ABN Amro Bank N.V.

• LiftedNetherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)

  Debarment

  In this state since

  12 Sept 2026

  Designated

  20 Oct 2015

  Reason given

  Boete ABN AMRO voor onvoldoende bijhouden gegevens over werkzaamheden rentederivaten mkb 23 oktober 2015 Maatregel De boete is onherroepelijk De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) heeft op 20 oktober 2015 een bestuurlijke boete van €2.000.000 opgelegd aan ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO). ABN AMRO heeft aan ondernemers in het midden- en kleinbedrijf (mkb) diensten met betrekking tot rentederivaten verleend. ABN AMRO heeft echter onvoldoende gegevens over die dienstverlening bijgehouden. Daardoor kan de AFM niet onderzoeken of de werkzaamheden aansluiten bij de wensen van de klant en haar toezicht niet goed uitoefenen De AFM heeft in 2013 onderzoek gedaan naar de dienstverlening inzake rentederivaten door banken aan mkb-ondernemingen (die als niet professionele belegger waren gekwalificeerd). Bij ABN AMRO heeft de AFM vijf cliëntdossiers opgevraagd van mkb-ondernemingen. In vier van die dossiers heeft ABN AMRO onvoldoende gegevens bijgehouden over haar dienstverlening, wat een overtreding betekent van artikel 35, eerste lid, van het Besluit Gedragstoezicht financiële ondernemingen (BGfo). De periode waarin de overtreding plaatsvond was 21 oktober 2010 tot 10 januari 2013. Onvoldoende gegevens bijgehouden De AFM heeft vast kunnen stellen dat ABN AMRO bij het afsluiten van de rentederivaten niet uitsluitend voor eigen rekening heeft gehandeld, maar een beleggingsdienst aan de ondernemers heeft verleend. Verder heeft de AFM geconstateerd dat ABN AMRO de betrokken ondernemers hoogstwaarschijnlijk ook heeft geadviseerd. In de dossiers zijn daar meerdere indicaties voor aanwezig. De bank heeft echter onvoldoende gegevens bijgehouden, waardoor de AFM niet met zekerheid kan vaststellen dat ABN AMRO bij de feitelijke uitvoering van haar werkzaamheden in deze dossiers daadwerkelijk heeft geadviseerd over de rentederivaten. Doordat de vastlegging door ABN AMRO in de onderzochte rentederivatendossiers tekort is geschoten, is het onmogelijk voor de AFM om te beoordelen in hoeverre ABN AMRO de wet- en regelgeving heeft nageleefd. Vastlegging belangrijk voor goed toezicht De wet schrijft voor dat bij het verlenen van beleggingsdiensten en het verrichten van beleggingsactiviteiten voldoende gegevens moeten worden bijgehouden om toezicht door de AFM mogelijk te maken. Het is allereerst noodzakelijk dat uit een dossier blijkt wat per transactie de exacte aard van de werkzaamheden is geweest. Als beleggingsdiensten worden verleend (zoals het uitvoeren van orders voor rekening van de cliënt en adviseren) rust er een groot aantal zorgplichten op de beleggingsonderneming. Bij beleggingsactiviteiten (waarbij sprake is van twee gelijkwaardige partijen) rust een aanmerkelijk lagere zorgplicht op de beleggingsonderneming. Zeker bij banken, waar doorgaans verschillende diensten en activiteiten onder één dak plaatsvinden, is het belangrijk om onduidelijkheid over de aard van de werkzaamheden te voorkomen. Daardoor is ook duidelijk aan welke zorgplichten de bank moet voldoen. Niet alleen voor het toezicht is vastlegging belangrijk, ook voor de instelling en de klant is het van belang dat het dossier compleet is. Ook zij moeten kunnen reconstrueren hoe de werkzaamheden tot stand zijn gekomen. Herbeoordelingen door banken van rentederivatendossiers Handhaving door de AFM is gericht op de bank, daarmee verandert de positie van de klant niet direct. Op aandringen van de AFM voeren banken daarom een individuele herbeoordeling uit van alle uitstaande rentederivaten bij mkb-ondernemingen. Het gaat om de banken die betrokken waren bij het onderzoek van de AFM naar de dienstverlening op het gebied van rentederivaten aan mkb-ondernemingen uit 2013. Als klantdossiers onvolledig zijn, moeten gesprekken worden gevoerd met de betrokken cliënten. De klanten kunnen dan waar mogelijk relevante ontbrekende informatie aanvullen. Een onvolledig dossier betekent niet meteen dat een klant schade heeft geleden, aangezien het rentederivaat een geschikt product kan zijn. Als er echter wel sprake is van schade voor de klant en de bank kan op basis van het dossier niet vaststellen of dat te wijten is aan de bank of de klant, dan verwacht de AFM dat een passende oplossing aan de klant wordt geboden. De banken hebben toegezegd cliënten voor het einde van dit jaar waar nodig een passende oplossing aan te bieden. De AFM houdt toezicht op dit proces en op de uitkomsten daarvan. https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2015/okt/boete-abn-amro [original (Dutch)] Administrative fine for ABN AMRO for insufficient records of activities related to SME interest rate derivatives 23 October 2015 Measure Fine On 20 October 2015, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed an administrative fine of €2,000,000 on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO). ABN AMRO provided services to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME's) relating to interest rate derivatives. ABN AMRO failed to keep sufficient records concerning those services. As a result, the AFM is unable to investigate whether the activities are in line with the client's wishes and it is unable to conduct its supervision properly. In 2013, the AFM investigated the services related to interest rate derivatives provided by banks to SME's, which were not qualified as professional investors. The AFM requested ABN AMRO to provide five SME client files. ABN AMRO failed to keep sufficient records of its services in four of those files, which constitutes a violation of Section 35, first subsection, of the Decree on Conduct of Business Supervision of Financial Undertakings under the Wft (BGfo). The violation was committed in the period from 21 October 2010 to 10 January 2013. Insufficient records kept The AFM has been able to establish that ABN AMRO did not act exclusively for its own account when concluding interest rate derivatives, but that it provided an investment service to entrepreneurs. The AFM has also concluded that it is highly likely that ABN AMRO also issued advice to the relevant entrepreneurs. The files provided several indications that this was the case. However, the bank failed to keep sufficient records, which means that the AFM is unable to determine with certainty whether ABN AMRO actually issued advice concerning interest rate derivatives when it actually performed the activities stated in these files. The fact that ABN AMRO failed to keep sufficient records in the interest rate derivatives files that were investigated means that it is impossible for the AFM to determine to what extent ABN AMRO complied with legislation and regulations. Keeping records is important for proper supervision The law provides that sufficient records must be kept when providing investment services and when performing investment activities in order to make the AFM's supervision possible. Firstly, it is necessary that a file shows the exact nature of the activities involved for each transaction. Investment firms are subject to several duties of care when providing investment services, such as carrying out orders for the account of the client and issuing advice. Investment firms are subject to a duty of care that is significantly less strict when performing investment activities, because this involves two equal parties. It is especially important for banks, where various services and activities are generally performed under the same roof, to prevent uncertainty concerning the nature of the work involved. This also makes it clear with which duties of care a bank has to comply. Records are not only important for the purpose of supervision; a complete file is also important for the institution and the clients. They must also be able to reconstruct how the work was performed. Reassessment of interest rate derivative files by the banks Enforcement by the AFM is aimed at the banks and it does not directly alter the position of the clients. That is why the banks are performing a reassessment of all outstanding SME interest rate derivatives at the insistence of the AFM. It concerns banks that were involved in the AFM investigation into the services in the field of interest rate derivatives for SME's from 2013. A meeting with the relevant client has to be conducted if the client file proves to be incomplete. This will allow clients where possible to provide the information that is lacking. An incomplete file does not necessarily mean that a client has sustained a loss, because the interest rate derivative may be a suitable product. However, the AFM expects that the client is offered an appropriate solution if there is a loss for the client and the bank is unable to determine on the basis of the file whether such is attributable to the bank or the client. The banks have committed that they will offer clients an appropriate solution where possible before the end of this year. The AFM supervises this process and its outcome.

