards compatible**, and coincides with the **withdrawal of the BoE Statistical Utility tool**, making this a technology and operational‑resilience change for reporting teams.
What Changed
- - Bank of England Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 replaces v1.3.0 for statistical reporting under the BoE Statistics Taxonomy framework.
- The new taxonomy applies to LIVE submissions of end‑May data due from mid‑June 2026, meaning firms must generate those returns using v1.3.1.
- Reporting requirements and published definition documents remain unchanged, with the update limited to technical implementation changes (validation fixes, data point model changes and related...
- Taxonomy v1.3.1 is not backwards compatible with v1.3.0, so XBRL instance documents created under v1.3.0 will not be valid for submission once v1.3.1 is in force.
- Filing indicators are standardised across statistics reporting and now follow the format XX.XX.XX (for example, FI.01.01), requiring alignment of internal mapping and validation rules.
Suggested Considerations
- Update internal reporting systems, data integration layers and XBRL engines so that all relevant BoE statistical returns are generated using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 for end‑May 2026 reporting onwards.
- Review and update all XBRL instance document templates and configuration to ensure they reference the correct v1.3.1 entry points and filing indicators (XX.XX.XX format, e.g. FI.01.01).
- Decommission or phase out any dependency on the BoE Statistical Utility tool, and implement an alternative XBRL generation solution (recognised software provider or internal tooling) capable of producing valid v1.3.1 files.
- Conduct a detailed review of the BoE‑published change log, taxonomy package, sample files and XBRL filing manual to understand validation changes, DPM updates and implementation nuances that could cause submission failures.
- Schedule and complete end‑to‑end testing in the BEEDS UAT environment (where available) and in internal test environments to validate that v1.3.1 submissions pass all technical and business validations.
Key Dates
– First LIVE submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 become due, covering **end‑May 2026** data; firms must use v1.3.1 for these returns and v1.3.0 instance documents will no longer be valid for submission
– BEEDS User Acceptance Testing (UAT) window for firms and software houses to test submissions using Statistics Taxonomy v1.3.1 in a non‑production environment, running in parallel with live reporting for some firms and returns
Compliance Impact
The change primarily affects technical implementation and operational processes but has high compliance significance, as submissions built on v1.3.0 or using unsupported tooling will be rejected. Persistent failures or delays in BoE statistical reporting can expose firms to supervisory scrutiny, remediation demands and potential enforcement where reporting obligations are not met.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankFintechAll Firms
amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 as regards updating the list of data necessary for the classification of prospectuses and the list of information that can be incorporated by reference into prospectuses
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/395 of 23 February 2026 amends the Prospectus Regulation RTS in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 to update: (i) the **data set used for ESMA classification and filing of prospectuses** and (ii) the **categories of information that may be incorporated by reference** into a prospectus.
For compliance teams in Luxembourg and across the EU, this means prospectus production, filing templates, and reference documentation frameworks must be revised so that all new prospectuses and supplements meet the updated RTS data and incorporation-by-reference standards under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.
What Changed
- - The amending Delegated Regulation updates the list of data fields required for the classification of prospectuses under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979, impacting how issuers and their advisors...
- The RTS amendment revises the list of information that can be incorporated by reference into a prospectus, narrowing or clarifying which external documents (e.g.
- Prospectus classification data fields are expected to better align with current ESMA Prospectus Register needs (for example finer product type, offer type, and home/host state metadata), requiring...
- The updated incorporation-by-reference list seeks to ensure that only readily accessible and reliable information may be referenced, which will affect how issuers structure cross‑references to annual...
- National competent authorities, including the CSSF, will apply the revised RTS when reviewing and approving prospectuses and supplements, meaning filings that use outdated data sets or ineligible...
Suggested Considerations
- Map all existing prospectus templates, checklists and workflows against the revised Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 data fields and immediately identify gaps in prospectus classification data and reference documentation.
- Update internal prospectus data dictionaries and metadata schemas so that all new and updated prospectuses capture the full revised list of ESMA classification data required by the amended RTS.
- Review and revise the firm’s incorporation‑by‑reference policy, including standard clauses and cross‑reference tables, to ensure only information categories permitted under the updated RTS are incorporated by reference.
- Reconfigure electronic filing tools and interfaces used for submissions to the CSSF (and other NCAs) so that they generate and transmit the updated RTS data set required for classification and ESMA register purposes.
- Train legal, capital markets, and product teams involved in prospectus drafting on the new RTS requirements, including examples of acceptable and non‑acceptable incorporation‑by‑reference documents.
Key Dates
- Original Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 is adopted, setting the RTS on key financial information, publication and classification of prospectuses, advertisements, supplements and incorporation by reference
- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/395 is adopted, amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/979 on the list of data necessary for prospectus classification and the list of information allowed to be incorporated by reference
- CSSF publishes notice of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/395, signalling its relevance for Luxembourg‑supervised entities and prospectus approval processes
- The Delegated Regulation will enter into force on the date specified in the Official Journal; in line with standard EU practice, firms should expect application from a specified date shortly after OJ publication and plan prospectus updates accordingly
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance can lead to prospectus approval delays, rejection of filings, or required resubmissions, which may disrupt issuance timetables and investor communications. Persistent or material breaches may expose firms and issuers to supervisory measures, sanctions, and reputational risk for failing to meet Prospectus Regulation standards.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager
Warning: Unauthorised Banker Unauthorised Firm Name HSBC Continental Europe (CLONE) Website https://campaign.eligibility-advisorscorporate.com/ Telephone Number (01) 6214 2195 (07) 4313 0963 Email address used hsbc@corporate-dublin.com Authorisation in Ireland This scam entity cloned the name and details of a firm authorised by the Central Bank and has been seeking to pass itself off as the legitimate firm, HSBC Continental Europe, in order to deceive consumers. Additionally, the scam entity ...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning notice (under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013) about a **clone “HSBC Continental Europe (CLONE)”** operating as an unauthorised banker and fraudulently using the CBI authorisation number of **Cowan Insurance Brokers Limited (CBI00001421)**. The case underscores heightened clone‑firm risk and obliges compliance, financial crime and customer‑facing teams to strengthen name‑screening, verification of authorisation numbers, and scam‑response procedures when dealing with references to HSBC, Cowan Insurance Brokers Limited, and similar high‑profile brands.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally designated “HSBC Continental Europe (CLONE)” as an unauthorised banker / unauthorised firm and added it to its public unauthorised firms list.
- The CBI has identified and published the specific contact details associated with the scam entity, including the website `https://campaign.eligibility-advisorscorporate.com/`, Irish phone numbers...
- The publication confirms that the fraudulent entity has cloned both the name and details of HSBC Continental Europe and separately cloned the authorisation number CBI00001421, which belongs...
- The CBI expressly states there is no connection between Cowan Insurance Brokers Limited and the fraudulent entity, thereby clarifying that any use of that authorisation number in combination with the...
- The warning reiterates that any unauthorised provision of financial services that requires CBI authorisation is a criminal offence, reinforcing the enforcement stance seen across prior clone‑HSBC...
Suggested Considerations
- Update internal sanctions / fraud / negative‑news / watchlists to include “HSBC Continental Europe (CLONE)” together with the published website, phone numbers, and email address, and ensure these are blocked or escalated on detection.
- Implement or reinforce procedures to independently verify CBI authorisation numbers and firm details directly against the CBI registers, and ensure staff understand that cloned use of an otherwise valid authorisation number is a red‑flag indicator of fraud.
- Conduct an immediate targeted review of recent and pending client interactions, payments, and investment instructions to identify any exposure to the scam entity or its contact details, and escalate any hits to financial crime and legal teams.
- Deliver targeted staff training and reminders (particularly for front‑office, call‑centre, onboarding, and complaints teams) on clone‑firm typologies, including the use of legitimate authorisation numbers (e.g., CBI00001421) by fraudulent entities.
- Enhance customer‑facing communications, website warnings, and FAQs to highlight current CBI warnings about HSBC‑branded clones and to instruct customers always to verify firm details via the official CBI registers and not via links sent in emails or on unknown websites.
