Can You Tell a Client You Filed a Suspicious Transaction Report?

A representative completes a Suspicious Transaction Report and submits it to the Financial
Intelligence Centre. The client is an established contact. The representative, wanting to
be transparent and preserve the relationship, informs the client that a report has been
filed. The representative believes they have acted with integrity.

Under Section 29(3) of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001, the representative
has committed a criminal offence. Not a regulatory violation. Not a breach of code. A
criminal offence that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment or a fine of
R100 million.

This is the prohibition known informally as "tipping off." It applies regardless of the
representative's intentions, regardless of whether the client was ultimately innocent, and
regardless of whether the relationship was preserved. The offence is complete the moment
disclosure is made.

The Rule

Under Section 29(3) of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (FICA), no person
who filed or must file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) may disclose that fact — or
any information about its contents — to any other person, including the client who is the
subject of the report. Doing so is a criminal offence under Section 53 of FICA, carrying a
maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment or a fine of R100 million under Section 68(1).
The prohibition extends, under Section 29(4), to anyone who merely knows or suspects that
a report has been or will be made — not just the person who filed it.

What the Legislation Actually Says

Section 29(3): The Prohibition on the Reporter

Section 29(3) of FICA states:

No person who made or must make a report in terms of this section may, subject to
subsection 45B(2A), disclose that fact or any information regarding the contents of any
such report to any other person, including the person in respect of whom the report is
or must be made, otherwise than—
(a) within the scope of the powers and duties of that person in terms of any legislation;
(b) for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act;
(c) for the purpose of legal proceedings, including any proceedings before a judge in
chambers; or
(d) in terms of an order of court.

Four things in this provision are worth noting.

First, the prohibition is expressly "subject to subsection 45B(2A)." That subsection empowers an inspector from the Financial Intelligence Centre or a supervisory body, during an inspection under Section 45B, to order the production of a copy of an STR or related information. A person who discloses an STR in compliance with such an order is not committing tipping off. This is a narrow carve-out limited to formal inspections — it does not create a general right to share STR information.

Second, the prohibition explicitly names the client as a person who must not be told. The phrase "including the person in respect of whom the report is or must be made" is not incidental phrasing — it is the legislature closing the most obvious loophole.

Third, the four exceptions are narrow. Acting within one's legislative powers (exception (a)) covers the compliance officer processing the report internally or the supervisor overseeing the process. It does not cover telling the client as a matter of professional courtesy or relationship management.

Fourth, the prohibition attaches to the fact of the report itself, not only to its contents. Saying "I filed something about your account" without disclosing any details is still prohibited.

Section 29(4): The Prohibition Extends to Third Parties

Section 29(4) applies the same prohibition to persons who did not file the report but merely know or suspect that one was or will be filed:

No person who knows or suspects that a report has been or is to be made in terms of this
section may disclose that knowledge or suspicion or any information regarding the contents
or suspected contents of any such report to any other person, including the person in
respect of whom the report is or is to be made...

The significance of this provision is that the prohibition runs through the entire chain of knowledge. The compliance officer who processed the paperwork. The supervisor who instructed the representative to file. The colleague who overheard the conversation in the office. All of them are bound by Section 29(4). Any one of them who discloses the existence or suspected existence of the report to the client — or to anyone else outside the permitted exceptions — commits the same offence.

Section 53 and the Criminal Consequence

The offence is created by Section 53:

(1) Any person referred to in section 29(3) who discloses a fact or information
contemplated in that section, otherwise than in the circumstances or for the purposes
authorised in that section, is guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person referred to in section 29(4) who discloses a knowledge or suspicion or any
information contemplated in that section... is guilty of an offence.

Section 68(1) of FICA prescribes the sentence: imprisonment for up to 15 years or a fine of
up to R100 million. Section 53 is not among the lesser offences listed in Section 68(2), which
carry lighter penalties. The full sentence range applies.

Where Representatives Go Wrong

The most common error is framing tipping off as a transparency problem rather than a legal one.

A representative who values client relationships may feel that the honest thing to do is to
tell the client about the report, particularly if the representative suspects the transaction
was innocent and the client has been a trusted contact for years. This framing — "I owe my
client transparency" — treats the prohibition as a professional constraint to be weighed
against other professional values. It is not. Section 29(3) removes the choice entirely.