  Document

  The publisher's document (https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn5067)

  Stated by

  ESMA Sanctions Register

  First recorded here

  12 Sept 2026

  Listing id

  5067

• In forceNetherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)

  Debarment

  In this state since

  12 Sept 2026

  Designated

  28 Aug 2014

  Reason given

  https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2014/nov/boete-abn-amro [original (Dutch)] AFM imposes fines on ABN AMRO for insufficient data retention by Fortis regarding service to Vestia 19 November 2014 Sanction Fines imposed On August 28, 2014, the Authority of Financial Markets (AFM) imposed a administrative fine of € 3 million on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO). Mid-2010 Fortis Bank (Netherlands) N.V. (Fortis) has entered ABN AMRO. Fortis has provided services to Vestia housing corporations regarding the termination of interest rate derivative transactions. There is insufficient data on these services to enable AFM to monitor. With this, ABN AMRO - as a successor to Fortis - violated Article 35, paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct Supervision of Financial Undertakings (BGfo). After the Vestia housing corporation was severely affected by its portfolio of interest rate derivatives at the end of 2011, the AFM conducted research into banks and intermediaries that played a part in establishing derivative transactions with Vestia, including Fortis. It appeared that Fortis had entered into a large number of derivative transactions with Vestia over the years. Vestia's investment portfolio at one point was € 1.97 billion. The AFM has requested information from ABN AMRO to determine which activities Fortis had performed in relation to Vestia and to what extent they had complied with applicable laws and regulations. ABN AMRO appeared to have little data available about Fortis's transactions, partly because the telephone conversations between Fortis and Vestia's account manager were not included. It became clear, however, that Fortis had not acted as a contractual counterparty on behalf of Vestia for its own account (carrying out investment activities), but also provided investment services to Vestia as a client. In both the provision of investment services and the carrying out of the investment activities, sufficient data must be kept to allow monitoring by the AFM. To this end, it is first of all necessary to be able to deduce from the data what the transaction has been the exact nature of the work. If investment services are granted, there are a large number of care obligations on the investment company. When performing investment activities, the duty to care is a lot smaller. Certainly at banks, where there are usually different services and activities under one roof, it is up to these entities to avoid confusion about the nature of the work done. ABN AMRO was unable to provide the AFM with clarity about the services Fortis had provided to Vestia by transaction. As a result, it is not possible for the AFM to assess to what extent Fortis has complied with applicable laws and regulations in its service to Vestia. The fine relates to the failure to keep sufficient information by Fortis during the period from September 3, 2009 to March 17, 2010. In deciding to fine ABN AMRO as Fortis's successor for this violation, the AFM agreed that ABN AMRO E-mailbox of the main contact within Fortis for Vestia has not been retained. This violation imposes a fine with a basic amount of € 2 million. The basic amount may be increased or decreased if the severity and / or duration of the violation or degree of plausibility arise. In this case, the AFM sees the opportunity to increase the basic amount by 25% on the basis of the gravity of the infringement and by 25% on account of the plea. In addition, interest rates have been concluded for large amounts, largely financed by public funds, and that Fortis, through its business equipment, had clearly increased the risk of breaches such as these.

  Document

  The publisher's document (https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn5065)

  Stated by

  ESMA Sanctions Register

  First recorded here

  12 Sept 2026

  Listing id

  5065

• In forceNetherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)

  Debarment

  In this state since

  12 Sept 2026

  Designated

  6 Jul 2017

  Reason given

  https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2017/sep/boetes-abn-amro-abn-amro-clearing AFM beboet ABN AMRO Bank N.V. en ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. voor niet tijdig melden transacties 20 september 2017 Maatregel De boete is onherroepelijk De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) heeft op 6 juli 2017 twee bestuurlijke boetes opgelegd van €400.000 en €500.000, aan respectievelijk ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO) en ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO Clearing). De boetes zijn opgelegd omdat de banken transacties niet tijdig aan de AFM hebben gemeld. Dat is een overtreding van artikel 4:90e, derde lid van de Wet op het financieel toezicht. Dit artikel verplicht beleggingsondernemingen die transacties verrichten