Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Following a 2023 inspection, the supervisor found inadequate customer due diligence and inadequate enhanced and ongoing due diligence in sampled files, no ongoing training for sampled employees and gaps in the risk management and compliance programme, such as name and payment screening manuals that had not been approved by management before being implemented, and inadequately documented arrangements for terrorist property reporting and financial sanctions. Five cautions and penalties of 28 million ZAR were imposed, of which 5.5 million ZAR is suspended for 36 months from 13 October 2025; the bank had already been sanctioned with 56.25 million ZAR in December 2024. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Prudential Authority (PA) der South African Reserve Bank

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

Sections 21, 21A und 21C i. V. m. 42(1), 42(2)(d), (e), (g) sowie Sections 42 und 43 Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation in remedying the deficiencies; 5.5 million ZAR suspended for 36 months.

Published

11 Sep 2026

Original amount 28,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The financial services provider had not made sure that its clients were protected against losses from theft, fraud or other dishonest acts by its employees; one individual's misconduct caused clients substantial losses. The company was directed to introduce, within two months, a policy protecting against such risks. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Sections 2 und 11 General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (2003); Section 13(3)(a) Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002; Section 42(1) Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for Financial Services Providers (2017)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

According to the authority's update of 22 July 2026, the company had itself discovered and reported the contraventions, which occurred in 2021.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

17 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 15 June 2026, on the basis of a settlement between the Competition Commission (competition authority), The South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SAB) and the trustees of the Zenzele employee share scheme, the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) ordered that allocations under the scheme be recalculated to include former SABMiller employees who had moved to the CCBSA group (Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa); the funds held back in trust since 2020 must allegedly be paid out within 30 days. The case concerned apparent non-compliance with a condition of the 2017 merger approval under which these employees were not to lose any scheme benefits because of the transaction. The Tribunal rejected objections raised on behalf of current employees.

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Competition Act 89 of 1998: Durchsetzung der Fusionsauflage 4.6 aus LM021Apr17 über Section 27(1)(d) i. V. m. Section 16(3); Antrag nach Section 49D i. V. m. Section 58(1)(b)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 27 May 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement in which Limpopo-based Seed Bearing Fields (Pty) Ltd admitted fixing prices with Mogodumo Bakone Holding (Pty) Ltd for a Limpopo Department of Health tender to supply perishable food. The directors of the two bidders are related; the companies shared an office and service providers and submitted strikingly similar bids. Seed Bearing Fields allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 10,044 ZAR and must attend competition law compliance training provided by the Competition Commission (competition authority).

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Section 4(1)(b)(i) und (iii) Competition Act 89 of 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Original amount 10,044 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In September 2022 the public TVET college mistakenly emailed reports verifying the qualifications and criminal records of three employees to other staff, informed neither the regulator nor those affected, and had not registered an information officer. Departing from the view of its Enforcement Committee, the regulator also treated this as impermissible further processing and found breaches of accountability, purpose limitation, security safeguards and the notification duty; on 22 May 2026 it ordered, among other things, registration, notification of the breach, a written apology, a compliance framework and POPIA training for all staff.

Authority / court

Information Regulator (South Africa)

Area of law

Data protection · Employee data

Legal basis

Sections 8, 15(1), 19(1) und 22(1) Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA); Enforcement Notice nach Section 95 POPIA

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Public sector

Mitigating circumstances

The college recalled the email two days later, informed staff of the error and took action against those responsible; according to the regulator, this did not relieve it of the duty to notify.

Published

2 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 21 April 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement with Gwalimba Construction (Pty) Ltd. Following a complaint by the Department of Home Affairs (home affairs ministry), the Competition Commission (competition authority) had found that Gwalimba and Superway Construction (Pty) Ltd agreed not to compete against each other on certain tenders – including a request for quotes for fire-compliance repair work at a government office in Pretoria. Without admitting liability, Gwalimba allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 50,000 ZAR, will cooperate in the case against Superway and will introduce a competition law compliance programme.

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Section 4(1)(b)(i), (ii) und (iii) Competition Act 89 of 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

According to the parties: cooperation with the authority, a small firm with no previous contraventions, and it did not win the contract.

