The Financial Sector Conduct Authority’s latest Regulatory Actions Report points to a sharper focus on consumer-facing misconduct, particularly where online promotion, informal distribution models, or unauthorised activity expose financial customers to harm.
The report – covering the year to 31 March 2026 – identifies online harm, unregistered insurance, referral arrangements, trading signals, and the unauthorised transfer of client information as priority areas for continued supervisory and enforcement attention.
FSCA Deputy Commissioner Katherine Gibson told a media briefing on 31 July that “individual criminals” acting in silos have been replaced by “complex and mature crime networks” supported by “machine intellect”, bringing speed, scale, and accuracy to financial crime. She said the FSCA must prioritise the most dangerous harm, often affecting vulnerable communities.
FSCA Commissioner Unathi Kamlana said fraudsters are increasingly misusing platforms by impersonating FSCA officials and executives, executives of licensed financial institutions or the institutions themselves, well-known media personalities, and other trusted public figures to create false legitimacy and lure consumers into fraudulent investment schemes. Combating online financial harm, he said, will remain one of the FSCA’s key priorities.
The report says online harm in South Africa is becoming more sophisticated and increasingly digital. It includes financial scams, impersonation fraud, fake investment schemes, the fraudulent use of licence numbers, and unauthorised financial services promoted through websites, social media, and messaging platforms. Of particular concern is that 68% of South Africans reported being targeted by fraud, while South Africa ranks eighth globally in suspected digital fraud rates.
The FSCA issued 140 public warnings during the reporting period, up from 107 in 2024/25 and 104 in 2023/24. Most warnings focused on suspected unregistered financial services providers, typically unlicensed entities offering investment or trading opportunities. About 20% of the warnings involved impersonations of licensed financial institutions and service providers.
Referrals can become intermediary services
Referral arrangements in the investment industry are another risk area. The report says a pure referral, limited to introducing a client to a product supplier, will typically fall outside licensing requirements. The risk arises when the referrer becomes involved in the investment process.
Activities such as assisting with documentation, facilitating onboarding, explaining products, or engaging with client queries can amount to “intermediary services” as defined in the FAIS Act. The report says the conduct is assessed according to its substance rather than how it is labelled, which means referral-based business models can trigger financial services regulation when they materially enable or influence investment transactions.
The Equitos case illustrates this point. The FSCA initiated an investigation into Equitos Group (Pty) Ltd and its key individual, Robert Fabian Linder, after a whistleblower alleged they promoted investment opportunities via LinkedIn and a website, made representations about potential investment returns, and conducted these activities without holding a valid FSP licence.
The investigation found that Equitos Group and Linder acted as referral agents for offshore property developers based in the United Kingdom. They promoted unlisted offshore property-linked investments and earned commissions contingent on successful referrals. Although they characterised their role as limited to referrals, the FSCA found that their activities went further.
The FSCA found that they collected and processed FICA documentation, facilitated client onboarding, and managed and responded to investor queries relating to the investment products. Through this level of involvement, the FSCA concluded, Equitos Group and Linder materially enabled and facilitated the conclusion of transactions in financial products, thereby rendering intermediary services without authorisation.
The FSCA imposed a 10-year debarment on Linder and a R1-million administrative penalty on Equitos Group. Equitos Group and Linder applied to the Financial Services Tribunal for reconsideration, but the application did not challenge the substantive findings and was limited to the proportionality of the sanctions. The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application on 15 June 2026.
Unlicensed insurance and funeral parlours
Unregistered insurance business remains another priority, particularly in the funeral parlour industry. The report says the FSCA continues to prioritise supervisory and enforcement interventions in the sector, where there remains a high incidence of unregistered financial services and insurance activities.
The FSCA has also experienced an increase in complaints relating to burial societies. The report says that, in many instances, these entities operate beyond the scope of informal, community-based arrangements and consequently trigger regulatory obligations under multiple legislative and regulatory frameworks.
The report explains that stokvels are exempt from certain licensing requirements under the FAIS Act and the Insurance Act only if they meet strict qualifying criteria. Where annual contributions or benefits exceed the prescribed threshold of R100 000, an arrangement no longer qualifies as a stokvel for purposes of the exemption from section 7(1) of the FAIS Act.
