Belgium

The audit firm of Michel Weber was fined for the same repeated late filing of AML, quality-control and ISQM1 questionnaires and late confirmation of register details, in the same decision as the fine on the auditor himself. Published by name for three months.

Over several years the auditor repeatedly filed required AML, quality-control and ISQM1 questionnaires late, including after reminders and redress deadlines. The Sanctions Committee found this incompatible with the standard of conduct expected of a statutory auditor and fined him EUR 5,000; the operative part cites Arts. 10 §1, 29 §1 and 55, but the reasoning finds the Art. 10 §1 register-confirmation breach (2020) only against the firm. Published by name for three months.

Company treated as closely associated with Guy De Vreese because he held managerial responsibility over it; fined for not notifying, or notifying late, its transactions in the issuers' shares between 1 January and 4 July 2023. Same decision as the fine on Mr De Vreese.

Company closely associated with Guy De Vreese; fined for not notifying, or notifying late, its transactions in the shares of the issuers he managed between 1 January and 4 July 2023. Same decision as the fine on Mr De Vreese.

Between 1 January and 4 July 2023 Guy De Vreese, managing director of two issuers, and entities closely associated with him traded in the issuers' shares without notifying the FSMA, or notified late. The Sanctions Committee found Remedent NV closely associated through his managerial responsibility, and noted a similar settlement by De Vreese in 2022. Decision published by name, anonymous after one year.

The NBB found material shortcomings in Wise Europe SA's due diligence, covering information sharing within the group, identification and verification of customers and beneficial owners, due diligence on customer relationships and occasional transactions, and analysis of atypical transactions. It ordered the company to take the measures needed for full compliance by 31 January 2027, taking account of corrective actions already taken. Date shown is the publication date; the decision date is not stated and no fine is mentioned.

After a complaint about unwanted direct marketing emails following a ticket purchase, the Inspection Service found the website wrongly implied tickets could only be bought online and raised concerns on profiling, opt-out information and retention. The company accepted on 15 July 2026 to pay EUR 5,000 to the Belgian Treasury and to make opt-out easier and limit and delete data retention.

From 2018 to 2023 the bank bought mirror stock options from employees of companies using its services, and the FSMA found shortcomings in its knowledge and experience test, conflicts-of-interest policy, independent validation of pricing and disclosure of costs. The bank did not contest the facts, has since remedied the issues and agreed to pay EUR 1,000,000 without admitting guilt.

The Sanctions Committee found that Exmar twice delayed disclosing inside information: it knew on 19 May 2020 that a client had unilaterally changed invoice due dates, and received two force majeure notices on 18 June 2020 but published them only on 25 June 2020. The decision is published by name, anonymous after one year; the header records an appeal lodged with the Market Court.

Invoiced audit services for 2019-2024 through a company that was not registered in the public register of auditors and, despite an inspection warning in 2023 and a 2025 remediation deadline, delayed registration for about two years (registered November 2025). The committee held this a serious and knowing breach; the related company was acquitted. Published by name for one year.

Between 1 January 2019 and 1 July 2024 the cooperative issued shares to its members, in annual amounts running to tens of millions of euros, without an approved prospectus and communicated about them. A prospectus was approved on 2 July 2024. It did not contest the facts, admitted no guilt and agreed to pay EUR 50,000 with publication by name.

The firm did not disclose two qualifying shareholders in its authorisation file, did not notify an acquisition that gave a new shareholder a qualifying holding, and its annual declarations on qualifying shareholders for 2023 and 2024 contained errors. The firm did not dispute the facts and the FSMA accepted a settlement of EUR 20,000.

The firm did not inform a former client and her family of its data processing and refused to fully answer repeated access requests, citing doubts on identity, a EUR 135 fee and professional secrecy, which the Chamber rejected. It imposed fines of EUR 2,520 (transparency) and EUR 2,400 (access), totalling EUR 4,920, and ordered the firm to comply with the access request within one month.

