The Commission de Contrôle des Activités Financières (Financial Activities Supervisory Commission) pronounced, on February 12, 2026, a sanction against Tavira Monaco SAM.

• Petition for a Stay of Execution filed by Tavira Monaco SAM before the Supreme Court of Monaco against the decision of 12 February 2026 of the Commission de Contrôle des Activités Financières withdrawing Authorisation No. SAF 2009-04 dated 2 June 2009:
  • By Order dated 21 May 2026 (Case No. TS2026/16SAE), the President of the Supreme Court of Monaco suspended the execution of the decision of 12 February 2026.
• Petition for Annulment filed by Tavira Monaco SAM before the Supreme Court of Monaco against the decision of 12 February 2026 of the Commission de Contrôle des Activités Financières withdrawing Authorisation No. SAF 2009-04 dated 2 June 2009:
  • The case is currently pending.

Sanction decision Tavira Monaco SAM (french version)

On July 22, 2024, the Commission de Contrôle des Activités Financières (the “Commission”) issued a sanction against Bank Julius Baer (Monaco) SAM.

Décision de sanction Bank Julius Baër (Monaco)

As part of its role to conduct on-going supervision of financial institutions in the Principality of Monaco, the Commission de Contrôle des Activités Financières (the “Commission”) carried out an inspection of the firm X (the “Firm”).

The inspection report found a number of breaches. The Commission opted to open proceedings that would potentially result in administrative penalties against the Firm, under Article 34 of Act No. 1,338 of 7 September 2007. The Firm was notified of this. A rapporteur was appointed, and produced a report. The executive committee of the Commission decided, under Article 38 of Act No. 1,338, to continue the proceedings and summoned the Firm to attend a hearing.

After hearing the arguments presented by the Firm and its Counsel, the Commission:

•  ruled that, in view of the observations presented by the Firm, it was not guilty of failing to maintain an up-to-date organisation chart and to afford access to client files, based on the accusations made;
•  ruled that the Firm was guilty of the following breaches:
  • failing to maintain an adequate internal organisation allowing the origin and date of reception of orders to be proven in a detailed fashion,
  • employing certain executive and non-executive staff without professional certification,
  • failing to maintain a permanent internal control function at the Firm,
  • failing to establish sufficiently formalised tests of its business continuity plan.

The Commission also found that the Firm had implemented a number of remedial measures after the inspection.

In view of the above, the Commission handed the Firm a penalty in the form of a reprimand, and ordered that the decision be published anonymously on the Commission’s website.