The FSCA also says some burial societies do not meet the requirements to be classified as friendly societies. In terms of Prudential Standard GOI 7, friendly societies are subject to a maximum benefit limit of R15 000. Where benefits exceed this threshold, the entity falls outside the permissible scope of a friendly society and may become subject to additional regulatory requirements.
Van Deventer said non-compliance frequently results from a specific way in which funeral parlours do business. For that reason, the FSCA follows a regularisation process in many cases, seeking to get entities to regularise their conduct.
The report says the FSCA continues to engage affected entities through exemption frameworks and targeted supervisory interventions aimed at facilitating an orderly transition to compliance. These interventions include guiding entities towards appropriate licensing pathways, requiring the cessation of unlawful activities where necessary, and considering enforcement action in cases of persistent non-compliance.
Trading signals and unauthorised advice
The FSCA also identifies trading signals as a focus area. The report says trading signals are typically instructions or recommendations to buy, sell, or hold a financial product, often in markets such as forex or contracts for difference (CFDs). They are frequently marketed as a convenient way for individuals to participate in trading.
The report says a key risk is over-reliance on the signal provider. Clients may place undue trust in individuals who present themselves as experienced or expert traders, without independently verifying their credentials or the basis of their recommendations. There may also be a lack of transparency about the methodology, assumptions, or risks underlying the recommendations.
The FSCA’s position is that providing or publishing trading signals falls within the definition of financial services, specifically financial advice, and may be provided only by authorised persons. Accordingly, the report urges consumers to exercise caution and verify the regulatory status of any signal provider before relying on such services.
The case of Petrus Rasmus Erasmus reinforces this position. The FSCA received complaints alleging that Erasmus collected funds from clients for the purpose of trading CFDs. The funds were deposited into trading accounts held in his name, and he exercised full discretion over the trading activities. The trades resulted in losses for clients.
Erasmus also provided clients with forex trading signals for a fee. The FSCA found that clients relied on his signals when executing their own trades, and these trades resulted in losses. It further found that Erasmus misappropriated client funds and did not use all money received from clients for trading purposes.
The FSCA determined that Erasmus contravened section 7(1)(a) of the FAIS Act by acting as an FSP without the required authorisation. It debarred him for five years and imposed an administrative penalty of R1.18m. The Tribunal dismissed his reconsideration application on 11 September 2025.
Van Deventer told the media that trading signals are “nothing else” than telling someone in which direction to trade and when to do it and are therefore “disguised financial advice”.
He said clients may place undue trust in the person providing the signals, while the FSCA has no assurance about that person’s knowledge, competence, or conflicts of interest if the person is unlicensed.
Misuse of client information after resignation
The unauthorised transfer of client information is another concern highlighted in the report. The FSCA says it has observed an increasing number of cases involving financial advisers who, after resigning from their employers, transfer client information to personal or external email accounts.
The report says this is often done to facilitate continued engagement with clients, including the migration or cancellation of financial products, or to service clients under a new employer. The FSCA says this raises significant regulatory concerns because the conduct may breach confidentiality obligations, data protection requirements, and the standards governing financial advisers.
These cases are frequently accompanied by signs of possible “churning”, where clients are transferred to another product provider without meaningful consideration of their best interests. The report says that, in many instances, only superficial regard is given to whether the client will be in a better position after the transfer, suggesting that commission incentives may be prioritised over clients’ interests.
Van Deventer told the media that the FSCA does not intend to become involved in civil disputes between an FSP and a representative who has moved to another firm. Its concern is with confidentiality, data protection, and the churning risks that often accompany the movement of client information.
Taken together, these focus areas show the FSCA’s concern with conduct that sits at or beyond the regulatory perimeter, particularly where consumers may mistake unauthorised activity for legitimate financial services. The report indicates that supervisory and enforcement attention will continue to fall on online harm, unregistered insurance activity, referral arrangements, trading signals, and the unauthorised use of client information where these practices expose financial customers to harm.