Key Dates
- CBI publishes the warning notice “HSBC Continental Europe (CLONE) – Central Bank of Ireland Issues Warning on Unauthorised Firm” under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013
Compliance Impact
Failure to detect or appropriately respond to clone‑firm approaches could expose firms to customer loss, complaints, civil claims, and heightened CBI scrutiny regarding the adequacy of fraud, AML, and customer‑protection controls. For CBI‑authorised firms, weak controls around clone‑firm risk may be treated as a conduct and systems‑and‑controls deficiency with potential supervisory or enforcement consequences.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankInsuranceAll Firms
Warning: Unauthorised Irish Collective Asset-Management Vehicle (ICAV) Unauthorised Firm Name Insight Investment Solutions ICAV (CLONE) Website Address https://investmentsolutionsfunds.eu/ Telephone Number 02890137409 Email Address info@insightinvestment.ie Authorisation in Ireland The Clone Firm is not authorised to provide financial services in Ireland. Additional Information The Clone Firm is using the name and Central Bank Registration Number of the legitimate Central Bank authorised Fund...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 against a **clone** entity using the name *Insight Investment Solutions ICAV (CLONE)*, fraudulently holding itself out as an authorised Irish Collective Asset-management Vehicle (ICAV). The scam firm is using the name and Central Bank registration number of the legitimate CBI‑authorised fund Insight Investment Solutions ICAV, with no connection between them, creating significant conduct, fraud‑risk, and client‑asset risks for firms that may be exposed via distribution, introductions, or client referrals.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally designated *Insight Investment Solutions ICAV (CLONE)* as an unauthorised ICAV and publicly listed it as an unauthorised firm under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision...
- The CBI confirms the clone firm is not authorised to provide financial services in Ireland and is unlawfully using the name and Central Bank registration number of the legitimate ICAV to deceive...
- The warning explicitly clarifies that there is no connection whatsoever between the legitimate Central Bank authorised Insight Investment Solutions ICAV and the clone entity, which must now be...
- Contact details (website, telephone number, email) used by the clone are now identified by the CBI as fraudulent identifiers that should be incorporated into internal fraud and financial‑crime...
- The publication reinforces the CBI’s expectation that firms and the public report suspected unauthorised firms to the CBI and consult CBI public registers and scam guidance when verifying...
Suggested Considerations
- Update internal sanctions, fraud, and negative‑news screening lists and any “unauthorised firms” watchlists to include Insight Investment Solutions ICAV (CLONE) and its associated website, phone number, and email address.
- Instruct onboarding, KYC, and product‑approval teams to verify any reference to “Insight Investment Solutions ICAV” directly against the CBI registers, ensuring the Central Bank registration number and contact details match the legitimate authorised ICAV, not the clone.
- Implement or reinforce clone‑firm detection controls, including validation of firm names, registration numbers, URLs, emails, and phone numbers against official CBI (and other relevant NCA) registers before onboarding a fund, manager, or distributor.
- Circulate a targeted internal fraud/scam alert to front‑office, distribution, advisory, call‑centre, and client‑facing staff highlighting the existence of this specific clone, its identifiers, and the escalation process if approached.
- Review and, where necessary, update financial promotions and distribution due‑diligence procedures to require confirmation that any Irish ICAV referenced in marketing materials is directly verified on the CBI register and not accessed via unverified third‑party domains.
Key Dates
- CBI issues and publishes the warning notice identifying Insight Investment Solutions ICAV (CLONE) as an unauthorised ICAV and clarifying the absence of any connection with the legitimate authorised fund
Compliance Impact
Failure to detect and avoid dealing with clone firms exposes regulated entities to material risks of facilitating fraud, mis‑selling, customer losses, and serious breaches of consumer‑protection, financial‑crime, and authorisation rules. Regulatory consequences may include supervisory findings, enforcement action, civil claims from investors, and reputational damage where firms are found to have inadequate due‑diligence and verification controls.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm / Crypto-Asset Service Provider Unauthorised Firm Name AMOVA Asset Management Ireland Limited (Clone) Website https://amova-assets.com/ Email address used admin@amova-asset.com Authorisation in Ireland AMOVA Asset Management Ireland Limited (Clone) is not authorised to operate as an investment firm, investment business firm or provide crypto-asset services in Ireland. Additional Information This firm cloned the details of a legi...
On 03 June 2026, the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) issued a Warning Notice under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 in relation to **AMOVA Asset Management Ireland Limited (Clone)**, highlighting it as an unauthorised **investment firm / investment business firm / crypto‑asset service provider** operating in Ireland. The entity has cloned the details of a legitimate CBI‑authorised firm of the same name, which materially heightens fraud, mis‑selling, and counterparty risk for regulated firms and their clients, and demands strengthened onboarding, name‑screening and fraud‑risk controls.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally designated “AMOVA Asset Management Ireland Limited (Clone)” as an unauthorised investment firm, investment business firm and crypto‑asset service provider for the purposes of...
- The Warning Notice confirms that the clone entity is not authorised to operate in Ireland and must not be treated as a regulated counterparty or service provider.
- The CBI explicitly clarifies there is no connection whatsoever between the Central Bank‑authorised firm of the same name and the scam entity, reinforcing expectations for firms to distinguish between...
- The publication reiterates that the entity is using website and email details (including the domain amova‑assets.com and the email admin@amova‑asset.com) to approach consumers, which should be...
- By publishing the firm name under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, the CBI reinforces its ongoing supervisory focus on clone‑firm frauds and the expectation that...
Suggested Considerations
- Configure name‑screening tools, CRM systems and vendor/onboarding databases to flag “AMOVA Asset Management Ireland Limited”, “AMOVA Asset Management Ireland Limited (Clone)”, the website domain “amova‑assets.com” and the email “admin@amova‑asset.com” as high‑risk indicators requiring escalation.
- Implement controls to distinguish between the legitimate CBI‑authorised AMOVA firm and the clone, for example by storing verified legal entity identifiers (LEIs), company registration numbers, CBI authorisation numbers and official domains for the legitimate firm.
- Train relationship managers, advisers, client‑facing staff and call‑centre teams to recognise characteristics of clone‑firm scams, including cloned names, look‑alike websites and unsolicited approaches, using this warning and recent similar CBI notices as case studies.
- Review and, where necessary, strengthen client‑communication and investor‑education materials to explain the risk of clone firms, directing clients to the CBI’s public registers and warning notices to independently verify firm authorisation.
- Enhance fraud‑risk and financial crime risk assessments to explicitly include clone‑firm risks in the investment, wealth‑management, and crypto‑asset channels, and document how these risks are mitigated (e.g. screening, call‑back controls, domain verification).
Key Dates
- CBI issues the Warning Notice on AMOVA Asset Management Ireland Limited (Clone), formally confirming it is unauthorised to operate as an investment firm, investment business firm or to provide crypto‑asset services in Ireland, and publishing its details under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with these expectations does not directly breach a new rule, but materially increases exposure to fraud, mis‑selling and client detriment, which can lead to enforcement action under existing consumer protection, conduct‑of‑business, financial crime and governance rules if firms fail to prevent, detect, or respond appropriately to clone‑firm activity. The warning also signals heightened supervisory scrutiny; failure to integrate CBI Warning Notices into risk management and onboarding frameworks can be viewed as a weakness in systems and controls.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBroker Dealer Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name Apel Investments trading name of Apel Financial Services Distribution (CLONE) Website(s) • https://apelinvestments.com • https://client.apelinvestments.com/register • https://client.apelinvestments.com/login • https://apelinvestments.com/metatrader/ • https://apelinvestments.com/webtrader/ Email address(es) used • support@apelinvestments.com • help@apelinvestments.com • claim@apelinvestments.com • sup@apel...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 against **Apel Investments**, a **clone** of authorised firm **APEL Financial Distribution Services Limited**, which is not authorised to provide investment or investment business services in Ireland. This highlights heightened expectations on regulated firms to strengthen client‑facing controls, fraud‑risk frameworks and screening processes to detect and respond to clone frauds and unauthorised investment activity.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally listed Apel Investments (trading as Apel Financial Services Distribution) as an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm that is not permitted to provide...
- The CBI confirms that Apel Investments is a clone of an authorised firm (APEL Financial Distribution Services Limited) and has been passing itself off as the legitimate firm to deceive consumers.
