Nordea is directly under the supervision of the ECB due to its size, not the FSA (Fiva). Nordea’s supervision consists of a multinational group, and there are likely several inspections targeting different areas ongoing at all times.
It is worth checking the FSA Act to see what kind of “bonuses” (administrative fines/penalties) the FSA can impose on those it supervises. I believe the ECB has similar mandates. They could well be a certain percentage of turnover.
Then to the matter itself: the functionality of risk management is essential for financial companies. If a company is lax or even incompetently negligent in that regard, and if they operate with a certain attitude, the distribution of these “bonuses” may be sealed. Laws and regulations are conveniently vague enough that justifications can likely be found. “Operational risks must be managed.” “Processes related to money laundering and terrorist financing must be in order.” Etc.
Somehow, OmaSP is the first that comes to mind regarding attitude, but this is probably an illusion and more of a colored image formed from media coverage. Since a police investigation has been launched, I consider a supervisor “bonus” possible. Taavetti believes that Nordea has neglected its AML (Anti-Money Laundering) obligations. If those risk assessments are not on paper, they don’t exist anywhere, and Nordea clearly has something rotten in its prevention of terrorist financing. Unfortunately, as Taavetti is also a shareholder.