Insights
Practical reading for representatives, Key Individuals, and firms navigating RE prep, compliance, and change in the South African financial-services space.
Browse by topic
Latest
A Key Individual calls the compliance officer with an urgent question: the FSCA has provisionally suspended the FSP's licence, effective immediately. The FSP's three representatives have client meetings scheduled for later that morning. Can they keep those appointments?
A financial adviser notices an unusual transaction. The source of funds seems implausible, but nothing has been confirmed. The question — "Do I need proof before I report?" — is one of the most commonly misunderstood obligations in FICA. The answer is no. Under Section 29(1), suspicion is sufficient. Under Section 52(2), negligent failure to report when you reasonably ought to have suspected is a criminal offence. This article explains both provisions and what follows once you file.
A Key Individual instructs a representative to omit certain risk disclosures. The representative complies, believing the KI's authority provides a shield. The General Code of Conduct defines "provider" to include a representative — the obligation was personal from the start. The instruction did not transfer it. The representative's fit and proper status is now at risk.
An FSP lets a senior representative resign quietly rather than going through a formal debarment. No FSCA notification. No central register entry. The representative joins another FSP within weeks. Section 36(a) of the FAIS Act explicitly lists Section 14(1) as a criminal offence — the FSP has not avoided a difficult process. It has committed one.
A representative receives a call on a Friday afternoon: "You're debarred, effective immediately — hand in your access card." No written notice was provided, no policy document was given, and no opportunity to respond was offered. This is not a compliant debarment under Section 14 of the FAIS Act. The law prescribes a specific sequence of steps before any debarment can take effect — and the representative has defined rights at every stage.
A representative joins an FSP under supervision and spends the first week meeting clients. They say nothing about their supervised status — assuming it is an internal administrative matter. It is not. FSCA FAIS Notice 86 of 2018 and the General Code of Conduct impose a personal disclosure obligation on every supervised representative, from the first client interaction. Here is what the law requires and where the obligation comes from.
A representative is appointed under supervision in January 2024 and told they have "two years to pass RE5." In January 2026, they miss the deadline — because they assumed the two years ran from when the FSP started their study programme, not from the date of appointment. This is the most common DOFA miscalculation, and it is entirely avoidable. Here is how the timeline actually works.
A client insists they do not need the Needs Analysis. They offer to sign a waiver. The representative, wanting to move the transaction forward, considers accepting. The answer under Section 21 of the General Code of Conduct is unambiguous: the waiver cannot be accepted, and acting on it does not make it valid. Here is what the provision actually prohibits — and why the client's willingness makes no difference.
A representative files a Suspicious Transaction Report and tells the client what was reported. The impulse is understandable - but the act is a criminal offence under Section 29(3) of FICA, carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. Here is what the law actually requires, and why the instinct to be transparent is precisely the wrong response.
A client walks in and hands over R55,000 in cash. Most financial advisers know a Cash Threshold Report is required — but not how quickly, not whether the transaction must stop, and not whether that travellers' cheque counts as "cash" under the Act. The answers are in Section 28 of FICA, and they are more specific than most practitioners realise.
A client with a R4.2 million loss wants to use the FAIS Ombud. The Ombud's jurisdictional limit is R3,500,000. The client assumes the Ombud is not available. That assumption is wrong — but only if the client understands and agrees to the abandonment mechanism. Here is how the jurisdictional limit works and what the decision to abandon actually means.
A representative under investigation submits their resignation, expecting the regulatory process to end. It does not. Section 14(1)(a) of the FAIS Act explicitly covers persons who "are or were" representatives, and Section 14(5) gives the FSP six months after cessation to commence debarment proceedings. The resignation starts a clock — it does not stop one.
A representative is sequestrated and the FSP's Key Individual reaches for the debarment paperwork. Stop. The financial soundness pillar in BN 194 does not apply to natural person representatives — which means the three-step chain most people assume (insolvency → financial soundness failure → disqualification) breaks at the first step. Here is what the law actually requires, and why it is structured that way.
Connection Error
Something went wrong. Please try again.
Are you sure you want to proceed?
Press ? anytime to show this help