- The CBI explicitly states that there is no connection between the authorised firm and the unauthorised clone, clarifying that any services provided by Apel Investments are outside the regulated...
- The warning identifies specific websites and client portals (including trading platforms such as “metatrader” and “webtrader” paths) associated with the unauthorised firm, signalling that these URLs...
- The CBI lists multiple email addresses and phone numbers used by the unauthorised firm, effectively expanding the set of indicators firms should use in fraud‑monitoring, sanctions‑screening‑adjacent...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and update fraud‑risk, financial‑crime, and customer‑onboarding procedures to screen against the specific Apel Investments URLs, email addresses and phone numbers listed in the CBI warning.
- Update internal watchlists and case‑management systems to flag Apel Investments and associated identifiers as a known unauthorised clone entity and ensure alerts are generated where they appear in customer interactions or transaction narratives.
- Conduct a targeted review of recent and pending client complaints, queries and transaction patterns to identify any potential exposure of clients to Apel Investments or similarly named entities.
- Enhance staff training, particularly for front‑office, contact‑centre and complaints teams, to ensure they can recognise clone‑firm indicators and correctly advise customers about unauthorised firms and the CBI warning.
- For firms with similar names or branding, prepare clear customer communications and website notices that distinguish the authorised entity from any clone and direct clients to the CBI’s warning list and scam‑awareness materials.
Key Dates
- CBI issues the warning notice under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 in relation to Apel Investments (CLONE) as an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm
Compliance Impact
The immediate regulatory risk from this particular notice is indirect, but failure to implement reasonable fraud‑prevention, perimeter‑breach detection and client‑protection controls in light of repeated CBI clone‑firm warnings can drive significant conduct, supervisory and reputational risk, including possible supervisory findings on governance, consumer protection and financial‑crime systems and controls. Firms that ignore such warnings face heightened exposure to client loss events, redress costs and intensive CBI scrutiny of their control environment.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerWealth Manager Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Unauthorised Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder Website https://eurobondsfinder.com/ Authorisation in Ireland Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder is not authorised as an investment business firm in Ireland. Notes: Any person wishing to contact the Central Bank with information regarding such firms / persons may telephone (01) 224 5800. For more information on how to protect yourself from financial scams...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a Warning Notice, under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, identifying Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder as an unauthorised investment firm/investment business firm and confirming it is not authorised in Ireland to provide investment services. This reinforces CBI’s ongoing focus on online “investment” and comparison-style offerings and requires regulated firms, intermediaries and distributors to ensure they do not engage with or refer clients to this entity and that their financial crime and fraud-detection controls recognise and block similar scams.
What Changed
- - The CBI has formally designated Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder as an unauthorised investment firm/unauthorised investment business firm and added it to its public unauthorised firms list...
- The CBI has explicitly confirmed that Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder is not authorised as an investment business firm in Ireland and therefore cannot legally provide investment services or...
- The warning clarifies that any dealings with Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder fall outside the regulatory perimeter, meaning investors do not benefit from protections such as CBI conduct of...
- The publication reiterates CBI’s standing process for reporting suspected scams, including use of the dedicated phone line and the CBI’s online resources on financial scams, strengthening...
- By treating this firm in the same way as other comparison or “finder” style websites previously flagged by CBI (for example Rates Finder, EU Bonds and similar sites), the warning underscores an...
Suggested Considerations
- Screen all clients, counterparties, introducers, and third-party platforms against the CBI “Search Unauthorised Firms” list and ensure Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder is included in internal watchlists and negative lists.
- Update internal fraud, scam, and financial crime typology libraries to include Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder and similar bond/rate “finder” or comparison-website investment scams, including indicators such as online forms capturing investor details and subsequent unsolicited calls or emails.
- Instruct relationship managers, advisory staff, and customer service teams not to refer clients to, or accept referrals from, Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder and to escalate any client reports of contact with this firm via internal suspicious activity or fraud reporting channels.
- Enhance transaction monitoring and payment screening rules to flag and review attempted transfers to payment accounts or beneficiaries linked to Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder or similar unauthorised online investment schemes.
- Review marketing, distribution, and partnerships to ensure no white-labelling, lead-sharing, affiliate, or referral arrangements exist, directly or indirectly, with Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder or comparable unauthorised comparison/investment platforms.
Key Dates
– CBI issues a prior warning notice on an analogous unauthorised comparison website, Rates Finder, highlighting the “comparison website scam” model
– CBI issues a warning on EU Bonds, another unauthorised investment firm, further signalling its focus on online bond and rate “finder” scams
– CBI publishes the Warning Notice on Euro Bonds Finder/Irish Rates Finder as an unauthorised investment firm/investment business firm under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is high, because dealings with unauthorised firms can expose regulated entities to regulatory enforcement for conduct, financial crime failings, and failures in due diligence on third parties and referrals, in addition to customer detriment and reputational damage. Firms that ignore CBI warnings or fail to adapt their controls to identified scam typologies risk scrutiny in supervisory reviews and potential enforcement action.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerWealth ManagerBank Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name Research Vision Limited (CLONE) Website address www.researchvision.com Email addresses used michael.parker@researchvision.com info@researchvision.com privacy@researchvision.com trading@researchvision.com client.services@researchvision.com Telephone Numbers +44 2070978261 +44 2070978260 +44 7403934849 Authorisation in Ireland Research Vision Limited (CLONE) is not authorised to operate as an investment busi...
CBI has publicly identified **Research Vision Limited (CLONE)** as an unauthorised investment firm operating in Ireland and using cloned details of a legitimate FCA-authorised entity. This matters because clone-firm scams typically rely on identity theft, false contact details, and urgency tactics to induce transfers or account opening, making them a direct financial crime and consumer-protection risk for regulated firms.
What Changed
- - CBI has designated Research Vision Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised investment business firm / investment firm in Ireland.
- CBI states the entity is not authorised to operate as an investment business firm or investment firm in Ireland.
- CBI confirms the scam firm cloned the details of a legitimate FCA-authorised firm and that there is no connection between the legitimate firm and the fraudulent entity.
- CBI has published the firm’s website, email addresses, and telephone numbers to support detection and consumer screening.
- The warning notice is published under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013.
Suggested Considerations
- Screen all incoming client and counterparty requests for the name Research Vision Limited, the website www.researchvision.com, the listed email addresses, and the listed phone numbers before any engagement or transfer is accepted.
- Verify authorisation independently using the relevant regulator’s official register rather than relying on contact details provided by the counterparty.
- Escalate any approach using cloned credentials to fraud, AML, and legal teams immediately and treat it as potential impersonation fraud.
- Block or delay transactions where payment instructions, onboarding details, or communications reference the warning-listed domain or telephone numbers until authenticity is confirmed.
- Update adverse media and scam-monitoring controls to capture CBI warning notices involving clone firms and cross-border impersonation cases.
Key Dates
- CBI issued the warning notice identifying Research Vision Limited (CLONE) as an unauthorised firm in Ireland
Compliance Impact
The severity is high because clone-firm activity can lead to client loss, misdirected payments, AML exposure, and regulatory scrutiny if a firm fails to detect or respond to the impersonation risk. Non-compliance can also create consumer harm and reputational damage, especially where the firm’s controls fail to identify a publicly warned unauthorised entity.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerAll Firms
Warning: Unauthorised Investment Firm / Investment Business Firm Unauthorised Firm Name Compare Bonds Ltd Website http://www.comparebondrates.eu/ Email address used info@bondratecompare.com Authorisation in Ireland Compare Bonds Ltd is not authorised to operate as an investment business firm or investment firm in Ireland. Notes: Any person wishing to contact the Central Bank with information regarding such firms / persons may telephone (01) 224 5800 or report an unauthorised firm directly to ...
The Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) has issued a warning notice under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013 in respect of **Compare Bonds Ltd**, confirming it is **not authorised** to operate as an investment business firm or investment firm in Ireland. This reinforces firms’ obligations to perform robust regulatory status checks on any “comparison” or “bond rate” intermediaries and to strengthen fraud‑prevention controls around introduction, referral and distribution channels.