in beursgenoteerde financiële instrumenten, om de gegevens over deze transacties te melden aan de AFM. Dit moet zo spoedig mogelijk gebeuren, maar uiterlijk aan het einde van de volgende werkdag. De AFM gebruikt de gerapporteerde transacties om marktmisbruik op te sporen en op die manier de eerlijke en efficiënte werking van kapitaalmarkten te bevorderen, zodat beleggers hierop kunnen vertrouwen. Overtredingen ABN AMRO heeft in de periode van 2 februari 2010 tot en met 1 juli 2015 gegevens over 86.796 transacties, uitgevoerd via verschillende afdelingen van ABN AMRO en op verschillende handelsplatformen, niet tijdig aan de AFM gemeld. De AFM rekent ABN AMRO deze overtreding aan vanaf 1 januari 2013. ABN AMRO had toen haar transactierapportage op orde moeten hebben met behulp van aanwijzingen die de AFM heeft gegeven in een audit die zij eind 2010 bij de bank heeft uitgevoerd. Daarin constateerde de AFM dat het bij ABN AMRO ontbrak aan een totaaloverzicht van rapportages door de verschillende afdelingen. De AFM raadde ABN AMRO dringend aan om haar transactierapportage beter in kaart te brengen. Eind 2013 besloot ABN AMRO tot een interne review, waarmee in 2014 het hele rapportageproces in beeld is gebracht. De resultaten van deze review, waaronder de ontdekking van de overtreding, vormden aanleiding voor het aanbrengen van verdere verbeteringen. ABN AMRO Clearing heeft in de periode van 13 september 2014 tot en met 11 april 2016 gegevens over 11.911 transacties, grotendeels uitgevoerd op de Stuttgart Exchange, niet tijdig aan de AFM gemeld. ABN AMRO Clearing kreeg eerder van de AFM een normoverdragende brief wegens niet tijdige rapportage van andere transacties. Boetebedragen De basisboete voor overtreding van de transactierapportage-verplichting is €500.000. Voor ABN AMRO heeft de AFM de boete verlaagd naar €400.000 omdat ABN AMRO de overtreding zelf ontdekt heeft en aan de AFM heeft gemeld. De door ABN AMRO aangebrachte verbeteringen in haar transactierapportage moeten er bovendien voor zorgen dat een volledige rapportage in de toekomst is gegarandeerd. Voor ABN AMRO Clearing vindt de AFM een boete ter hoogte van het basisbedrag passend. ABN AMRO en ABN AMRO Clearing hebben geen bezwaar ingesteld tegen de boetebesluiten, die hiermee definitief zijn geworden. [original (Dutch)] AFM imposes a fine on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. for failing to notify transactions in time 20 September 2017 Measure Fine On 6 July 2017, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed 2 administrative fines of €400,000 and €500,000 on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO) and ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO Clearing), respectively. The fines were imposed because the banks failed to notify transactions to the AFM in time. This constitutes a violation of Section 4:90e(3) of the Financial Supervision Act. This Section obliges investment firms that perform transactions in listed financial instruments to notify the AFM of the details of these transactions. This should be done as quickly as possible, but at the latest at the end of the next working day. The AFM uses the transactions that have been notified to identify market abuse and thus promote the fair and efficient operation of the capital markets, so that investors can have confidence in these markets. Violations In the period from 2 February 2010 up to and including 1 July 2015, ABN AMRO failed to notify the AFM in time of the details of 86,796 transactions carried out via various ABN AMRO departments and via various trading platforms. The AFM attributes this violation to ABN AMRO as from 1 January 2013. At that time, ABN AMRO should have had its transaction reporting in order with the aid of the instructions issued by the AFM during an audit it carried out at the bank at the end of 2010. The AFM concluded in these instructions that ABN AMRO lacked an overall summary of the reports from the various departments. The AFM urgently advised ABN AMRO to create a better overview of its transaction reporting. At the end of 2013 ABN AMRO decided to perform an internal review, which identified the entire reporting process in 2014. The results of this review, including the discovery of the violation, formed the reason for making further improvements. During the period from 13 September 2014 up to and including 11 April 2016, ABN AMRO Clearing failed to notify the AFM in time concerning 11,911 transactions, which were mainly conducted on the Stuttgart Exchange. ABN AMRO Clearing previously received a constructive letter on compliance with standards in connection with late reporting of other transactions. Fine amounts The basic fine for violation of the obligation to report transactions is €500,000. The AFM reduced the fine for ABN AMRO to €400,000, because ABN AMRO discovered the violation itself and notified it to the AFM. Moreover, given the improvements ABN AMRO implemented in its transaction reporting a full report should be guaranteed in the future. The AFM considers a fine in accordance with the basic amount appropriate for ABN AMRO Clearing. ABN AMRO and ABN AMRO Clearing have not lodged an objection to the decision to impose a fine, which have therefore become final.