The company gave a technician only one of his weekly handwritten timesheets for 2016-2021 after repeated requests, offering viewing on site instead and never formally refusing. The Litigation Chamber rejected its arguments, ordered it to provide copies within one month and reprimanded it; a fine was judged disproportionate alongside the order.

P&V kept using an insurance intermediary for 34 contracts for over a month after the FSMA removed it from the register on 6 December 2023. It identified the error on 11 January 2024, traced it to a manual data-entry mistake in its IT tool and fixed the system, and agreed to pay EUR 150,000.

The foundation filed no submissions and did not attend the hearing of 30 October 2025 in a case that began with an erasure complaint to the French CNIL. The Litigation Chamber found a low-severity, negligent breach of the duty to cooperate with the authority and fined it EUR 1,000, reduced for its late deletion of the complainant's data.

The firm kept a former employee's professional mailbox active for at least 21 months after he left in June 2021 and read incoming mail, including private payment reminders, without a valid legal basis, and did not act on his erasure request of 20 January 2023. The Litigation Chamber fined it EUR 8,500 for the unlawful processing, reprimanded it for the accountability breaches and ordered it to stop using and then delete the mailbox, with proof within 30 days.

From 27 December 2023 to 13 March 2024 a computer error showed clients placing orders a warning that suitability could not be assessed, regardless of product or client knowledge. The FSMA found Keytrade failed to collect knowledge and experience data for some transactions, did not warn some clients with insufficient knowledge and gave incorrect information to others. The bank did not contest the facts, carried out remediation including refunds and agreed to pay EUR 250,000.

The audit firm of which A is sole partner (anonymised in the published decision) was found in breach of the AML law and of audit and quality-control standards in the same files. The Sanctions Committee fined it EUR 15,000 (EUR 100,000 proposed) and withdrew its status as audit firm, in the same decision as A.

A statutory auditor, anonymised in the published decision, had no AML risk assessment, methodology or internal policies, did not identify clients as required, and left audit files without engagement letters, materiality, audit strategy or adequate evidence; dissolution audits also lacked the required procedures. The Sanctions Committee fined him EUR 10,000 (the auditors' supervisory college had proposed EUR 75,000) and withdrew his status as statutory auditor; the operative part orders publication by name for six months, but the published version uses the pseudonyms A and B.

The municipality ran an ANPR-camera authorisation system for a restricted-access zone without a documented necessity and proportionality assessment or a retention period for authorisation data, and with an incomplete impact assessment. The Litigation Chamber issued a reprimand and no fine; the Inspector General had suspended the processing in October 2024 and the municipality says the cameras are now deactivated.

After an HR restructuring raised the number of persons in contact with the public from 103 to 280, the broker did not notify the FSMA for two years, and it reported 17 of 21 changes in responsible distribution managers late. The FSMA considered this prevented timely supervision. The broker agreed on 22 January 2026 to pay EUR 75,000 with publication by name.

The audit firm was found in breach of the AML law and the Auditors Act because its AML compliance officer lacked adequate knowledge of embargo rules and atypical transactions. Same decision as the fine on Peter Vandewalle; published by name for nine months.

As representative auditor for a client, he gave an unjustified low AML risk score, did not document checks on politically exposed persons, did not properly assess an atypical transaction linked to Iran and embargo compliance, and did not adequately test the going-concern assumption. The Sanctions Committee also ordered a public statement under Art. 59 §1(5°) of the Law of 7 December 2016; the decision is published by name for nine months.

The Sanctions Committee found that, while not registered as a statutory auditor, he signed several reports in 2022 and 2023 with his father's signature, including two liquidation reports, which it treated as performing statutory audit assignments. It imposed a fine of EUR 7,500 and ordered publication by name for one year, after which the decision becomes anonymous.

An employee of a company listed on Euronext Brussels, who was on its insider list and had been told that a term sheet had been signed, bought 556 shares and later placed an order to sell 350. The FSMA treated the purchase as insider dealing. He agreed on 29 January 2026 to pay EUR 12,500, with publication by name for three months before anonymisation.