What Changed
- - The CBI has added Compare Bonds Ltd to its public list of unauthorised firms under section 53 of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, confirming it is not authorised to operate...
- The warning identifies specific digital identifiers associated with the unauthorised firm, including the website `http://www.comparebondrates.eu/` and the email domain `bondratecompare.com`, which...
- The publication continues the CBI’s recent thematic focus on “comparison website” style investment scams, following earlier warnings on entities such as Bond Rate Compare / Compare Bonds Ltd, EU...
- The notice reiterates that the CBI operates a central reporting channel for unauthorised firms, including a dedicated telephone line and online reporting facility, underscoring expectations that...
- The warning is an enforcement‑related action aimed at investor protection and market integrity, signalling that regulated firms must not treat introductions, leads or referrals from Compare Bonds Ltd...
Suggested Considerations
- Screen all existing and prospective introducers, lead generators, comparison sites and affiliates against the CBI’s unauthorised firms list, and immediately block or off‑board any relationship linked to Compare Bonds Ltd, Bond Rate Compare or the domains and websites identified.
- Update internal fraud‑risk, KYC and onboarding procedures to include explicit checks for CBI unauthorised‑firm warnings for any third party that sources or routes investment or deposit business, especially where “comparison”, “bond”, “EU rates” or similar branding is used.
- Instruct front‑office, sales and relationship‑management staff not to accept introductions, leads or client referrals from Compare Bonds Ltd or any entity using the websites or email domains cited in the CBI warning.
- Enhance transaction‑monitoring and case‑management workflows to flag and investigate payments, transfers or instructions referencing Compare Bonds Ltd, comparebondrates.eu, bondratecompare.com, or similarly branded entities previously named in CBI warnings.
- Review and, where necessary, update customer‑facing scam warnings and disclosures (websites, apps, terms, and client communications) to highlight the risk of “comparison website” investment scams and to direct customers to the CBI’s unauthorised firm register.
Key Dates
– CBI previously issued a warning regarding Bond Rate Compare / Compare Bonds Ltd as an unauthorised investment firm / investment business firm
– CBI publishes the current warning notice confirming Compare Bonds Ltd is an unauthorised firm and disclosing associated website and contact details
Compliance Impact
Failure to identify and disengage from unauthorised comparison‑style entities like Compare Bonds Ltd exposes firms to significant conduct, enforcement and reputational risk, particularly where customers suffer losses via scams linked to the firm’s products or brand. The CBI’s ongoing pattern of warnings indicates elevated supervisory sensitivity to distribution controls, meaning lapses could contribute to findings in conduct or enforcement reviews.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CBI source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerWealth Manager The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA has concluded enforcement proceedings against Wendelspiess Partners AG in liquidation and two individuals for serious breaches of the rules of conduct governing the provision of financial services. It has imposed long-term industry bans on two responsible individuals.
Wealth ManagerAsset Manager
Football clubs have been warned not to put their fans’ cash at risk by signing sponsorship deals with financial firms that aren't allowed to operate in the UK. According to the FCA, a number of unauthorised firms, including crypto businesses and trading platforms, are using sponsorship to target unwitting football fans.These unauthorised firms may be breaching UK financial services laws by providing financial services in the UK without authorisation. Fans using these firms risk losing all the...
Crypto ExchangeFintechPayment Provider ESAs publish the first report on DORA major ICT-related incidents 03 June 2026 Digital Finance and Innovation Joint Committee The European Supervisory Authorities (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) today published their first annual overview of major ICT-related incidents in the EU financial sector based on a reporting mechanism established by the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). It shows that ICT risks are increasingly borderless and interconnected. The authorities also note that the recent evo...
The ESAs (EBA, EIOPA and ESMA) have published their first annual report under Article 22(2) DORA, aggregating 3,383 **major ICT‑related incidents** reported by EU financial entities and highlighting that roughly one third had a cross‑border impact. This is an early supervisory “heat map” of DORA incident reporting and sends a clear signal that competent authorities will focus on cross‑border ICT risk, third‑party/outsourcing failures and the adequacy of firms’ incident classification and reporting frameworks.
What Changed
- - The ESAs have operationalised Article 22(2) DORA by issuing the first annual overview of major ICT‑related incidents, confirming that yearly ESA‑level aggregation and analysis of incident data is...
- Incident reporting under DORA is now demonstrably harmonised and centralised, with major ICT‑related incidents being notified to all competent authorities involved and then aggregated by the ESAs for...
- The report confirms that cross‑border incidents are prevalent (around one third of major incidents), reinforcing that the “borderless and interconnected” nature of ICT risk is a key supervisory...
- System failures and external events, rather than pure cyber‑attacks, are identified as the main drivers of major incidents, placing regulatory emphasis on ICT change management, resilience of core...
- The ESAs highlight third‑party and outsourcing risk as a core theme, stressing the need for robust oversight of ICT service providers and close coordination with them during incident response and...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and, where necessary, recalibrate internal incident classification criteria against the DORA definition of “ICT‑related incident” and “major ICT‑related incident”, ensuring consistency with applicable RTS on classification and materiality thresholds.
- Validate that your firm’s incident management and escalation processes can identify, assess and classify incidents “without undue delay” and trigger major‑incident reporting within the prescribed timelines (initial, intermediate and final reports).
- Conduct a gap analysis of cross‑border incident handling, ensuring that governance, communication and coordination arrangements adequately address incidents affecting multiple Member States or shared cross‑border infrastructures.
- Strengthen third‑party and outsourcing risk management by mapping critical and important functions to their supporting ICT service providers, and ensuring contracts, SLAs and incident‑response clauses support DORA reporting and cooperation obligations.
- Test and, if needed, enhance incident response runbooks to ensure close coordination with ICT service providers during incident containment, remediation and recovery, including clear roles for data provision required for regulatory reporting.
Key Dates
– DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) applies, and financial entities become obliged to report major ICT‑related incidents to their competent authority once classification thresholds are met
– Under Article 22(2) DORA, the ESAs must issue a yearly report covering number, nature, impact, remedial actions and costs of major ICT‑related incidents; the publication in early June 2026 is the first such report and sets the expectation for future annual cycles
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with DORA incident management and reporting obligations can lead to supervisory findings, administrative sanctions, and heightened intrusive supervision, especially where cross‑border incidents or third‑party failures are not properly reported or managed. Given the ESAs are now publicly benchmarking the sector, firms whose reporting patterns appear inconsistent with peers face increased risk of challenge on classification practices and operational resilience adequacy.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerInsurance No description available.
Bank
In its new Guidance, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA explains the risk patterns it is increasingly observing in relation to the use of products in individual portfolio management in the context of escalation cases. The Guidance recalls the rules that institutions must follow when products are used in individual portfolio management.
Wealth ManagerAsset Manager
ABS and MAS' joint response to the ST Commentary reiterates that the sole objective of the removal of PayNow nicknames is to address impersonation scams – a known modus operandi where scammers misuse nicknames to pose as trusted individuals or entities. Contrary to what Dr Rabetti suggested, it is not to support compliance and enforcement or to compromise privacy. The removal of nicknames is part of a broader set of anti-scam measures, including the setting of transaction limits, cooling-off per
BankPayment Provider
Version 1.5
All Firms
Domestic Stability Buffer analyst briefing - June 2026
Bank
Armin Peter appointed new Managing Director, Markets to strengthen the DFSA’s…
All Firms
The public are being asked to give their views on a selection of wildlife, native to the UK, that will appear on the next series of banknotes in a consultation launched today.
The Bank of England is consulting the public from **3 June 2026 to 3 July 2026** on which native UK animals should appear as the central image on the next series of banknotes, with one animal selected for each of the £5, £10, £20 and £50 notes. The consultation is operationally important because it confirms the design theme, constrains the universe of eligible imagery to the published shortlist, and signals that the final decision will be made by the Governor after considering public feedback rather than by simple popularity alone.
What Changed
- - The Bank has opened a consultation on selecting four distinct native wildlife images for the central design of the next series of banknotes, one for each denomination from £5 to £50.
- The eligible imagery is limited to a published shortlist; the Bank is not seeking alternative nominations and will only consider animals on that list.