  Document

  The publisher's document (https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn5068)

  Stated by

  ESMA Sanctions Register

  First recorded here

  12 Sept 2026

  Listing id

  5068

• In forceNetherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)

  MiFID

  In this state since

  12 Sept 2026

  Designated

  20 Oct 2015

  Reason given

  Boete ABN AMRO voor onvoldoende bijhouden gegevens over werkzaamheden rentederivaten mkb 23 oktober 2015 Maatregel De boete is onherroepelijk De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) heeft op 20 oktober 2015 een bestuurlijke boete van €2.000.000 opgelegd aan ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO). ABN AMRO heeft aan ondernemers in het midden- en kleinbedrijf (mkb) diensten met betrekking tot rentederivaten verleend. ABN AMRO heeft echter onvoldoende gegevens over die dienstverlening bijgehouden. Daardoor kan de AFM niet onderzoeken of de werkzaamheden aansluiten bij de wensen van de klant en haar toezicht niet goed uitoefenen De AFM heeft in 2013 onderzoek gedaan naar de dienstverlening inzake rentederivaten door banken aan mkb-ondernemingen (die als niet professionele belegger waren gekwalificeerd). Bij ABN AMRO heeft de AFM vijf cliëntdossiers opgevraagd van mkb-ondernemingen. In vier van die dossiers heeft ABN AMRO onvoldoende gegevens bijgehouden over haar dienstverlening, wat een overtreding betekent van artikel 35, eerste lid, van het Besluit Gedragstoezicht financiële ondernemingen (BGfo). De periode waarin de overtreding plaatsvond was 21 oktober 2010 tot 10 januari 2013. Onvoldoende gegevens bijgehouden De AFM heeft vast kunnen stellen dat ABN AMRO bij het afsluiten van de rentederivaten niet uitsluitend voor eigen rekening heeft gehandeld, maar een beleggingsdienst aan de ondernemers heeft verleend. Verder heeft de AFM geconstateerd dat ABN AMRO de betrokken ondernemers hoogstwaarschijnlijk ook heeft geadviseerd. In de dossiers zijn daar meerdere indicaties voor aanwezig. De bank heeft echter onvoldoende gegevens bijgehouden, waardoor de AFM niet met zekerheid kan vaststellen dat ABN AMRO bij de feitelijke uitvoering van haar werkzaamheden in deze dossiers daadwerkelijk heeft geadviseerd over de rentederivaten. Doordat de vastlegging door ABN AMRO in de onderzochte rentederivatendossiers tekort is geschoten, is het onmogelijk voor de AFM om te beoordelen in hoeverre ABN AMRO de wet- en regelgeving heeft nageleefd. Vastlegging belangrijk voor goed toezicht De wet schrijft voor dat bij het verlenen van beleggingsdiensten en het verrichten van beleggingsactiviteiten voldoende gegevens moeten worden bijgehouden om toezicht door de AFM mogelijk te maken. Het is allereerst noodzakelijk dat uit een dossier blijkt wat per transactie de exacte aard van de werkzaamheden is geweest. Als beleggingsdiensten worden verleend (zoals het uitvoeren van orders voor rekening van de cliënt en adviseren) rust er een groot aantal zorgplichten op de beleggingsonderneming. Bij beleggingsactiviteiten (waarbij sprake is van twee gelijkwaardige partijen) rust een aanmerkelijk lagere zorgplicht op de beleggingsonderneming. Zeker bij banken, waar doorgaans verschillende diensten en activiteiten onder één dak plaatsvinden, is het belangrijk om onduidelijkheid over de aard van de werkzaamheden te voorkomen. Daardoor is ook duidelijk aan welke zorgplichten de bank moet voldoen. Niet alleen voor het toezicht is vastlegging belangrijk, ook voor de instelling en de klant is het van belang dat het dossier compleet is. Ook zij moeten kunnen reconstrueren hoe de werkzaamheden tot stand zijn gekomen. Herbeoordelingen door banken van rentederivatendossiers Handhaving door de AFM is gericht op de bank, daarmee verandert de positie van de klant niet direct. Op aandringen van de AFM voeren banken daarom een individuele herbeoordeling uit van alle uitstaande rentederivaten bij mkb-ondernemingen. Het gaat om de banken die betrokken waren bij het onderzoek van de AFM naar de dienstverlening op het gebied van rentederivaten aan mkb-ondernemingen uit 2013. Als klantdossiers onvolledig zijn, moeten gesprekken worden gevoerd met de betrokken cliënten. De klanten kunnen dan waar mogelijk relevante ontbrekende informatie aanvullen. Een onvolledig dossier betekent niet meteen dat een klant schade heeft geleden, aangezien het rentederivaat een geschikt product kan zijn. Als er echter wel sprake is van schade voor de klant en de bank kan op basis van het dossier niet vaststellen of dat te wijten is aan de bank of de klant, dan verwacht de AFM dat een passende oplossing aan de klant wordt geboden. De banken hebben