{"id":"37e62ff3-8b54-44c6-998e-dc113910279c","entityType":"company","canonicalName":"Binck Bank N.V.","primaryCountryId":"NL","website":null,"status":null,"industryCode":null,"industryLabel":null,"legalFormSuffix":null,"legalFormElf":null,"legalFormLabel":null,"addressLine":null,"addressCity":null,"addressPostalCode":null,"employees":null,"employeesAsOf":null,"vesselType":null,"buildYear":null,"createdAt":"2026-09-12T19:07:39.097Z","updatedAt":"2026-09-12T19:07:39.097Z","aliases":[{"id":"95f999c7-12f3-4016-a870-3b9ce7ff85b1","entityId":"37e62ff3-8b54-44c6-998e-dc113910279c","name":"Binck Bank N.V.","sourceId":"2a93add4-d591-4a24-a7f9-81e5124d2a2d","createdAt":"2026-09-12T19:07:39.116Z","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register"}},{"id":"45469b3b-e665-4120-8618-2b79522aa911","entityId":"37e62ff3-8b54-44c6-998e-dc113910279c","name":"Binck Bank","sourceId":"2a93add4-d591-4a24-a7f9-81e5124d2a2d","createdAt":"2026-09-22T08:46:26.528Z","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register"}}],"identifiers":[],"sanctions":[{"id":"63f50241-bf28-4013-949a-05435983a988","entityId":"37e62ff3-8b54-44c6-998e-dc113910279c","regime":"Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)","program":"Debarment","sourceId":"2a93add4-d591-4a24-a7f9-81e5124d2a2d","createdAt":"2026-09-12T19:07:42.432Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-09-12T19:11:02.005Z","delistedAt":"2026-09-12T19:14:37.287Z","designatedAt":"2016-03-16T00:00:00.000Z","legalBasis":null,"reason":"https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2016/jul/boete-binckbank-niet-tijdig-melden-transacties\n\n[original (Dutch)]\n\nAFM imposes fine on BinckBank for not timely reporting transactions The fine is irrevocable. On 16 March 2016, the Authority of Financial Markets (AFM) imposed a fine of € 500,000 on BinckBank N.V. (BinckBank) in Amsterdam, as BinckBank failed to meet its transaction reporting obligation on time. The Financial Supervision Act (Wft) obliges investment firms to trade in listed financial instruments to report the transaction data to the AFM. This must be done as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the next working day. The AFM uses the reported transactions to detect market abuse, thus promoting the fair and efficient functioning of capital markets, enabling investors to rely on it. On August 18, 2014, BinckBank received a formal warning from the AFM for breach of the transaction reporting obligation due to non-timely reporting of transactions made by BinckBank from mid-2010 on the Luxembourg stock exchange. Subsequently, the AFM found that BinckBank also failed to report its transactions on XBRD (derivatives exchange in Brussels) and XMON (Paris Stock Exchange) and over-the-counter transactions (OTC transactions) in time. BinckBank only announced on October 16, 2014, transactions that it had made on XBRD and XMON during the period 3 February 2011 until 1 October 2014. The OTC transactions made by BinckBank in the period from March 12, 2010 to October 28, 2014, they reported to AFM on January 29, 2015. BinckBank has failed to report in due time Article 4: 90th, third paragraph, breach Wft. The basic amount for this violation is € 500,000. In determining the amount of the fine, the AFM considered the severity and duration of the infringement, and the plea, scope and bearing capacity of BinckBank. The AFM has not seen any grounds for establishing the amount of the fine at a lower or higher level. Now that no appeal or objection is possible against the decision, the fine has become final.","sanctionType":null,"documentUrl":"https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn4888","validTo":null,"listingId":"4888","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register","entityType":"debarment"},"listKind":"debarment"},{"id":"b087fe8e-c8bb-4731-a497-918daf8d3bc6","entityId":"37e62ff3-8b54-44c6-998e-dc113910279c","regime":"Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)","program":"Debarment","sourceId":"2a93add4-d591-4a24-a7f9-81e5124d2a2d","createdAt":"2026-09-12T19:07:39.132Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-09-12T19:11:01.896Z","delistedAt":"2026-09-12T19:14:37.287Z","designatedAt":"2016-07-01T00:00:00.000Z","legalBasis":null,"reason":"https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2016/jul/boete-binckbank-misleidende-reclames\n\n[original (Dutch)]\n\nAFM imposes an administrative fine on BinckBank for providing misleading information in advertising On 01 July 2016, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed an administrative fine of €750,000 on BinckBank N.V. (BinckBank). BinckBank offers individual asset management under the name Alex Vermogensbeheer (Alex). The fine was imposed because advertising concerning Alex in the period from 08 September 2012 to 26 August 2014 included unclear and misleading information. Advertising rules Consumers must be able to rely on the fact that the information in advertisements concerning financial services is clear and not misleading. The AFM is authorised to take action if a financial undertaking