- The shortlist spans mammals, birds, and amphibians/insects/fish, reflecting the Bank’s intent to represent different UK environments across the banknote set.
- The Bank will select up to two examples from each category in the consultation, but the final selection may not match the highest-voted options.
- The Bank will retain a portrait of the monarch on the next series, alongside additional wildlife and nature elements.
Suggested Considerations
- Review internal cash and branch readiness plans to account for a future change to the visual appearance of UK banknotes.
- Monitor the Bank of England’s consultation outcomes so denomination-specific handling, ATM, sorting, and authentication procedures can be updated in time.
- Update customer communications and frontline scripts to reflect that the next series will feature wildlife imagery, while retaining the monarch’s portrait.
- Validate that note-recognition, counterfeit-detection, and cash-acceptance systems can accommodate new denomination designs once specifications are released.
- Track the Bank’s second consultation in summer 2026 if your organisation relies on cash logistics, cash processing, or public education materials.
Key Dates
- The Bank plans to run a second consultation on the specific wildlife options to feature on the new series
- The Bank intends to announce the outcome of the consultation and final design direction
- The Bank of England launches the public consultation on wildlife imagery for the next series of banknotes
- The consultation closes
year process; after 2026); - The Bank will complete detailed design, testing, printing, and rollout of the new series, which it says will take several years
Compliance Impact
Non-compliance risk is currently low to medium because this is a design consultation rather than a binding rule change, but the eventual issuance of a new banknote series will affect cash acceptance, operational controls, and counterfeit-prevention procedures. Institutions that fail to prepare for the transition could face operational disruption, customer confusion, and avoidable cash-handling errors when the new notes enter circulation.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BoE source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAll Firms
Economy Middle East Summit Attracts More Than 1500 Decision Makers From The Public And Private Sectors
All Firms
The GMTF presents its findings on EU gas and gas derivative markets 02 June 2026 Trading The Gas Market Task Force (GMTF), has published today a report on the functioning of EU gas and gas derivatives markets, summarising the analytical work it has conducted in 2025. The report also suggests further work in several areas to ensure that European gas and gas derivatives markets continue performing as expected and to the benefit of European competitiveness and consumers. The GMTF was established...
Broker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
No description available.
BankAll Firms
No description available.
All Firms
Given at University of Derby Business School
All Firms
Das Eidgenössische Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF hat eine Änderung des Anhangs 1 der Verordnung vom 17. Oktober 2018 über Massnahmen gegenüber Myanmar (SR 946.231.157.5) publiziert.
FINMA has issued an updated sanctions notice confirming that the Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research (WBF) has amended Annex 1 of the Ordinance of 17 October 2018 on Measures against Myanmar (SR 946.231.157.5), including changes to the list of sanctioned persons, entities and organisations. This triggers an immediate obligation for Swiss financial intermediaries to implement the updated prohibitions, freeze assets of newly listed parties, and report affected relationships to SECO while maintaining parallel AML duties under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG).
What Changed
- - Annex 1 of the Ordinance of 17 October 2018 on Measures against Myanmar (SR 946.231.157.5) has been amended by the WBF, changing the list of sanctioned persons, companies and organisations.
- The SECO sanctions database SESAM (SECO Sanctions Management) has been updated to reflect the amended Myanmar sanctions list.
- The amendment to the Myanmar sanctions list and corresponding SESAM data becomes legally effective at 23:00 on the date indicated in the FINMA notice.
- Financial intermediaries are required to implement the prohibitions set out in the Myanmar sanctions ordinance with respect to the updated list, including blocking the assets of all listed persons,...
- Financial intermediaries must report business relationships affected by the Myanmar sanctions list changes to SECO in line with the sanctions ordinance.
Suggested Considerations
- Immediately screen all customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, and related parties against the updated Myanmar Annex 1 list using the current SESAM sanctions data as of the 23:00 effective time.
- Freeze without delay any assets, accounts, or other economic resources held or controlled by persons, entities, or organisations newly listed under the Myanmar sanctions ordinance.
- Block any new or existing transactions that would breach the prohibitions of the Myanmar sanctions ordinance in light of the updated Annex 1 list.
- Submit timely reports to SECO on all business relationships and frozen assets related to persons and entities listed in the updated Myanmar sanctions list, in line with the reporting provisions of the ordinance.
- Conduct additional due diligence and clarifications under Article 6 GwG where there are indications or suspicions of money laundering, terrorism financing, or sanctions breaches in connection with Myanmar-related relationships.
Key Dates
- Original Ordinance on Measures against Myanmar (SR 946.231.157.5) enters into force, establishing the sanctions framework and Annex 1
- WBF amends the list of sanctioned persons, companies and organisations in Annex 1 of the Myanmar sanctions ordinance
- SECO publishes the updated Myanmar sanctions list and SESAM data on its website
- The Myanmar sanctions list amendment enters into force and becomes binding for Swiss financial intermediaries
Compliance Impact
The update has high sanctions and AML risk implications: failure to freeze assets, implement prohibitions, or meet SECO and MROS reporting duties can expose firms to administrative enforcement by FINMA, criminal liability under sanctions law, and significant reputational damage. Robust, time-sensitive implementation and documentation of controls around the 23:00 go‑live are essential to demonstrate effective sanctions compliance.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FINMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankAsset ManagerWealth Manager On 11 May 2026, Bafin imposed an administrative fine amounting to €55,000 on Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. The reason for this fine was a breach of supervisory duties in connection with contraventions of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG). In April 2025, Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. failed in two cases to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period.
BaFin has imposed a €55,000 administrative fine on Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. for a **breach of supervisory duties** linked to failures to submit **voting rights notifications** within the statutory deadline under sections 33 et seq. WpHG. This enforcement highlights BaFin’s expectation that investment managers and other notification‑obliged entities have robust governance, controls, and monitoring to ensure timely disclosure of threshold crossings in German listed issuers.
What Changed
- - BaFin reiterates that shareholders subject to German transparency rules must notify both the issuer and BaFin within four trading days when their voting rights reach, exceed, or fall below...
- BaFin clarifies that failure to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period constitutes a contravention of sections 33 ff. WpHG, exposing firms to administrative fines.
- BaFin confirms that it may impose fines either per individual contravention or for a breach of supervisory duties, thereby targeting not only the specific lapse but also deficiencies in the firm’s...
- For legal entities, BaFin restates that the maximum administrative fine for WpHG disclosure breaches is €10 million or up to 5% of total revenue, whichever is higher.
- In this case, BaFin chose to sanction a breach of supervisory duties, expressly stating that the firm did not take sufficient organisational measures to prevent or significantly impede the voting...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and map all holdings and mandates that are subject to German WpHG voting rights notification requirements, including fund, mandate, and proprietary positions in German listed issuers.
- Implement or enhance automated monitoring systems to track voting rights positions against WpHG thresholds and to flag potential threshold crossings in near real time.
- Establish clear internal procedures to compute voting rights positions according to WpHG rules, including aggregation across funds, accounts, and instruments, and to identify when positions reach, exceed, or fall below relevant thresholds.
- Confirm and document responsibilities between front office, middle office, legal, and compliance teams for identifying threshold crossings and initiating notifications to issuers and BaFin.
- Implement a control framework that ensures voting rights notifications are drafted, approved, and submitted to issuers and BaFin within four trading days of the triggering event.
Key Dates
- Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. fails in two cases to submit voting rights notifications within the prescribed period
- BaFin imposes an administrative fine of €55,000 on Van Lanschot Kempen Investment Management N.V. for breach of supervisory duties related to WpHG contraventions
- BaFin publishes the enforcement notice on its website, detailing the nature of the breach and the fine imposed
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with WpHG voting rights notification requirements can result in significant administrative fines (up to €10 million or 5% of total revenue for legal entities) and public enforcement notices that damage reputation and raise supervisory scrutiny. The focus on supervisory duties also increases personal and organisational accountability for deficiencies in governance and control frameworks.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original BaFin source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBankBroker Dealer
The UK Payments Initiative (UKPI) announcement signals a major step forward for open banking and commercial variable recurring payments (cVRP). The launch of UKPI paves the way for greater payments competition, innovation and economic growth.Read the announcement.The industry-led scheme will give people more choice about how and when they pay for recurring goods and services.We want to see competition between commercial open banking schemes and expect the launch of the first scheme by UKPI to...