toegezegd cliënten voor het einde van dit jaar waar nodig een passende oplossing aan te bieden. De AFM houdt toezicht op dit proces en op de uitkomsten daarvan. https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2015/okt/boete-abn-amro [original (Dutch)] Administrative fine for ABN AMRO for insufficient records of activities related to SME interest rate derivatives 23 October 2015 Measure Fine On 20 October 2015, the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed an administrative fine of €2,000,000 on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO). ABN AMRO provided services to small and medium-sized enterprises (SME's) relating to interest rate derivatives. ABN AMRO failed to keep sufficient records concerning those services. As a result, the AFM is unable to investigate whether the activities are in line with the client's wishes and it is unable to conduct its supervision properly. In 2013, the AFM investigated the services related to interest rate derivatives provided by banks to SME's, which were not qualified as professional investors. The AFM requested ABN AMRO to provide five SME client files. ABN AMRO failed to keep sufficient records of its services in four of those files, which constitutes a violation of Section 35, first subsection, of the Decree on Conduct of Business Supervision of Financial Undertakings under the Wft (BGfo). The violation was committed in the period from 21 October 2010 to 10 January 2013. Insufficient records kept The AFM has been able to establish that ABN AMRO did not act exclusively for its own account when concluding interest rate derivatives, but that it provided an investment service to entrepreneurs. The AFM has also concluded that it is highly likely that ABN AMRO also issued advice to the relevant entrepreneurs. The files provided several indications that this was the case. However, the bank failed to keep sufficient records, which means that the AFM is unable to determine with certainty whether ABN AMRO actually issued advice concerning interest rate derivatives when it actually performed the activities stated in these files. The fact that ABN AMRO failed to keep sufficient records in the interest rate derivatives files that were investigated means that it is impossible for the AFM to determine to what extent ABN AMRO complied with legislation and regulations. Keeping records is important for proper supervision The law provides that sufficient records must be kept when providing investment services and when performing investment activities in order to make the AFM's supervision possible. Firstly, it is necessary that a file shows the exact nature of the activities involved for each transaction. Investment firms are subject to several duties of care when providing investment services, such as carrying out orders for the account of the client and issuing advice. Investment firms are subject to a duty of care that is significantly less strict when performing investment activities, because this involves two equal parties. It is especially important for banks, where various services and activities are generally performed under the same roof, to prevent uncertainty concerning the nature of the work involved. This also makes it clear with which duties of care a bank has to comply. Records are not only important for the purpose of supervision; a complete file is also important for the institution and the clients. They must also be able to reconstruct how the work was performed. Reassessment of interest rate derivative files by the banks Enforcement by the AFM is aimed at the banks and it does not directly alter the position of the clients. That is why the banks are performing a reassessment of all outstanding SME interest rate derivatives at the insistence of the AFM. It concerns banks that were involved in the AFM investigation into the services in the field of interest rate derivatives for SME's from 2013. A meeting with the relevant client has to be conducted if the client file proves to be incomplete. This will allow clients where possible to provide the information that is lacking. An incomplete file does not necessarily mean that a client has sustained a loss, because the interest rate derivative may be a suitable product. However, the AFM expects that the client is offered an appropriate solution if there is a loss for the client and the bank is unable to determine on the basis of the file whether such is attributable to the bank or the client. The banks have committed that they will offer clients an appropriate solution where possible before the end of this year. The AFM supervises this process and its outcome.