misrepresents the facts. This protects consumers and prevents competitive advantages for financial undertakings that do not comply with the rules. Unclear and misleading advertising The AFM investigated 3 Alex advertising campaigns, which consisted of television advertisements and internet banners. The campaigns lasted a total of nearly 2 years. The investigated advertisements showed each time a realised cumulative return. The AFM investigation made clear that this return had been realised by only one specific portfolio with its own characteristics (referred to by BinckBank as an example portfolio). The advertisements are unclear because they did not indicate in any way that the return shown applied only to the example portfolio. The average cumulative return that had actually been realised by investors over the same period was structurally lower. The cumulative returns also had a large spread. The high return shown in the advertising was therefore misleading. And finally, the advertisements were also misleading because BinckBank incorrectly suggested a connection between its procedures and the return shown. Higher fine A fine of €500,000 may be imposed for this violation. This amount may be adjusted if the degree of culpability or the seriousness or duration of that violation are grounds for doing so. In the present case, the AFM submits a higher fine on BinckBank because the violation is very serious and there is a high degree of culpability. The AFM considers that the degree of culpability of the actions of BinckBank is increased. BinckBank had a consultancy organisation perform an investigation prior to the start of the campaigns. The investigation showed that the cumulative return of the example portfolio clearly differed from the average return realised by clients and that the cumulative returns had a strong spread. BinckBank nevertheless started the campaigns and did not keep a finger on the pulse to see how the example portfolio was developing when compared to the actual investor portfolios. The information submitted by BinckBank showed that the number of investor portfolios grew considerably during the campaign that lasted almost 2 years. The AFM considers that, in view of the duration and positive effect for BinckBank at the expense of confidence in the market, an increase of the fine in connection with the seriousness and duration of the violation is appropriate. BinckBank's size and financial capacity are no reason for the AFM to reduce the fine. The AFM considers a fine of €750,000 appropriate in view of the offence.","sanctionType":null,"documentUrl":"https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn4904","validTo":null,"listingId":"4904","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register","entityType":"debarment"},"listKind":"debarment"},{"id":"9ed0d0bd-837c-45f6-90c4-1a4aed5294e5","entityId":"37e62ff3-8b54-44c6-998e-dc113910279c","regime":"Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)","program":"MiFID","sourceId":"2a93add4-d591-4a24-a7f9-81e5124d2a2d","createdAt":"2026-09-12T19:14:30.185Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-10-23T12:00:13.709Z","delistedAt":null,"designatedAt":"2016-03-16T00:00:00.000Z","legalBasis":null,"reason":"https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2016/jul/boete-binckbank-niet-tijdig-melden-transacties\n\n[original (Dutch)]\n\nAFM imposes fine on BinckBank for not timely reporting transactions The fine is irrevocable. On 16 March 2016, the Authority of Financial Markets (AFM) imposed a fine of € 500,000 on BinckBank N.V. (BinckBank) in Amsterdam, as BinckBank failed to meet its transaction reporting obligation on time. The Financial Supervision Act (Wft) obliges investment firms to trade in listed financial instruments to report the transaction data to the AFM. This must be done as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the next working day. The AFM uses the reported transactions to detect market abuse, thus promoting the fair and efficient functioning of capital markets, enabling investors to rely on it. On August 18, 2014, BinckBank received a formal warning from the AFM for breach of the transaction reporting obligation due to non-timely reporting of transactions made by BinckBank from mid-2010 on the Luxembourg stock exchange. Subsequently, the AFM found that BinckBank also failed to report its transactions on XBRD (derivatives exchange in Brussels) and XMON (Paris Stock Exchange) and over-the-counter transactions (OTC transactions) in time. BinckBank only announced on October 16, 2014, transactions that it had made on XBRD and XMON during the period 3 February 2011 until 1 October 2014. The OTC transactions made by BinckBank in the period from March 12, 2010 to October 28, 2014, they reported to AFM on January 29, 2015. BinckBank has failed to report in due time Article 4: 90th, third paragraph, breach Wft. The basic amount for this violation is € 500,000. In determining the amount of the fine, the AFM considered the severity and duration of the infringement, and the plea, scope and bearing capacity of BinckBank. The