The FCA has published a short policy statement signalling regulatory support for the industry‑led **UK Payments Initiative (UKPI)**, an open banking scheme to deliver commercial variable recurring payments (cVRP) and broader payments innovation. For compliance teams, this marks an early but clear indication that the FCA expects firms to prepare for a future **formal regulatory framework for open banking/open finance and commercial schemes**, with consultation to follow once enabling legislation grants the FCA expanded powers by the end of 2026.
What Changed
- - The FCA publicly endorses the launch of the UK Payments Initiative (UKPI) as an industry‑led open banking payments scheme focused on commercial variable recurring payments (cVRP), signalling...
- The statement confirms the FCA wants competition between commercial open banking schemes, indicating a shift from a single mandated model (under PSD2/open banking implementation) towards multiple...
- The FCA signals support for the creation of an independent standards‑setting body for open banking payments, moving standard‑setting away from transitional arrangements towards a more permanent,...
- The FCA announces its intention, subject to future legislation granting new powers, to consult on a long‑term regulatory framework for open banking (and, by extension, commercial open banking schemes...
- The FCA links this announcement to its regulatory roadmap for open finance, confirming that open banking data‑sharing will be extended to broader financial data, providing a strategic direction of...
Suggested Considerations
- Conduct an internal assessment of how your firm currently uses or plans to use open banking and cVRP (e.g., recurring payments, subscription billing, merchant acquiring) and document potential exposure to UKPI or similar schemes.
- Establish or update a regulatory horizon‑scanning process to track: (i) UKPI scheme documentation and rulebooks, (ii) FCA’s forthcoming open finance regulatory roadmap outputs, and (iii) the enabling legislation that will grant the FCA new powers.
- Engage product, legal and compliance teams to map existing recurring payment processes and consumer consent flows against anticipated expectations for open banking cVRP, including clarity of consent, cancellation rights, transparency of variable amounts, and dispute handling.
- Review and, where necessary, update data protection, API security, and customer authentication controls to ensure they can support commercial open banking schemes and more granular data‑sharing under an open finance regime.
- For firms intending to participate in UKPI, proactively review and align internal policies with emerging industry standards and scheme rules, including technical standards, liability allocation, service‑level requirements, and complaints/chargeback processes.
Key Dates
– FCA intends to consult on a **long‑term regulatory framework for open banking** (and related commercial schemes such as UKPI), subject to the granting of new powers in legislation
– UK legislation is expected to give the FCA new powers over open banking/open finance, which is a precondition for FCA consultation on a long‑term framework
Compliance Impact
In the immediate term, compliance impact is medium: no new binding rules are introduced, but the FCA’s direction of travel is clear and requires strategic planning. Over the medium term (to and beyond 2026), failure to anticipate the formal open banking/open finance framework, or to adapt recurring payment practices and controls to emerging standards, is likely to create material conduct, operational and supervisory risk.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original FCA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankFintechPayment Provider The Securities and Exchange Commission today published a Draft Strategic Plan that focuses on returning the agency to the core mission set by Congress more than 90 years ago: protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient…
The SEC has issued a **Draft Strategic Plan for public comment** that sets out three agency-wide priorities: refocusing regulation on investor protection, market efficiency, and capital formation; improving stakeholder engagement and compliance facilitation; and modernizing internal operations and technology. For compliance teams, this matters because it signals where the Commission may concentrate rulemaking, examinations, enforcement, and disclosure modernization over the planning horizon.
What Changed
- - The SEC is proposing a strategic reorientation toward core statutory objectives: investor protection, fair and orderly markets, and capital formation.
- The plan emphasizes clearer, fit-for-purpose rules intended to support innovation while deterring misconduct.
- The SEC says it will prioritize modernizing and simplifying disclosure practices, which may affect reporting frameworks and issuer-facing compliance processes.
- The draft plan highlights expanded access to private markets and new capital-raising pathways, signaling possible future changes in offering, exemptive, and disclosure regimes.
- The SEC identifies digital assets and distributed ledger technologies as an area needing a “firm regulatory foundation,” indicating continued policy development for crypto-related activities.
Suggested Considerations
- Submit written comments by 02 July 2026 if your firm wants to influence the SEC’s strategic priorities, especially on disclosure modernization, private markets, digital assets, or enforcement posture.
- Include File Number DSP-3 on all comments and use only one submission method, because the SEC requires the file number on email subject lines and asks commenters to choose a single channel.
- Review internal compliance roadmaps for likely impacts from disclosure simplification, rule retrospectives, and enforcement refocusing, and identify where current controls may become redundant or need redesign.
- Assess whether your firm’s digital asset, tokenization, or distributed ledger activities may benefit from future SEC guidance or may face new framework requirements.
- Monitor developments on EDGAR modernization and filing technology changes, and test whether internal reporting, tagging, or submission processes would need upgrades.
Key Dates
- Deadline for submitting public comments on the Draft Strategic Plan
Compliance Impact
The immediate legal risk is low because this is a consultation document, not a binding rule, but the strategic direction is important for supervisory planning, examination priorities, and future rulemaking. Firms that fail to engage or prepare may face higher remediation costs later if the SEC follows through on disclosure, enforcement, or technology changes.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SEC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All FirmsAsset ManagerBroker Dealer No description available.
BankBroker DealerInsurance NSW directors Adam Rana and Joseph Tarzia fined $10,000 each for failing to have director identification numbers
All Firms
No description available.
Asset ManagerHedge Fund
No description available.
Broker DealerCrypto ExchangeAll Firms
No description available.
CSSF is pressing Luxembourg market participants to complete T+1 readiness surveys by **9 June 2026** and to engage with ESMA’s broader T+1 consultation work, because the EU settlement cycle moves to **T+1 on 11 October 2027** under CSDR. The publication matters because it signals that supervisors are already assessing industry preparedness and that firms must accelerate post-trade process changes, especially around allocations, confirmations, and electronic messaging.
What Changed
- - CSSF is requiring market participants to complete the national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey by 9 June 2026, with responses visible only to CSSF and ESMA.
- CSSF is strongly encouraging participation in the EU T+1 Industry Committee second readiness survey to support a Union-wide assessment of market preparedness.
- CSSF is flagging that the transition to T+1 settlement on 11 October 2027 under CSDR will require coordinated changes across the trading and post-trading chain.
- CSSF is warning that forthcoming amendments to the RTS on Settlement Discipline are expected to be endorsed by the European Commission and will further define operational requirements for the T+1...
- ESMA’s revised guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols are intended to make post-trade communication faster, clearer, and more consistent across the EU.
Suggested Considerations
- Complete the CSSF T+1 readiness survey before 9 June 2026 and ensure the submission accurately reflects the firm’s current operational readiness.
- Participate in the EU T+1 Industry Committee second readiness survey to demonstrate engagement with the EU-wide readiness process.
- Review the firm’s allocation and confirmation workflows to ensure they can operate within T+1 timeframes.
- Replace any reliance on oral, manual, or non-machine-readable communications with electronic, standardised messaging channels unless a temporary technical disruption justifies an exception.
- Align internal messaging standards with international messaging protocols used for post-trade communication.
Key Dates
- CSSF publishes the reminder on T+1 readiness, survey participation, and ESMA’s consultation work
- Deadline to complete the CSSF national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey
- Expected application date of the revised ESMA guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols
- T+1 settlement cycle becomes effective under CSDR
Compliance Impact
Non-participation in the surveys will not itself appear to be the substantive T+1 breach, but it will materially weaken supervisory visibility and may invite follow-up scrutiny from CSSF and ESMA. Firms that fail to adapt allocations, confirmations, and messaging processes risk being unprepared for the 7 December 2026 guidance phase-in and the 11 October 2027 settlement-cycle change, which could create settlement fails, operational disruption, and conduct/governance issues.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
All FirmsAsset ManagerBank No description available.