  Document

  The publisher's document (https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn5067)

  Stated by

  ESMA Sanctions Register

  First recorded here

  12 Sept 2026

  Listing id

  5067

• In forceNetherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)

  MiFID

  In this state since

  12 Sept 2026

  Designated

  28 Aug 2014

  Reason given

  https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2014/nov/boete-abn-amro [original (Dutch)] AFM imposes fines on ABN AMRO for insufficient data retention by Fortis regarding service to Vestia 19 November 2014 Sanction Fines imposed On August 28, 2014, the Authority of Financial Markets (AFM) imposed a administrative fine of € 3 million on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO). Mid-2010 Fortis Bank (Netherlands) N.V. (Fortis) has entered ABN AMRO. Fortis has provided services to Vestia housing corporations regarding the termination of interest rate derivative transactions. There is insufficient data on these services to enable AFM to monitor. With this, ABN AMRO - as a successor to Fortis - violated Article 35, paragraph 1 of the Code of Conduct Supervision of Financial Undertakings (BGfo). After the Vestia housing corporation was severely affected by its portfolio of interest rate derivatives at the end of 2011, the AFM conducted research into banks and intermediaries that played a part in establishing derivative transactions with Vestia, including Fortis. It appeared that Fortis had entered into a large number of derivative transactions with Vestia over the years. Vestia's investment portfolio at one point was € 1.97 billion. The AFM has requested information from ABN AMRO to determine which activities Fortis had performed in relation to Vestia and to what extent they had complied with applicable laws and regulations. ABN AMRO appeared to have little data available about Fortis's transactions, partly because the telephone conversations between Fortis and Vestia's account manager were not included. It became clear, however, that Fortis had not acted as a contractual counterparty on behalf of Vestia for its own account (carrying out investment activities), but also provided investment services to Vestia as a client. In both the provision of investment services and the carrying out of the investment activities, sufficient data must be kept to allow monitoring by the AFM. To this end, it is first of all necessary to be able to deduce from the data what the transaction has been the exact nature of the work. If investment services are granted, there are a large number of care obligations on the investment company. When performing investment activities, the duty to care is a lot smaller. Certainly at banks, where there are usually different services and activities under one roof, it is up to these entities to avoid confusion about the nature of the work done. ABN AMRO was unable to provide the AFM with clarity about the services Fortis had provided to Vestia by transaction. As a result, it is not possible for the AFM to assess to what extent Fortis has complied with applicable laws and regulations in its service to Vestia. The fine relates to the failure to keep sufficient information by Fortis during the period from September 3, 2009 to March 17, 2010. In deciding to fine ABN AMRO as Fortis's successor for this violation, the AFM agreed that ABN AMRO E-mailbox of the main contact within Fortis for Vestia has not been retained. This violation imposes a fine with a basic amount of € 2 million. The basic amount may be increased or decreased if the severity and / or duration of the violation or degree of plausibility arise. In this case, the AFM sees the opportunity to increase the basic amount by 25% on the basis of the gravity of the infringement and by 25% on account of the plea. In addition, interest rates have been concluded for large amounts, largely financed by public funds, and that Fortis, through its business equipment, had clearly increased the risk of breaches such as these.

  Document

  The publisher's document (https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn5065)

  Stated by

  ESMA Sanctions Register

  First recorded here

  12 Sept 2026

  Listing id

  5065

• In forceNetherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM)

