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

FSCA fines Johannes du Plessis R4.1m and bars him from financial services for 25 years

October 26, 2026

SA Post Office arbitration muddled by fake AI-generated legal case

October 26, 2026

Energy company faces costs order for flawed challenge to rival’s renewable energy project

October 26, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Trending
  • FSCA fines Johannes du Plessis R4.1m and bars him from financial services for 25 years
  • SA Post Office arbitration muddled by fake AI-generated legal case
  • Energy company faces costs order for flawed challenge to rival’s renewable energy project
  • Univen vice-chancellor’s bid to block suspension fails because earlier order protects him
  • Bestmed ordered to reinstate member after unjustified medical aid cancellation
  • Grace Bible Church gathers political leaders for prayer, urges acceptance of 4 November results
  • Africa’s first Pride march changed history; its message still matters today
  • Public interest law gathering to tackle land justice, migration and threats to human rights
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

Energy company faces costs order for flawed challenge to rival’s renewable energy project

October 26, 2026

Univen vice-chancellor’s bid to block suspension fails because earlier order protects him

October 26, 2026

Bestmed ordered to reinstate member after unjustified medical aid cancellation

October 26, 2026
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Prove your humanity: 4   +   6   =  

Subscribe to our newsletter:
Top Posts

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

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
Don't Miss
Money & Security
4 Mins Read

FSCA fines Johannes du Plessis R4.1m and bars him from financial services for 25 years

By Kennedy MudzuliOctober 26, 20264 Mins Read

The FSCA has fined Johannes Lodewicus Du Plessis R4.1 million and debarred him for 25 years after finding that he traded clients’ funds without the required authorisation.

SA Post Office arbitration muddled by fake AI-generated legal case

October 26, 2026

Energy company faces costs order for flawed challenge to rival’s renewable energy project

October 26, 2026

Univen vice-chancellor’s bid to block suspension fails because earlier order protects him

October 26, 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

Your driving licence at the gate: What estates can actually legally scan

Sponsor: My Estate LifeSeptember 6, 2026

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
OUR PICKS

LPC warns against unregulated legal services, clarifies legal consultant ruling

October 17, 2026

The R400,000 award for ‘white trash’ and ‘dumb people’ insults that cost a woman her home

October 21, 2026

SARU HR manager’s feud with boss escalated from grievance to dismissal

October 23, 2026
© 2026 Conviction.
  • Home
  • Buy Now
  • Law & Justice

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