Court cuts fine for finfluencer to €142,500
The court reduced the AFM fine on grounds of proportionality and the excessive length of the proceedings.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
A court has reduced the fine for a finfluencer who worked with unlicensed asset manager Grinta Invest from €195,000 to €142,500. According to a legal summary, this was because of the principle of proportionality and the breach of the reasonable time requirement.
The case concerns the finfluencer’s role at Grinta Invest, an asset manager without a licence. According to the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM), the influencer promoted the company, referred investors to it and helped people register. The regulator argued that this amounted to joint perpetration of illegal asset management.
The AFM initially imposed a fine of €195,000. In the appeal proceedings, that amount was reduced by €52,500 to €142,500, according to LexVira. LexVira said the court referred to the principle of proportionality and the excessive length of the proceedings. This reduces the fine in this case, but according to the source does not change the statutory licensing requirement for asset managers.
In its original decision, the AFM wrote that the influencer received high commissions, including a payment equal to 10 per cent of the capital invested by investors. The regulator also said that investors lost their money after Grinta Invest disappeared. Those earlier findings form the background to the case; the new development is the reduction of the fine.
The ruling is relevant to creators who promote financial products or providers through social media. An influencer cannot look only at the number of followers: according to the AFM, referring customers, helping with registrations and receiving commissions can also become part of a supervisory case.
The regulator warns consumers to check whether a provider has a licence. Influencers’ financial interests must also be recognisable. Payment for referring customers can undermine the independence of a recommendation, especially when risks receive less emphasis than potential returns.
The ruling does not mean that all finfluencers are prohibited or that every online investment recommendation falls under the same classification. It does make clear that social-media promotion can carry significant legal weight when an influencer actively recruits customers for an unlicensed party. The precise scope of the ruling depends on the full reasoning provided by the court.
Both sides of the figures
▲ Bright spots
- The court applied the principle of proportionality and reduced the fine by €52,500, according to LexVira.
- According to the AFM, the case concerned joint perpetration of asset management without a licence.
▼ Concerns
- The AFM reports that investors lost their money at Grinta Invest.
- The regulator warns that commissions and undisclosed interests can undermine the reliability of online investment information.
Critical note
The reduction in the fine says nothing about investors’ losses and does not change the licensing requirement. The original AFM decision and the current court outcome involve different amounts and must not be conflated.
Who notices what
- Households
- Investors can suffer financial losses when they are directed to an unlicensed provider through social media.
- Businesses
- Financial influencers and providers must take licensing, advertising and transparency rules into account.
- Investors
- A lower fine does not mean that lost invested money will be repaid.
- Government
- The case confirms that supervision must also apply to parties that refer customers through social media.
Every point comes from the article’s sources and was included in the fact check.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The court reduced a fine in a case concerning the promotion of an unlicensed asset manager.
- According to the AFM, the influencer received commissions for investors referred to the firm.
- The licensing requirement for asset managers remains in force.
Left
Arguments Calls for strict supervision of financial influence because consumers can be reached quickly and on a large scale through social media.
Values Consumer protection, equality of information and responsibility on the part of platforms and influencers.
Consequences Greater transparency and enforcement can prevent harm, but increase the compliance burden for small creators.
Centre
Arguments Accepts financial content when advertising, risks and interests are clearly disclosed and the regulator acts proportionately.
Values Proportionality, legal certainty and the free provision of information.
Consequences A clear distinction between general information, advertising and advice requiring a licence can reduce uncertainty.
Right
Arguments Emphasises investors’ individual responsibility and warns that excessively strict rules could hinder entrepreneurship and online financial education.
Values Individual choice, market forces and limited government intervention.
Consequences Fewer rules leave more room for innovation, but can make consumers more vulnerable to misleading offers.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The current reduction in the fine was confirmed by a legal summary, while the AFM source confirms the original case and the conduct involved. The text clearly distinguishes between the original fine and the new court decision.
- confirmed The fine was reduced from €195,000 to €142,500. — LexVira cites both amounts and the reduction of €52,500. source
- confirmed The case concerns cooperation with an asset manager without a licence. — This is stated in the AFM decision. source
- confirmed The influencer received, among other things, a 10 per cent commission. — The AFM mentions this commission in its decision. source
- confirmed According to the court, the proceedings took too long. — LexVira summarises the reference to the reasonable time requirement. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: AFM imposes fine of nearly €150,000Now: Court cuts fine for finfluencer to €142,500 (The current development is a court reduction of an earlier fine, not a new fine imposed by the AFM.)
Editor's note
The current reduction in the fine is based on LexVira, which summarised the ruling. The AFM source confirms the original case and the licensing and commission context; the full court ruling was not directly accessible.Sources
- Court reduces AFM fine for work with an unlicensed asset manager — LexVira
- €256.000 boete voor ‘finfluencer’ wegens samenwerken met illegale vermogensbeheerder Grinta Invest — Autoriteit Financiële Markten
- Online beleggingstips? Herken de red flags! — Autoriteit Financiële Markten
More on this in Dutch media
- NRC — „finfluencers afm”
- NU.nl — „finfluencers afm”
- De Telegraaf — „finfluencers afm”