  MiFID

  In this state since

  12 Sept 2026

  Designated

  6 Jul 2017

  Reason given

  https://www.afm.nl/nl -nl/nieuws/2017/sep/boetes-abn-amro-abn-amro-clearing AFM beboet ABN AMRO Bank N.V. en ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. voor niet tijdig melden transacties 20 september 2017 Maatregel De boete is onherroepelijk De Autoriteit Financiële Markten (AFM) heeft op 6 juli 2017 twee bestuurlijke boetes opgelegd van €400.000 en €500.000, aan respectievelijk ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO) en ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO Clearing). De boetes zijn opgelegd omdat de banken transacties niet tijdig aan de AFM hebben gemeld. Dat is een overtreding van artikel 4:90e, derde lid van de Wet op het financieel toezicht. Dit artikel verplicht beleggingsondernemingen die transacties verrichten in beursgenoteerde financiële instrumenten, om de gegevens over deze transacties te melden aan de AFM. Dit moet zo spoedig mogelijk gebeuren, maar uiterlijk aan het einde van de volgende werkdag. De AFM gebruikt de gerapporteerde transacties om marktmisbruik op te sporen en op die manier de eerlijke en efficiënte werking van kapitaalmarkten te bevorderen, zodat beleggers hierop kunnen vertrouwen. Overtredingen ABN AMRO heeft in de periode van 2 februari 2010 tot en met 1 juli 2015 gegevens over 86.796 transacties, uitgevoerd via verschillende afdelingen van ABN AMRO en op verschillende handelsplatformen, niet tijdig aan de AFM gemeld. De AFM rekent ABN AMRO deze overtreding aan vanaf 1 januari 2013. ABN AMRO had toen haar transactierapportage op orde moeten hebben met behulp van aanwijzingen die de AFM heeft gegeven in een audit die zij eind 2010 bij de bank heeft uitgevoerd. Daarin constateerde de AFM dat het bij ABN AMRO ontbrak aan een totaaloverzicht van rapportages door de verschillende afdelingen. De AFM raadde ABN AMRO dringend aan om haar transactierapportage beter in kaart te brengen. Eind 2013 besloot ABN AMRO tot een interne review, waarmee in 2014 het hele rapportageproces in beeld is gebracht. De resultaten van deze review, waaronder de ontdekking van de overtreding, vormden aanleiding voor het aanbrengen van verdere verbeteringen. ABN AMRO Clearing heeft in de periode van 13 september 2014 tot en met 11 april 2016 gegevens over 11.911 transacties, grotendeels uitgevoerd op de Stuttgart Exchange, niet tijdig aan de AFM gemeld. ABN AMRO Clearing kreeg eerder van de AFM een normoverdragende brief wegens niet tijdige rapportage van andere transacties. Boetebedragen De basisboete voor overtreding van de transactierapportage-verplichting is €500.000. Voor ABN AMRO heeft de AFM de boete verlaagd naar €400.000 omdat ABN AMRO de overtreding zelf ontdekt heeft en aan de AFM heeft gemeld. De door ABN AMRO aangebrachte verbeteringen in haar transactierapportage moeten er bovendien voor zorgen dat een volledige rapportage in de toekomst is gegarandeerd. Voor ABN AMRO Clearing vindt de AFM een boete ter hoogte van het basisbedrag passend. ABN AMRO en ABN AMRO Clearing hebben geen bezwaar ingesteld tegen de boetebesluiten, die hiermee definitief zijn geworden. [original (Dutch)] AFM imposes a fine on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. for failing to notify transactions in time 20 September 2017 Measure Fine On 6 July 2017, the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed 2 administrative fines of €400,000 and €500,000 on ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO) and ABN AMRO Clearing Bank N.V. (ABN AMRO Clearing), respectively. The fines were imposed because the banks failed to notify transactions to the AFM in time. This constitutes a violation of Section 4:90e(3) of the Financial Supervision Act. This Section obliges investment firms that perform transactions in listed financial instruments to notify the AFM of the details of these transactions. This should be done as quickly as possible, but at the latest at the end of the next working day. The AFM uses the transactions that have been notified to identify market abuse and thus promote the fair and efficient operation of the capital markets, so that investors can have confidence in these markets. Violations In the period from 2 February 2010 up to and including 1 July 2015, ABN AMRO failed to notify the AFM in time of the details of 86,796 transactions carried out via various ABN AMRO departments and via various trading platforms. The AFM attributes this violation to ABN AMRO as from 1 January 2013. At that time, ABN AMRO should have had its transaction reporting in order with the aid of the instructions issued by the AFM during an audit it carried out at the bank at the end of 2010. The AFM concluded in these instructions that ABN AMRO lacked an overall summary of the reports from the various departments. The AFM urgently advised ABN AMRO to create a better overview of its transaction reporting. At the end of 2013 ABN AMRO decided to perform an internal review, which identified the entire reporting process in 2014. The results of this review, including the discovery of the violation, formed the reason for making further improvements. During the period from 13 September 2014 up to and including 11 April 2016, ABN AMRO Clearing failed to notify the AFM in time concerning 11,911 transactions, which were mainly conducted on the Stuttgart Exchange. ABN AMRO Clearing previously received a constructive letter on compliance with standards in connection with late reporting of other transactions. Fine amounts The basic fine for violation of the obligation to report transactions is €500,000. The AFM reduced the fine for ABN AMRO to €400,000, because ABN AMRO discovered the violation itself and notified it to the AFM. Moreover, given the improvements ABN AMRO implemented in its transaction reporting a full report should be guaranteed in the future. The AFM considers a fine in accordance with the basic amount appropriate for ABN AMRO Clearing. ABN AMRO and ABN AMRO Clearing have not lodged an objection to the decision to impose a fine, which have therefore become final.