Published

23 Apr 2026

Original amount 50,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Apr 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 18 February 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement between the Competition Commission (competition authority) and Wilmar SA (Pty) Ltd (formerly Wilmar Continental Edible Oils and Fats) in proceedings running since 2016 over alleged price fixing and – added later – market division in edible oils, baking fats and margarine. Without admitting a contravention, Wilmar allegedly pays 1,000,000 ZAR and commits to public-interest measures worth 49.5 million ZAR over five years, including bursaries, school infrastructure including eradicating pit latrines, and a fund for small businesses; it also undertakes a compliance programme and investment commitments.

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Section 4(1)(b)(i) und/oder (ii) Competition Act 89 of 1998 (Vorwurf, ohne Anerkenntnis)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

18 Feb 2026

Original amount 1,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Feb 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The investigation found that the financial services provider had, among other things, misused client funds, supplied false or misleading information to clients and the regulator, promised unrealistic returns and not acted in the interests of clients. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision

Legal basis

Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017; Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002; General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives (2003); Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Act 28 of 2001; Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for FSPs (2017); Financial Markets Act Regulations (2018)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

9 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Following client complaints, the FSCA found that the company and its predecessor South African Relocations had issued marine (transit) insurance policies to the public without authorisation, thereby acting as unlicensed insurers. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Short-term Insurance Act, s. 7(1); Insurance Act, s. 5(1); Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017, s. 139

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

9 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The municipality had processed personal information of a former employee which was exposed on the internet; the Information Regulator treated this as a gross violation of privacy and issued an enforcement notice. Because the municipality did not implement the corrective instructions, an administrative fine of ZAR 500,000 followed; as it did not pay, the Regulator has initiated court proceedings to recover the amount.

Authority / court

Information Regulator (South Africa)

Area of law

Data protection · Employee data

Legal basis

Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA); Enforcement Notice und Infringement Notice

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Public sector

Published

13 Nov 2025

Original amount 500,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Nov 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

An assessment following several security compromises found that the laboratory company had notified neither the Information Regulator nor the affected data subjects. After an enforcement notice that it failed to comply with, it received an infringement notice with an administrative fine of ZAR 100,000, which has since been paid.

Authority / court

Information Regulator (South Africa)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA), s. 22

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Published

13 Nov 2025

Original amount 100,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Nov 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The authorised dealer in foreign exchange with limited authority (ADLA, a category that includes bureaux de change) had not incorporated key requirements of the FIC Act into its risk management and compliance programme, had failed to identify and verify some customers and had not given its staff adequate training. The penalties amount to 100,000 ZAR (section 42(1)), 37,500 ZAR (section 20) and 25,000 ZAR (section 43), 162,500 ZAR in total. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

South African Reserve Bank (SARB)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Sections 20, 42(1) und 43 Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

17 Oct 2025

Original amount 162,500 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Oct 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

An inspection in March 2024 showed that the manager of collective investment schemes was not applying its risk management and compliance programme (RMCP) effectively, particularly when risk-rating clients, that the programme had substantive gaps, that some clients and their beneficial owners had not been adequately identified and verified, and that the required ongoing and enhanced due diligence was missing. Alongside a directive to remediate and a caution, a penalty of 10.6 million ZAR was imposed, of which 3.6 million ZAR is conditionally suspended for two years; earlier contraventions of other laws were taken into account, including an enforceable undertaking and a penalty under the Collective Investment Schemes Control Act (CISCA). The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

Sections 42(1), 42(2), 20A, 21, 21A, 21B, 21C, 21E und 21F–21H Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (FIC Act)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Remedial action taken to date; 3.6 million ZAR suspended for two years, provided the deficiencies are fully remedied and the obligations are complied with on a sustained basis.

Published

13 Oct 2025

Original amount 10,600,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Oct 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 10 September 2025 the High Court in Johannesburg fined Beautiful City (Pty) Ltd, a factory making cotton fibre products in Village Deep (Johannesburg), 300,000 ZAR. A joint inspection by the Department of Employment and Labour (labour ministry), the police and the Department of Home Affairs (home affairs ministry) in November 2019 had found mainly foreign workers without residence rights, including minors, on locked premises; the court noted, among other things, wages below the national minimum wage, failure to register with the Compensation Fund and the UIF, and an unsafe workplace.