A related error is assuming that some kind of notification mechanism must exist. The question
bank options for this topic include "exercised their right to notify the client, provided
written notification was submitted within 14 days" and "triggered a voluntary disclosure
procedure, allowing the client to remedy the suspicious circumstances." Neither mechanism
exists in FICA. There is no post-report notification right, no written notification window,
and no voluntary disclosure procedure under Section 29.

A third misconception is that the prohibition only applies to the specific person who filed
the STR. Section 29(4) forecloses this reading. The prohibition attaches to the knowledge, not
to the filing act. Once a person knows or suspects an STR exists, they are bound by the same
restriction as the filer.

The prohibition exists for a specific reason. If the subject of a Suspicious Transaction
Report is informed that one has been filed, they can take steps to frustrate the Financial
Intelligence Centre's investigation — transferring funds, restructuring the transaction, or
disposing of records before the FIC can act. The entire effectiveness of the STR system
depends on the subject not knowing they are under scrutiny. This is why the law removes the
choice entirely rather than asking representatives to weigh transparency against compliance.

Suspicious Transaction Report Scenarios

The transparent representative

A representative notices that a client's deposits consistently fall just below R49,999.99 —
a pattern consistent with structuring to avoid cash threshold reporting. The representative
files an STR. Wanting to preserve the relationship and act in good faith, the representative
tells the client: "I had to file a report with the FIC about those deposits. I just wanted
you to know."

The representative has committed the criminal offence of tipping off under Sections 29(3)
and 53 of FICA. The client's innocence is irrelevant. The representative's good intentions
are irrelevant. The disclosure is the offence.

The colleague who knew

A compliance officer processes the STR and discusses it with a senior colleague during a
compliance review. That senior colleague later encounters the client at an industry event and
mentions — casually and without intending harm — that a report had been filed.

The senior colleague has committed the offence under Sections 29(4) and 53 of FICA. The
senior colleague did not file the report and had no part in the compliance decision. But they
knew about it. Section 29(4) applies to persons who merely know or suspect a report was made.

What to do instead

A representative files the STR, the client continues the transaction, and asks in passing
whether there is anything to worry about from a regulatory perspective. The representative
gives no indication of whether a report has been filed and says nothing to suggest one has
not.

Under Section 33 of FICA, the transaction may proceed unless the Financial Intelligence
Centre specifically directs suspension. The representative can complete the transaction
without confirming or denying the existence of a report. This is the correct posture.

The representative is also protected from liability under Section 38(1) of FICA: no action,
civil or criminal, lies against a person who filed an STR in good faith. The client cannot
successfully sue the representative for having reported them, even if the suspicion was
ultimately unfounded.

Practical Implications

For representatives:

File, stay silent, and continue the transaction unless directed otherwise. These three steps
are not in tension — they are the combined effect of Sections 29(1), 29(3), and 33 of FICA.
The representative's obligation is to report, not to investigate, not to notify, and not to
resolve the matter on behalf of the client.

For compliance officers and supervisors:

Internal communication about an STR must be limited to what is necessary for the institution
to carry out its FICA obligations (Section 29(3)(a) and (b)). The exceptions permit internal
processing; they do not permit broader discussion within the office. A compliance officer who
discusses the report beyond the team handling it creates exposure under Section 29(4).

For exam candidates:

When you see an RE5 scenario where a representative files an STR and then informs the client,
the question is not asking you to weigh transparency against compliance. The act is a criminal
offence. The answer is always: the representative has committed tipping off under Sections
29(3) and 53 of FICA. Look for that answer regardless of how the representative's intentions
are described in the scenario.

The wrong answer options on this topic are systematically constructed to appeal to the
transparency instinct. Any option that suggests the representative "had a right" to notify
the client, or that notification within a certain period is permitted, is incorrect. No such
right or procedure exists under FICA.

Key Takeaways

• Telling a client you filed a Suspicious Transaction Report is a criminal offence under
  Section 29(3) and Section 53 of FICA — not a matter of professional judgment.

• The maximum penalty under Section 68(1) is 15 years' imprisonment or a R100 million fine.

• The prohibition extends, under Section 29(4), to anyone who merely knows or suspects a
  report was filed — not just the person who filed it.

• The transaction may continue after the STR is filed unless the FIC directs otherwise
  (Section 33).

• The filer is protected from civil and criminal liability for good-faith reporting
  (Section 38(1)).