Norway

Finanstilsynet revoked the broker's estate agent licence for serious breaches in issuing valuations: e-valuations for a bank employee and private individuals that appeared to match the client's wishes, and Vipps payments not reported to the employer or tax authorities. The date is the page's publication date; the decision PDF was not read.

After an inspection prompted by a report from Regnskap Norge, Finanstilsynet imposed a NOK 100,000 fine for significant and serious breaches of the AML rules. The decision found a largely template risk assessment, missing or unjustified client risk classification, no documented assessment of ownership and beneficial owners, no PEP checks and no ongoing follow-up, and deficiencies in risk and quality management. The date is the page's publication date (17 September 2026); the decision date is not stated.

Finanstilsynet found that the firm skipped required audit procedures on fraud risk, related parties and revenue, with insufficient scepticism and evidence, in audits of two companies that received public funds; it fined the firm NOK 400,000. The date is the page's publication date.

The company reported late that it had passed the 15% threshold in Circio Holding ASA after converting a share loan into shares, and was fined NOK 125,000. The page was published on 21 August 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's flagging index.

Finanstilsynet fined the company NOK 280,000 for filing its 2025 annual report late. The date is the page's publication date; no decision date is stated.

Finanstilsynet fined the company NOK 700,000 for filing its 2025 annual report late. The date is the page's publication date; no decision date is stated.

Finanstilsynet fined the company NOK 70,000 for filing its 2025 annual report late. The date is the page's publication date; no decision date is stated.

Finanstilsynet fined an unnamed party NOK 20,000 for breaching the notification duty under MAR art. 19. The page was published on 7 July 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's index.

The company notified late that it had crossed the 5% threshold in Soiltec ASA and was fined NOK 100,000. The page was published on 18 June 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's flagging index.

Finanstilsynet fined an unnamed party NOK 300,000 for breaching the flagging rules in chapter 4 of the Securities Trading Act; the issuer and threshold are not stated. The page was published on 22 May 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's flagging index.

Finanstilsynet fined an unnamed party NOK 80,000 for breaching the manager-transaction notification duty in MAR art. 19. The page (published 22 May 2026, updated 23 September 2026) says the decision was appealed to Finanstilsynsklagenemnda and lists a letter of 25 June 2026 that partly reverses the fine; the reduced amount was not read, so the amount shown is the original one. The date is the one listed on Finanstilsynet's index.

Finanstilsynet revoked an accountant's state authorisation after a final court judgment convicting the accountant of complicity in grossly negligent tax evasion, citing the need to maintain trust in the profession. The date is the page's publication date.

Finanstilsynet concluded that an unnamed party had breached the prohibition on market manipulation and fined it NOK 500,000. The decision was appealed to Finanstilsynsklagenemnda (as at 26 May 2026). The page was published on 8 May 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's market-manipulation index.

Finanstilsynet revoked an auditor's approval after finding that the auditor relied on management's statements without documentation, did not assess whether matters breached rules binding the audited company, issued confirmations without sufficient basis and did not obtain sufficient audit evidence on several items. The date is the page's publication date.

Finanstilsynet found significant and serious shortcomings in the firm's governance and in how it carried out accounting engagements, and revoked its approval as an accounting company. The revocation takes effect on 30 June 2026 out of consideration for clients. The date is the page's publication date.

Finanstilsynet revoked the firm's approval as an accounting company after finding poor documentation of bookings, no documented balance sheet at 31 December, weak quality control, and failure to meet the AML duty to investigate. The date is the page's publication date.

Finanstilsynet concluded that an unnamed party had breached the prohibition on market manipulation and fined it NOK 150,000. No appeal is mentioned. The page was published on 7 April 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's market-manipulation index.

Finanstilsynet found that the company breached its notification duty under MAR and fined it NOK 75,000. The page does not give the facts or a decision date; the date is the one listed on Finanstilsynet's index of notification-duty decisions (page published 26 March 2026).

After inspection Finanstilsynet found serious and extensive breaches, including weak quality management, breaches of the AML rules and significant deficiencies in how engagements were performed, and withdrew the accountant's approval. The date is the page's publication date.