Authority / court

High Court Johannesburg (Gauteng) (Ermittlungen u. a. Department of Employment and Labour)

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Forced and child labour

Legal basis

Straftatbestände Menschenhandel, Beihilfe zum Menschenhandel, Schuldknechtschaft und Nutznießung aus Menschenhandel; Verstöße gegen Vorschriften zu Unemployment Insurance Fund, Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, National Minimum Wage und Occupational Health and Safety; Beihilfe zum illegalen Aufenthalt (laut Department of Employment and Labour, ohne Paragrafenangaben)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

10 Sep 2025

Original amount 300,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 8 September 2025, on application by the National Consumer Commission (NCC, South Africa's consumer protection authority), the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT, the consumer protection adjudicator) found that car dealer Kia East Rand (Pty) Ltd had breached section 56(3) of the Consumer Protection Act: a used car sold in September 2022 remained defective despite several repair attempts, and the dealer refused the buyer's request to cancel the sale. The Tribunal ordered a refund of the purchase price of 245,075 ZAR within ten days and imposed an administrative fine of 50,000 ZAR.

Authority / court

National Consumer Tribunal (auf Antrag der National Consumer Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Section 56(3) Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008; Verwaltungsstrafe nach Section 112

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Repeat case

no

Original amount 50,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the Competition Commission, a non-compete clause in the 2000 shareholders' agreement of Toyota Financial Services South Africa (TFSSA), in which WesBank holds a one-third stake, obliged the parties not to compete with each other in financing Toyota vehicles; WesBank therefore referred customers' finance requests to TFSSA (market division). In a settlement without admission of liability, the restraint is relaxed so that WesBank may provide finance quotes to retail customers and dealers at their request, and the six parties (FirstRand Bank, its division WesBank, TFSSA, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Financial Services (UK), Toyota South Africa) allegedly pay ZAR 30m jointly or severally. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Competition Act 89 of 1998, s. 4(1)(b)(ii); ss. 49D, 58(1)(b)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement without admission of liability to end protracted proceedings.

Published

25 Aug 2025

Original amount 30,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Aug 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

An inspection in September 2023 showed that the fund manager had not effectively implemented its risk management and compliance programme, particularly the risk rating of clients, and had not adequately identified and monitored some clients and beneficial owners on an ongoing basis. In November 2024 the FSCA allegedly imposed a penalty of ZAR 3m, a remediation directive and a caution; following a settlement confirmed by the FIC Act Appeal Board in April 2025, the appeal was withdrawn and ZAR 500,000 was conditionally suspended for three years. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001, ss. 21, 21B, 21C, 42(1), 42(2); Vergleich nach s. 45D(7)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Remedial action; ZAR 500,000 conditionally suspended.

Published

8 May 2025

Original amount 3,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 May 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Following an inspection in 2022, the supervisor objected to inadequate customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence on foreign and domestic politically exposed clients, and to more than 8,500 monitoring alerts not handled within 48 hours. It imposed two cautions, a reprimand and financial penalties of ZAR 10m (7m for customer due diligence, 3m for breaches of Directive 5). The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Prudential Authority (PA) der South African Reserve Bank

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001, ss. 21(1), 21A; FIC Directive 5 of 2019; Regulation 24(3)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

The bank's cooperation and remedial action.

Published

25 Apr 2025

Original amount 10,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Apr 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

A social-media campaign by the bank in December 2023 (#KeFestive), featuring a well-known public figure, presented personal loans as an investment; the authority found this factually incorrect and misleading and also identified weaknesses in the approval process for advertising. Of the 700,000 ZAR penalty, 200,000 ZAR was suspended for two years; the bank has paid 500,000 ZAR. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Sections 6(1), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) und 6(9) Conduct Standard 3 of 2020 (Banks)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation during the investigation and prompt remedial action; 200,000 ZAR suspended for two years, provided the bank complies with the Conduct Standard.

Published

22 Apr 2025

Original amount 700,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Apr 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

On 8 April 2025 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement with Pailpac (Pty) Ltd, a maker of injection-moulded plastic pails for the paints and coatings industry. The Competition Commission (competition authority) alleged that, as the dominant supplier of containers for water-based coatings, the company had tied major customers through exclusive or near-exclusive supply agreements and used below-cost pricing; Pailpac disputes this. It nevertheless allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 5,000,000 ZAR, releases customers from exclusivity and automatic renewal clauses, will buy packaging waste from small businesses and informal waste collectors for five years and will introduce a compliance programme.

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Section 8(1)(d)(i) und 8(1)(c) Competition Act 89 of 1998 (Vorwurf der Competition Commission, ohne Anerkenntnis)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals

Published

9 Apr 2025

Original amount 5,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Apr 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link