AFM has not seen any grounds for establishing the amount of the fine at a lower or higher level. Now that no appeal or objection is possible against the decision, the fine has become final.","sanctionType":null,"documentUrl":"https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn4888","validTo":null,"listingId":"4888","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register","entityType":"debarment"},"listKind":"debarment"},{"id":"018c6e22-8efe-40f5-98ba-879afaa25927","entityId":"37e62ff3-8b54-44c6-998e-dc113910279c","regime":"Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)","program":"MiFID","sourceId":"2a93add4-d591-4a24-a7f9-81e5124d2a2d","createdAt":"2026-09-12T19:14:30.040Z","lastSeenAt":"2026-10-23T12:00:13.572Z","delistedAt":null,"designatedAt":"2016-07-01T00:00:00.000Z","legalBasis":null,"reason":"https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2016/jul/boete-binckbank-misleidende-reclames\n\n[original (Dutch)]\n\nAFM imposes an administrative fine on BinckBank for providing misleading information in advertising On 01 July 2016, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed an administrative fine of €750,000 on BinckBank N.V. (BinckBank). BinckBank offers individual asset management under the name Alex Vermogensbeheer (Alex). The fine was imposed because advertising concerning Alex in the period from 08 September 2012 to 26 August 2014 included unclear and misleading information. Advertising rules Consumers must be able to rely on the fact that the information in advertisements concerning financial services is clear and not misleading. The AFM is authorised to take action if a financial undertaking misrepresents the facts. This protects consumers and prevents competitive advantages for financial undertakings that do not comply with the rules. Unclear and misleading advertising The AFM investigated 3 Alex advertising campaigns, which consisted of television advertisements and internet banners. The campaigns lasted a total of nearly 2 years. The investigated advertisements showed each time a realised cumulative return. The AFM investigation made clear that this return had been realised by only one specific portfolio with its own characteristics (referred to by BinckBank as an example portfolio). The advertisements are unclear because they did not indicate in any way that the return shown applied only to the example portfolio. The average cumulative return that had actually been realised by investors over the same period was structurally lower. The cumulative returns also had a large spread. The high return shown in the advertising was therefore misleading. And finally, the advertisements were also misleading because BinckBank incorrectly suggested a connection between its procedures and the return shown. Higher fine A fine of €500,000 may be imposed for this violation. This amount may be adjusted if the degree of culpability or the seriousness or duration of that violation are grounds for doing so. In the present case, the AFM submits a higher fine on BinckBank because the violation is very serious and there is a high degree of culpability. The AFM considers that the degree of culpability of the actions of BinckBank is increased. BinckBank had a consultancy organisation perform an investigation prior to the start of the campaigns. The investigation showed that the cumulative return of the example portfolio clearly differed from the average return realised by clients and that the cumulative returns had a strong spread. BinckBank nevertheless started the campaigns and did not keep a finger on the pulse to see how the example portfolio was developing when compared to the actual investor portfolios. The information submitted by BinckBank showed that the number of investor portfolios grew considerably during the campaign that lasted almost 2 years. The AFM considers that, in view of the duration and positive effect for BinckBank at the expense of confidence in the market, an increase of the fine in connection with the seriousness and duration of the violation is appropriate. BinckBank's size and financial capacity are no reason for the AFM to reduce the fine. The AFM considers a fine of €750,000 appropriate in view of the offence.","sanctionType":null,"documentUrl":"https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn4904","validTo":null,"listingId":"4904","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register","entityType":"debarment"},"listKind":"debarment"}],"officers":[],"sourceLinks":[{"externalId":"sn4888","fetchedAt":"2026-10-23T12:00:13.705Z","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register","url":"https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/searchRegister?core=esma_registers_sanctions","official":false,"entityType":"debarment"}},{"externalId":"sn4904","fetchedAt":"2026-10-23T12:00:13.568Z","source":{"name":"ESMA Sanctions Register","url":"https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/searchRegister?core=esma_registers_sanctions","official":false,"entityType":"debarment"}}],"relationshipsAsChild":[],"relationshipsAsParent":[]}