In the audit of a kindergarten that received public grants, the firm over several years did not carry out necessary audit procedures or show adequate scepticism and confirmed reporting without a basis; Finanstilsynet fined it NOK 300,000. The date is the page's publication date.

Finanstilsynet found deficient quality management, including known errors from internal inspections that were not corrected, and a deficient audit of expected credit losses on loans at a bank; it fined the firm NOK 600,000. The date is the page's publication date.

Finanstilsynet fined the company NOK 100,000 for failing to comply with the flagging obligation; the issuer and threshold are not stated. The page was published on 19 February 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's flagging index, where the entry is headed 'York Capital'.

Finanstilsynet fined an unnamed party NOK 175,000 for breaching the flagging obligation; the issuer and threshold are not stated. The page was published on 12 February 2026; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's flagging index.

Datatilsynet found that Timegrip, which ran the time-recording system for a bankrupt retailer, was the controller of its former employees' time records and had no valid legal basis to refuse a former employee's access request in June 2020. It fined the company NOK 250,000 for an intentional breach, a significant reduction from the NOK 750,000 first proposed because of the long case-handling time.

The firm was fined NOK 125,000 for two violations of the flagging obligation; the issuer and thresholds are not stated. The page was published on 13 January 2026 under a 2026 URL; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's flagging index.

Finanstilsynet concluded that an unnamed party had breached the prohibition on market manipulation and fined it NOK 3,000,000. The decision was appealed to Finanstilsynsklagenemnda (update of 17 February 2026). The page was published on 12 December 2025; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's market-manipulation index.

Finanstilsynet fined the company NOK 300,000 for breaching the rules on disclosure of inside information. The company appealed; Finanstilsynsklagenemnda decided on 18 June 2026 not to uphold the appeal. The page was published on 18 December 2025; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's index.

Finanstilsynet concluded that an unnamed party had breached the prohibition on market manipulation and fined it NOK 500,000. The decision was appealed to Finanstilsynsklagenemnda (update of 17 February 2026). The page was published on 5 December 2025; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's market-manipulation index.

Finanstilsynet fined the firm NOK 140,000 (written 'kr' on the page) for not reporting relevant net short positions. The page was published on 19 November 2025; the date shown is the one on Finanstilsynet's short-selling index.

Finanstilsynet imposed an administrative fine on an unnamed party for breaching the flagging obligation (decision of 12 November 2025, page published 24 November 2025). The fine amount, issuer and provisions are not on the page and the PDF excerpt that could be read did not show them, so the amount is left empty. The decision was appealed (update of February 2026).

Finanstilsynet found many breaches of the AML rules in risk assessment, work procedures, training, internal control and compliance in client assignments, and fined the company NOK 50,000. It also ordered the company's AML officer to complete seven hours of approved AML training, documented by 1 September 2025. The date is the page's publication date (8 January 2025); the decision date is not stated.

A thematic inspection of money laundering and terrorist financing controls, part of a review of securities firms that are not banks, ended in a NOK 150,000 administrative fine. The decision letter is dated 20 December 2022; the web page was published on 9 January 2023.

A thematic AML and counter-terrorist financing inspection, part of a review of securities firms that are not banks, ended in a NOK 50,000 administrative fine. The decision letter is dated 20 December 2022; the web page was published on 9 January 2023.

Finanstilsynet found an inadequate risk assessment, outdated routines, customers not classified by risk, weak enhanced due diligence, supervision gaps over outsourced identification, a backlog of 52 unresolved monitoring alarms with too high a reporting threshold, tipping-off in several cases and inadequate internal control and training.

The bank's AML routines were not updated for about 14 months after the new law took effect, weak risk classification meant it could not apply ongoing or enhanced measures reliably, it could not reliably identify politically exposed persons, and it had no effectively appointed compliance officer or independent second-line control.

A February 2020 inspection and a separate review of customer relationships with companies in the Samherji group found significant AML deficiencies. Most violations were time-barred or fell under the former act, which did not allow administrative sanctions, so the fee rests on violations of the current act. The page was published on 3 May 2021.