  Document

  The publisher's document (https://registers.esma.europa.eu/publication/details?core=esma_registers_sanctions&docId=sn5068)

  Stated by

  ESMA Sanctions Register

  First recorded here

  12 Sept 2026

  Listing id

  5068

No ownership verdict was on file for this company on 24 October 2026.

As recorded by the assessment reading taken on 25 September 2026, 18:00 UTC, the newest on or before the date. Only “checked, not found” means a source was read in full and held nothing for the company.

Where the company is registered or connected

• NL: registered here

  No company register for this jurisdiction has been connected to this system, and none has been examined. No register here states who owns this jurisdiction's companies, so an ownership chain reaching one stops.

• Whether each listing was in force is rebuilt from what was recorded here: when it was first read, when a source stopped or resumed carrying it, and when its published term ended. A listing in force at an authority before this system first read it is shown from that first read.
• No ownership verdict is kept for this company. Verdicts are kept for companies registered where shareholders are read here: Estonia, Latvia and Poland.

For each source behind this file, the newest read made on or before the date: the version of it that stood.

• Australia DFAT Consolidated List

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 3,650 records read.

• Brazil CEIS (national procurement exclusions)

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 23,804 records read.

• Brazil MTE employer register (lista suja)

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 508 records read.

• Brazil TCU (firms declared inidôneas)

  Read on 22 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 94 records read.

• Canada Consolidated Autonomous Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 5,708 records read.

• EBRD Ineligible Entities

  Read on 22 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 1,278 records read.

• ESMA Sanctions Register

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 845 records read.

• EU Consolidated Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 15 October 2026, 4 days before it was read. 6,234 records read. Publisher's version: globalFileId 185699.

• France AMF blacklist of unauthorised actors

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,574 records read.

• IDB Sanctioned Firms and Individuals

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 530 records read.

• Japan MOF Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,900 records read.

• Latvia FID frozen assets register

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 183 records read.

• Malaysia BNM financial consumer alert list

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 588 records read.

• Malaysia SC investor alert list

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 1,795 records read.

• Moldova procurement ban list

  Read on 29 September 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 22 records read.

• New Zealand Russia Sanctions Register

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 529 records read.

• Norges Bank (fund exclusions and observation)

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 201 records read.

• OFAC Consolidated (non-SDN)

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 14 September 2026, 35 days before it was read. 481 records read.

• OFAC SDN

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 15 October 2026, 4 days before it was read. 17,556 records read.

• Poland MSWiA sanctions list

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 131 records read.

• SAM.gov Exclusions (US federal)

  Read on 24 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 10,194 records read.

• Slovenia KPK business restrictions

  Read on 15 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 4,351 records read.

• Swiss FINMA warning list

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,372 records read.

• Switzerland SECO Sanctions List

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 15 October 2026, 4 days before it was read. 7,040 records read.

• Taiwan SHTC export entity list

  Read on 21 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 11,664 records read.

• Türkiye MASAK asset freezes

  Read on 22 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 2,304 records read.

• UK OFSI Consolidated List

  Read on 8 October 2026. The file carries no date of its own; its newest record is dated 3 June 2026, 127 days before it was read. Newest designation in the file: 2025-12-19. 5,120 records read.

• UK Sanctions List (FCDO)

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 16 October 2026, 3 days before it was read. 5,705 records read.

• UN Security Council Consolidated List

  Read on 19 October 2026. The publisher dates the file 17 October 2026, 2 days before it was read. 1,010 records read.

• US CBP forced-labour orders (WRO & Findings)

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 63 records read.

• US Consolidated Screening List

  Read on 19 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 6,474 records read.

• US UFLPA Entity List

  Read on 20 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 205 records read.

• World Bank Listing of Ineligible Firms and Individuals

  Read on 23 October 2026. No date from the publisher is read for this file, so its age is not known here. 1,539 records read.

Taken

25 September 2026, 18:00 UTC

Methodology

Version 5

Level

Low

Score recorded

45 of 100

Digest

558e9bff9cc68d9b4e1c0da7a15de6a66f9d3f7cA fingerprint of everything the reading says. The same reading always has this digest, and any change in it gives another.

Reading id

ab8447e2-37ab-41e5-935e-0b827d8301e1

Address

https://apolika.com/entities/1bfc1cf5-c2b2-4e11-afe4-b29e1c3be120/evidence?as_of=2026-10-24The same address gives the same day's file tomorrow. What was recorded after the date is not in it.

As data

https://apolika.com/api/entities/1bfc1cf5-c2b2-4e11-afe4-b29e1c3be120/evidence?as_of=2026-10-24T19%3A47%3A36.712Z

Made

24 October 2026, 19:47 UTC