Between 23 February and 10 November 2023 DELA Enterprises used trainee sub-agents who were not on the FSMA register, and they carried out 191 insurance distribution acts. DELA believed registration was needed only after training and stopped once the FSMA pointed out the rule. The parties did not dispute the facts; DELA Enterprises NV agreed to pay EUR 50,000 of a EUR 54,000 total, the rest falling on Vanotterdijk BV (EUR 500) and five anonymised former trainee sub-agents (EUR 500 to 1,000 each).

Its compliance officer did not complete the required continuing training with an FSMA-approved provider between 1 January 2021 and 8 July 2025, and the association did not report the shortfall to the FSMA without delay. After a remedial order of 8 July 2025 it enrolled the officer for 36 of the 40 missing training hours. It agreed on 6 January 2026 to pay EUR 10,000.

The operator used a club member's data to send marketing for nightclub events, although his consent covered only sports information, and its privacy policy did not cover members' data. The Litigation Chamber ordered it, within 30 days, to separate consent by purpose and amend its privacy policy and notify those affected; no fine was imposed.

After a former employee left in 2019, the company kept his two email addresses active without a valid legal basis and refused his access and erasure requests. The Litigation Chamber ordered it to end the processing, give access to remaining data and then delete it, and issued a reprimand; it imposed no fine because of the time elapsed and limited negligence.

Related company fined for breaches of the reporting rule (Art. 19) and the insider dealing ban (Art. 14) in connection with trading in Pharmasimple shares in 2018-2019. Same decision as the fine on Michaël Willems.

Related company fined for a breach of the insider dealing ban (Art. 14) in connection with trading in Pharmasimple shares in 2018-2019. Same decision as the fine on Michaël Willems.

Related company fined for breaches of the reporting rule (Art. 19) and the insider dealing ban (Art. 14) in connection with trading in Pharmasimple shares in 2018-2019. Same decision as the fine on Michaël Willems.

Main shareholder and director of Pharmasimple who in 2018-2019 traded in its shares while holding inside information about an acquisition and the company's financial situation, did not report the transactions, and made misleading statements to investors on forums and by email while selling large volumes. The total fine of EUR 65,000 includes EUR 20,000 for insider dealing; his data is published for 12 months.

The bank did not report changes in its number of persons in contact with the public, reported half of its changes in responsible distribution persons late or not at all, and had too few such responsible persons from 2021 to 2023, including about five months in 2022 with none. The FSMA treated these as structural breaches of the conditions for credit intermediation. The bank agreed on 5 December 2025 to pay EUR 50,000. A separate settlement on market-abuse detection was accepted the same day.

From 3 July 2016 to 25 March 2025 the bank lacked effective systems to detect and report suspicious orders and transactions: its controls did not cover all orders, relied on undocumented manual judgement, and treated an external provider's tool as its own without a delegation agreement. It filed no suspicious transaction reports in that period. It did not dispute the facts and, having agreed on 5 December 2025, paid EUR 350,000. A second, separate settlement on credit-intermediation breaches was accepted the same day.

In December 2024 a paid 'partner content' interview promoting the Eurozone Real Estate sub-fund of the bank's Belgian SICAV appeared online and in print. The bank treated it as editorial content and did not submit it to the FSMA for prior approval; it also lacked references to the prospectus, KID and investor rights, the main risks and a full cost overview, and was not clearly marked as advertising. The bank agreed to pay EUR 60,000.

The Litigation Chamber found the data broker could not show a valid legal basis, such as consent, for reselling to marketers personal data obtained from a telecom operator. It fined the company EUR 40,000, ordered erasure of data lacking a legal basis and ordered it to tell recipient companies that their consent basis was non-compliant. The decision header records that the Market Court partly annulled it and set a reduced fine of EUR 5,000.

Its predecessor Flandrin Assurances, a French broker, used an unregistered Belgian distributor with no written agreement to sell 2,984 'Confort Factures' policies in Belgium between April 2022 and January 2023. The FSMA found this breached the ban on using unregistered intermediaries and accepted a settlement of EUR 75,000.