CSSF reminds Luxembourg market participants that the EU move to a **T+1 settlement cycle under CSDR on 11 October 2027** is now in execution phase and links this directly to concrete supervisory tools: mandatory-like readiness surveys, RTS on Settlement Discipline amendments, and new ESMA post‑trade communication guidelines. For compliance teams, this is a front‑to‑back operating model change: firms must demonstrate T+1 readiness to CSSF/ESMA, transition to fully electronic, standardised post‑trade communication, and align allocations/confirmations processes to tighter regulatory timelines.
What Changed
- - The EU settlement cycle for in‑scope financial instruments under CSDR will shorten from T+2 to T+1 with effect from 11 October 2027, materially reducing the time to complete front‑to‑back trade,...
- CSSF has launched a national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey and sets a firm completion deadline of 9 June 2026 for Luxembourg market participants, treating it as a critical supervisory...
- In parallel, CSSF strongly encourages Luxembourg firms to complete the EU T+1 Industry Committee (EUIC) second readiness survey to support an EU‑wide view of T+1 readiness and potential systemic...
- ESMA’s final draft amendments to the CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline will introduce additional operational requirements specifically designed to support T+1 (e.g.
- ESMA has launched a consultation on updated guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols for allocations, confirmations and affirmations, explicitly aimed at facilitating the T+1...
Suggested Considerations
- Identify all group entities and business lines in Luxembourg that are in scope of CSDR T+1 (trading, clearing, settlement, custody, collateral, fund dealing) and formally designate a T+1 programme owner at senior management level.
- Complete the CSSF T+1 national competent authorities’ survey in full and by 9 June 2026, ensuring that responses accurately reflect current readiness, key risks, dependencies on third parties, and planned remediation milestones.
- Arrange for appropriate internal review and sign‑off (e.g. by Compliance and relevant senior management) of the responses to both the CSSF survey and the EUIC second readiness survey before submission.
- Participate in the EU T+1 Industry Committee second readiness survey and ensure the firm’s answers are consistent with the information provided to CSSF and with internal T+1 project documentation.
- Perform a comprehensive T+1 impact assessment of front‑to‑back trade flows, covering trade execution, allocation, confirmation, affirmation, clearing, settlement, collateral movements, cash and liquidity management, and corporate actions.
Key Dates
- Deadline for Luxembourg market participants to complete the CSSF national competent authorities’ T+1 readiness survey
- Expected application date of revised ESMA guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols and the aligned new RTS on Settlement Discipline requirements on allocations and confirmations
- Effective date for the transition to a T+1 settlement cycle in the EU under CSDR
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance is high‑impact: failure to prepare for T+1, to respond adequately to supervisory surveys, or to align processes with RTS on Settlement Discipline and ESMA guidelines can lead to increased settlement fails, penalties, supervisory scrutiny, and potential enforcement action. The T+1 change also amplifies operational, liquidity, and conduct risks if firms cannot meet accelerated timelines, making early execution of remediation plans a prudential and conduct priority.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
BankBroker DealerAsset Manager Version 5
The CSSF has updated its FAQ on the Money Market Funds Regulation (MMFR), making the current guidance version available as **Version 5**. This matters because CSSF FAQs are used to clarify supervisory expectations for MMFs, and firms operating or managing MMFs in Luxembourg should treat the update as a prompt to confirm that prospectus disclosures, weekly transparency information, and reporting arrangements remain aligned with current CSSF practice.
What Changed
- - The CSSF has published an updated MMFR FAQ and the current public version is Version 5, indicating that supervisory clarifications have been refreshed since the prior Version 4 publication.
- The FAQ continues to address key MMFR transparency topics, including maturity breakdown, credit profile disclosure, and the ability to provide some information via a website link in the prospectus.
- The guidance confirms that the manager may choose the day of the week for the weekly disclosure required under article 36(2), which is operationally important for recurring disclosure controls.
- The FAQ states that information on internal credit quality assessment must be provided, reinforcing the expectation that the assessment is documented and made available as required.
- The FAQ clarifies that article 36(2) applies only to MMFs authorised in accordance with MMFR as at 21 July 2018, and not to MMFs benefiting from the transitional provision in article 44(1).
Suggested Considerations
- Review the MMF prospectus and website disclosure architecture to ensure that maturity breakdown and credit profile information are presented in a manner consistent with the CSSF’s current FAQ interpretation.
- Confirm that weekly article 36(2) disclosures are scheduled on a controlled and documented day of the week, with escalation procedures for missed or late publication.
- Verify that internal credit quality assessment methodology, evidence, and sign-off are documented and available for disclosure or supervisory review.
- Reassess whether each MMF in scope is subject to article 36(2) based on its authorisation status and whether any transitional article 44(1) treatment applies.
- Align reporting and disclosure controls with the broader CSSF MMF framework, including recurring financial reporting expectations for CSSF-supervised MMF managers.
Key Dates
- Article 36(2) transparency requirements apply to MMFs authorised under MMFR as of this date, excluding MMFs benefiting from the transitional provision in article 44(1)
- CSSF first published the MMFR FAQ, establishing the supervisory clarification framework for MMF questions
- The CSSF MMF page shows Version 4 of the FAQ and references updated related MMF materials, including ESMA stress test scenario guidance
- The CSSF webpage shows Version 4 as updated on this date, before the current Version 5 publication
- The updated FAQ is now the current CSSF guidance version on the public webpage
Compliance Impact
The compliance impact is moderate to high because MMFR breaches can create direct transparency, reporting, and governance deficiencies in a regulated fund product. Non-compliance may lead to CSSF supervisory challenge, remediation requests, or enforcement consequences if disclosures or reporting are inconsistent with the regulator’s expectations.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CSSF source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerHedge FundAll Firms
No description available.
Broker DealerAll Firms
No description available.
The CFTC has implemented a technical enhancement to its electronic Portal system that allows exchanges to submit a single set of product self‑certification documents covering multiple closely related contracts in one consolidated filing. This matters for compliance teams at CFTC‑registered exchanges because it changes the *operational* process for Part 40 product submissions, reduces duplicative documentation, and will require updates to internal procedures, templates, and controls governing self‑certifications.
What Changed
- - The CFTC Portal now supports consolidated product self‑certification submissions, enabling exchanges to file a single set of certification documents that apply to multiple closely related contracts...
- Exchanges are no longer required to upload multiple identical copies of supporting product certification documents when listing several closely related contracts; one shared documentation set can be...
- The enhancement is framed as an administrative/technical change to the filing process; it does not alter substantive legal standards for product self‑certification under the Commodity Exchange Act or...
- The CFTC has issued updated submission instructions on the Portal site specifying how to use the new consolidated filing functionality, including formatting and process guidance.
- Dedicated technical and non‑technical CFTC contacts have been identified (Howard Rosen for system use; Chris Goodman for product submission process questions), signaling that the Commission expects...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and obtain the updated submission instructions on the CFTC Portal and ensure legal, compliance, and operations staff understand the consolidated filing functionality and any new formatting or data‑entry requirements.
- Update internal product approval and submission procedures (including Part 40 playbooks and checklists) to reflect the ability to file a single set of documents for multiple closely related contracts, and to define when consolidation is appropriate.
- Revise internal documentation templates (e.g., product term sheets, legal analyses, core principle compliance memos, risk assessments) so that they can explicitly support multiple closely related contracts in a single package where relevant.
- Adjust governance workflows (approvals, sign‑offs, and quality checks) so that:
- Each contract included in a consolidated submission is clearly identified and traceable, and
Key Dates
– Executive Order 14243 is issued, setting an administrative objective to eliminate bureaucratic duplication and inefficiency, which this CFTC enhancement is designed to support
– CFTC announces and launches the Portal enhancement permitting consolidated product self‑certification submissions for multiple closely related contracts
Compliance Impact
Non‑compliance with the updated filing process is unlikely to result in direct enforcement, but incorrect or incomplete use of consolidated submissions could delay product listings, prompt CFTC information requests, or lead to questions regarding the adequacy and completeness of self‑certification packages. Over time, persistent deficiencies in product submissions could increase regulatory scrutiny of a venue’s compliance controls and governance around new product listings.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original CFTC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerBankAsset Manager On 29 May 2026, Halo Financial Limited (Halo) entered special administration. Louise Longley and Bai Cham of BTG Begbies Traynor (Central) LLP (Begbies) were appointed as joint special administrators. Halo is authorised by the FCA to provide payment services under the Payment Services Regulations 2017 (the PSRs). On 30 April 2026, Halo agreed to a voluntary undertaking, which restricted the activities it can carry out, including conducting payment services and accepting any additional funds. ...
