Short answer
Legalcode indexes 31 Bank of Latvia sanctions-register entries as regulatory enforcement decisions. The collection includes warnings, fines, compliance orders, publication orders, licence or business-activity suspensions, and outcomes later reduced, modified or cancelled. The underlying subjects range from anti-money-laundering controls and customer due diligence to capital requirements, financial reporting, market-abuse disclosures, share buy-backs and qualifying holdings.
Each record can identify the sanctioned party, decision date, decision body, breach or finding, register and final status, sanction and remedy types, fine amount and currency where applicable, legal basis, binding status, a stable Legalcode citation/source reference, and the official Bank of Latvia source URL. Where relevant, it can also distinguish a decision-time entity name from a later register name and record a post-decision development.
These are public register summaries, not full reasoned administrative decisions. The MCP states Full decision available: No on the sampled records. A register entry proves what the official sanctions register reports; it does not supply every factual finding, legal argument or item of evidence behind the decision.
The indexed collection
Production MCP Discovery identifies LV_BANK_SANCTIONS as the Bank of Latvia sanctions register and classifies it as an agency_decision source. A source-scoped, date-descending Search returned exactly 31 records over two pages, with dates from 23 August 2021 to 2 July 2026.
The records consistently identify Latvijas Banka as the decision body, REGULATOR as its body type, REGULATORY_DECISION as the decision kind and REGULATORY_ENFORCEMENT as the procedural posture. This distinguishes the collection from Latvian court judgments and from general Bank of Latvia guidance.
The stable source references still use the form case/LV/lvbanksan_..., but their returned source type, decision body and document nature clearly classify them as regulator decisions. Researchers should cite the exact sourceRef returned by Search rather than constructing one from a party name or date.
What kinds of breach appear
Anti-money-laundering and internal-control cases form a prominent group. The collection includes findings about risk assessment, customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, employee training, customer-base risks, internal-control documentation, terrorism and proliferation-financing controls and sanctions-risk management.
The subjects are wider than AML. Other entries concern payment-institution capital requirements, late audited or periodic reports, infringements of the Financial Instrument Market Law, the EU Market Abuse Regulation, managers' transaction notifications, share buy-back obligations and qualifying-holding procedures.
Both companies and individuals appear. The latest indexed entry concerns Rīgas kuģu būvētava and a publication order under Article 19(1) of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014. Other entries name managers or former board members as the sanctioned party. An institution's appearance in the surrounding narrative must not be mistaken for proof that the fine was imposed on the institution itself.
Warnings, fines and combined orders
The structured sanction fields make different interventions visible. A warning may stand alone, while a fine can be combined with an order to correct controls. The records customer-due-diligence failures, a EUR 3,000 fine and compliance obligations.
Its official register summary states:
A fine of EUR 3000 levied on SIA HELP.
—
The record then identifies the required legal and internal-control compliance steps, including improvement of procedures for several similar consecutive transactions. Legalcode exposes FINE and COMPLIANCE_ORDER separately, records the amount and currency, and marks the outcome as imposed and binding.
Paysera LT illustrates a warning rather than a monetary penalty in the indexed summary. The 25 June 2025 record concerns internal-control deficiencies and AML/CFT violations connected with payment services in Latvia through agents. Its register status is “In force”, sanction type WARNING, final outcome SANCTION_IMPOSED, and binding status BINDING.
Licence action and later modification
The shows why the initial sanction and final outcome must be kept separate. The decision concerned AML/CFT and sanctions-risk controls, including occasional cash transactions by unidentified persons.
The initial intervention was:
The company's business activity has been suspended, and deadlines have been set for addressing the violations.
—
Legalcode classifies the sanction types as LICENSE_ACTION and COMPLIANCE_ORDER and the remedies as suspension, licence action and compliance order. It also records the later development that the suspension was lifted on 3 December 2025 and sets the final outcome to MODIFIED. Reporting only the original suspension would therefore be incomplete.
Publication orders and unknown finality
The 2 July 2026 Rīgas kuģu būvētava entry is a publication order. Its stated measure is a public notice identifying the responsible legal person and nature of the Market Abuse Regulation infringement. The register status is “Accepted”, the decision outcome is SANCTION_IMPOSED, but final outcome and binding status are UNKNOWN.
Those unknown fields should be preserved, not silently converted into finality. A register can report that an authority took an action without providing enough information to conclude whether every avenue of review is exhausted.
Reduction, cancellation and procedural status
Several entries demonstrate that “sanction imposed” is not the end of every history. The indexed AS PrivatBank record reports a reduced sanction. A Baltic International Bank SE entry reports a cancelled fine after the bank's licence was withdrawn and liquidation proceedings began. DIKAS is marked modified after the suspension was lifted.
The collection also distinguishes labels such as “Appealed” and “In force” on sanctions attached to participant profiles. Those labels are legally and reputationally important. An appealed measure should not be described as though the appeal were resolved, while a cancelled measure should be reported with both the original event and cancellation rather than erased from history or presented as still payable.
Entity names and identity history
The 6 December 2023 bank fine shows the value of temporal identity. The decision was imposed on AS LPB Bank, which later appears in the register under the Magnetiq Bank name. The current fetched record preserves:
- sanctioned party and decision-time name: AS LPB Bank;
- current register name: Magnetiq Bank AS;
- canonical entity: AS Magnetiq Bank;
- Latvian registration number:
50103189561; and - a link to the current participant profile.
This avoids rewriting history as though the newer name appeared in the original decision. The title and citation should use the decision-time party name, with the current name added as identity context.
What identifying information accompanies a record
A well-populated sanctions entry can provide:
- the sanctioned legal or natural person;
- the related institution or source-register group;
- decision-time, current and canonical entity names;
- decision date and Bank of Latvia as decision body;
- a generated case number, citation and canonical decision identity;
- breach/finding text and cited legal basis;
- register status, decision outcome and final outcome;
- sanction types, remedies or orders and monetary amount;
- binding status and later development;
- the official register/article URL and current participant profile where available.
Not every field is populated in every record. UNKNOWN is meaningful where the register does not establish finality or binding status. A generated Legalcode case number is a stable retrieval identifier, not an official Latvian court docket.
MCP source-quality findings
Two previously reported defects passed their substantive regressions. concerned conflation of sanctioned individuals and later bank names; the current AS LPB Bank record now separates decision-time, current and canonical identity. concerned court-oriented classification and missing sanction fields; production now uses an agency-decision query profile and exposes outcomes, sanction types, orders, amounts, parties, binding status and the public-summary limitation.
The audit found no new distinct defect. The collection is deliberately a set of compact register summaries. The explicit Full decision available: No field prevents them from being mistaken for full decisions, provided downstream articles preserve it.
Conclusion
The indexed Bank of Latvia sanctions register contains 31 regulatory-enforcement summaries covering AML/CFT controls, prudential and reporting duties, market conduct and ownership rules. It identifies parties, dates, breaches, sanctions, amounts, status, final outcome, legal basis and source links with enough structure for careful filtering and citation. Its principal evidential boundary is equally clear: the records summarize the public register and do not contain the full reasoned decision. Any account must preserve who was sanctioned, the decision-time name, appeal or final status and later modifications or cancellation.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.