Skip to content
Close Menu
ConvictionConviction
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

Municipality cannot reopen a case settled by a binding plea and sanction agreement

June 5, 2026

FSCA imposes R5.39 million in penalties on financial services firms

June 5, 2026

Wits student wins leave to appeal refusal to renew 2026 registration

June 5, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • Municipality cannot reopen a case settled by a binding plea and sanction agreement
  • FSCA imposes R5.39 million in penalties on financial services firms
  • Wits student wins leave to appeal refusal to renew 2026 registration
  • Africa Day celebrations and the enduring gendered contradictions of African unity
  • Businesses urged to make only provable advertising claims
  • Women travel up to 300km as abortion services fail in Eastern Cape and Limpopo
  • Senior manager loses dismissal case before company could address CEO complaint
  • Toddler’s future forever changed after an accident just before his third birthday
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
ConvictionConviction
Sonneblom
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch
ConvictionConviction
Home » FSCA imposes R5.39 million in penalties on financial services firms
Regulatory Law

FSCA imposes R5.39 million in penalties on financial services firms

Four firms were sanctioned after failures in anti-money laundering controls, customer checks and compliance oversight.
Conviction Staff ReporterBy Conviction Staff ReporterJune 5, 2026No Comments
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email
  • The FSCA imposed administrative sanctions totalling R5.39 million on four financial services providers for breaches of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.
  • Inspections uncovered failures involving compliance functions, customer due diligence, record-keeping and sanctions screening.
  • Fairsure's appeal against its penalty was dismissed with the Appeal Board confirming the FSCA's decision.

The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has imposed administrative sanctions totalling R5.39 million on four financial services providers after inspections revealed failures to comply with key anti-money laundering obligations under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.

The sanctions were imposed on Fairsure Administration (Pty) Ltd, Grey Swan Financial Services (Pty) Ltd, GQM Fund Administrators (Pty) Ltd and Louw Risk Financial Services CC. All four entities are licensed financial services providers and are classified as accountable institutions under the FIC Act, which requires businesses to take steps to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing and related criminal activities.

The FSCA carried out inspections as part of its supervisory responsibilities and found that the firms had breached one or more provisions of the Act.

Compliance failures uncovered

One of the key findings was that all four firms had risk management and compliance programmes in place, but those programmes did not fully comply with legal requirements. The regulator found that the programmes failed to make provision for one or more of the processes and procedures required by the FIC Act.

The inspections also uncovered shortcomings in compliance oversight. The law requires accountable institutions to have a compliance function that assists senior management and boards in meeting their obligations under the Act and to appoint a suitably competent and senior person to ensure that function operates effectively.

According to the FSCA, Fairsure appointed an Executive Secretary as its Money Laundering Compliance Officer. The regulator found that the position lacked the competence and seniority necessary to ensure an effective compliance function.

Louw Risk did not have a compliance function in place and had not assigned a suitably competent and senior individual to oversee compliance. Customer due diligence failures were also identified.

Financial institutions are required to identify and verify customers, establish the identity of people acting on behalf of customers, obtain information about business relationships and determine beneficial ownership.

The FSCA found that Fairsure and GQM failed to conduct the required customer due diligence on clients. In Fairsure's case, customer due diligence was also not conducted in line with the firm's own risk management and compliance programme.

The regulator further found that Fairsure could not provide customer due diligence records relating to certain clients when requested. Grey Swan was found to have failed to screen information about current and prospective clients against United Nations Security Council Targeted Financial Sanctions lists, which is a requirement aimed at preventing financial dealings with sanctioned individuals and entities.

Millions in penalties

After assessing the seriousness of the contraventions and other relevant factors, the FSCA imposed penalties on all four firms.

GQM Fund Administrators received the largest sanction and was fined R2.3 million. Fairsure Administration was fined R1.84 million, with R200 000 of that amount conditionally suspended for three years.

Grey Swan Financial Services was fined R1 million, with R600 000 conditionally suspended for two years. Louw Risk Financial Services received a penalty of R250 000, of which R100 000 was conditionally suspended for two years.

Grey Swan and GQM have already paid their penalties. Louw Risk entered into a payment arrangement with the FSCA while Fairsure paid its penalty after its appeal was unsuccessful.

Appeal dismissed

On 26 September 2025, Fairsure appealed to the FIC Act Appeal Board, challenging the sanction imposed against it. The Appeal Board dismissed the appeal on 30 April 2026 and confirmed the validity of the FSCA's decision. Fairsure subsequently paid the penalty.

The FSCA said the Appeal Board's ruling reinforced several important principles, including the seriousness of failures involving risk management and compliance programmes, the central role of customer due diligence in detecting and reporting suspicious transactions and the requirement that accountable institutions appoint suitably qualified individuals to oversee compliance.

The regulator also noted that the Appeal Board confirmed that a client's low-risk profile does not excuse non-compliance and that deterrence remains an important factor when determining appropriate sanctions.

The FSCA said the penalties and the Appeal Board's decision should serve as a warning to accountable institutions that failures to comply with anti-money laundering requirements will attract firm regulatory action.

Conviction.co.za

Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

anti-money laundering Financial Intelligence Centre Act Financial Services Providers FSCA regulatory enforcement
Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email
Conviction Staff Reporter

Conviction.co.za — Towards a Positive Impact on People

Related Posts

Businesses urged to make only provable advertising claims

June 4, 2026

Matric results publication stays public after High Court dismisses appeal by Information Regulator

June 4, 2026

Farm for sale advert slammed for misleading jacuzzi, workshop and three-phase power claims

June 3, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 2   +   9   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

June 2, 2025
Don't Miss
Labour Law
5 Mins Read

Municipality cannot reopen a case settled by a binding plea and sanction agreement

By Kennedy MudzuliJune 5, 20265 Mins Read

The Labour Court has ruled that Capricorn District Municipality could not abandon an approved plea and sanction agreement and discipline its HR manager again on the same charges, ordering her reinstatement with full back pay.

FSCA imposes R5.39 million in penalties on financial services firms

June 5, 2026

Wits student wins leave to appeal refusal to renew 2026 registration

June 5, 2026

Africa Day celebrations and the enduring gendered contradictions of African unity

June 4, 2026
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • WhatsApp
Demo
About Us
About Us

Helping South Africans to navigate the legal landscape; providing accessible legal information; and giving a voice to those seeking justice.

Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube WhatsApp Twitch RSS
Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

January 17, 2025

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

December 31, 2024

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

November 27, 2024
OUR PICKS

Agricultural advisors declared scientists in landmark Labour Court ruling

February 17, 2026

R13,914 debt triggers sale of R380 000 home, transfer halted amid execution flaws

April 20, 2026

Understanding employee rights, workplace protections and grievance resolution in South Africa

June 8, 2025
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Law & Justice
  • Special Reports
  • Opinion
  • Ask The Expert
  • Get In Touch

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
►
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
None
Powered by