Payment Provider
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced four new members to fill vacancies on its Investor Advisory Committee. Three of the four new members will serve four-year terms, while the fourth new member will serve as the…
All Firms
Preparation of the new data collection exercice for the purpose of the direct supervision by AMLA – AMLA webinar of 10 June 2026 from 10 am – 12 pm CEST
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms
Bitexen Mena And Bitexen Custody Obtained Financial Services Permissions From The Fsra Of Adgm
Crypto ExchangeFintech
CDPP discontinues insider trading charges against Big Un former CFO Andrew Corner following hung jury
All Firms
ESMA publishes latest edition of its newsletter 01 June 2026 ESMA newsletter The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU’s financial markets regulator and supervisor, has published today the latest edition of its Spotlight on Markets newsletter , covering ESMA’s key activities and publications from April and May 2026. This edition opens with key takeaways from ESMA’s conference “A New Era for EU Capital Markets” , marking ESMA’s 15th anniversary and focusing on the ambition t...
ESMA’s latest *Spotlight on Markets* newsletter (covering April–May 2026 activity) signals a coordinated push on reporting simplification, CCP resilience, EMIR 3 implementation and enhanced enforcement of corporate and digital reporting standards. For compliance teams, the newsletter is a consolidated forward‑looking risk map: it highlights where ESMA and NCAs will focus supervision and enforcement in the next cycle, especially around fund/transaction reporting, CCP crisis planning, ESEF taxonomy use and internal control functions in the funds sector.
What Changed
- - ESMA is advancing the simplification of EU reporting frameworks for funds and transaction reporting, indicating upcoming changes to reporting templates, data fields and/or reporting channels under...
- ESMA has launched its sixth EU‑wide stress test exercise for Central Counterparties (CCPs), expanding supervisory scrutiny of CCP risk management, default management processes and resilience to...
- ESMA has published guidance on the effective use of resolution tools in CCP crisis planning, clarifying expectations for CCP resolution planning, coordination with resolution authorities and use of...
- ESMA has issued reporting templates and instructions for the Active Account Requirement under EMIR 3, operationalising new obligations for counterparties and CCPs to maintain and report active...
- ESMA has published a call for evidence on the structure of European equity markets, opening a policy workstream that may lead to changes in market structure, transparency, and best execution...
Suggested Considerations
- Map your firm’s current EMIR, MiFIR and fund reporting obligations against ESMA’s stated objective of simplifying EU reporting frameworks and begin scenario‑planning for changes to templates, data models and validation rules.
- For CCPs and clearing members, review participation in the sixth ESMA CCP stress test, ensure timely and accurate data delivery, and assess internal implications of potential stress test findings for risk management frameworks.
- CCPs should compare existing recovery and resolution plans and playbooks against ESMA’s new guidance on effective use of resolution tools, updating governance, triggers, communications and coordination arrangements with resolution authorities.
- Counterparties and CCPs in scope of EMIR 3 should identify products and business lines affected by the Active Account Requirement and begin implementing systems, processes and controls to populate ESMA’s reporting templates and instructions.
- Investment firms active in equity markets should respond to ESMA’s call for evidence on European equity market structure where appropriate, and internally assess potential impacts on best execution, order routing, internalisation and transparency obligations.
Key Dates
– ESMA and NCAs conduct the 2025 Common Supervisory Action on compliance and internal audit functions of fund managers, establishing benchmarks for good and poor practices in the funds sector
– First year of enforcement of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and application of ESMA Guidelines on Enforcement of Sustainability Information for in‑scope issuers’ 2025 reporting
– ESMA and NCAs carry out corporate reporting enforcement across the EEA, including financial, sustainability and digital (ESEF) reporting, feeding into ESMA’s 2025 corporate reporting enforcement report
– ESMA launches the sixth CCP stress test exercise, with follow‑up supervisory actions by ESMA and NCAs expected after results are analysed
– ESMA publishes reporting templates and instructions for the EMIR 3 Active Account Requirement, enabling firms and CCPs to begin design and implementation work ahead of EMIR 3 go‑live
Compliance Impact
The overall impact is medium to high: while the newsletter itself does not create new binding obligations, it consolidates ESMA priorities that will drive supervisory focus and future technical standards, particularly in EMIR 3, CCP oversight, ESEF and sustainability reporting. Failure to anticipate and align with these priorities can lead to enforcement actions, remediation mandates, higher supervisory scrutiny and reputational risk once the related rules and guidance are fully applied.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original ESMA source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Asset ManagerBroker DealerBank The PRA Regulatory Digest is for people working in the UK financial services industry and highlights key regulatory news and publications delivered for the month.
BankInsuranceAll Firms
No description available.
The SFC has reprimanded and fined XHK Limited HK$2.5 million for systemic breaches of the Financial Resources Rules and Client Money Rules between 2019 and 2021, including prolonged liquid capital deficits, inaccurate financial returns, and improper handling of both client and non‑client money. The case underscores that Hong Kong licensed corporations remain strictly responsible for prudential compliance, client asset protection, and the competence and oversight of outsourced finance functions, even where issues are self‑reported and clients ultimately suffer no loss.
What Changed
- - The SFC reiterates that licensed corporations must maintain required liquid capital at all times under the Securities and Futures (Financial Resources) Rules (FRR), and any deficit (even if later...
- The enforcement confirms that firms are strictly accountable for the accuracy of financial returns submitted under the FRR, including where preparation and compilation are outsourced to external...
- The SFC clarifies that external service providers involved in financial returns and FRR compliance must be demonstrably competent and possess relevant FRR knowledge and experience, and that licensed...
- The case reinforces that internal staff responsible for FRR reporting must be adequately trained and familiar with FRR requirements, with effective review and challenge processes before submissions...
- The SFC confirms that transferring client money from segregated client accounts to overseas brokers’ accounts requires a valid written direction or standing authority from the client in accordance...
Suggested Considerations
- Review and, where necessary, update internal policies and procedures to ensure continuous compliance with the Securities and Futures (Financial Resources) Rules, including robust controls over capital monitoring and financial return preparation.
- Implement or enhance daily (or more frequent, as appropriate) capital monitoring processes that detect and escalate any actual or potential liquid capital deficits before they arise and ensure timely remedial action.
- Conduct a comprehensive review of all external service providers involved in financial reporting, prudential calculations, and FRR returns to verify and document their competence, relevant experience, and FRR knowledge, and update outsourcing due diligence criteria accordingly.
- Establish or strengthen formal governance and oversight frameworks for outsourced finance functions, including clear accountability, documented review of work performed, periodic quality assessments, and rights of audit.
- Provide targeted FRR training to finance, compliance, and relevant front‑office staff so they understand FRR calculations, common error types, and their responsibilities in reviewing and approving FRR returns before submission.
Key Dates
- Start of period during which XHK failed to promptly transfer non‑client money (commissions and interest) out of client segregated accounts, contrary to the CMR
- Start of period during which XHK submitted financial returns with accounting errors under the FRR, leading to misstated liquid capital
- Start of period in which XHK transferred client money from segregated accounts to overseas brokers’ accounts without written client direction or standing authority, in breach of the CMR
- End of period of unauthorised transfers of client money from segregated accounts to overseas brokers’ accounts
- End of period during which XHK’s FRR financial returns contained accounting errors and its actual required liquid capital was in deficit for four months, with deficits ranging from HK$3.6 million to HK$32.3 million
Compliance Impact
The enforcement action highlights a high‑severity risk area: failures in prudential capital maintenance and client money protection can trigger significant regulatory penalties, public reprimand, and potential licence implications even where clients suffer no loss. Similar weaknesses in FRR reporting, outsourcing oversight, and client money handling are likely to attract close SFC scrutiny, thematic reviews, and potential enforcement.
AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the
original SFC source
before acting. Full disclaimer.
Broker DealerBank
Standard form for the notification of Home Member State
All Firms
No description available.
All Firms