The Financial Sector Conduct Authority says several Tribunal and court outcomes during the year to 31 March 2026 strengthened its enforcement framework, clarified the limits of procedural challenges, and helped to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations.
The legal developments form part of the FSCA’s fourth annual Regulatory Actions Report. Beyond the enforcement statistics, the report highlights a series of matters that affect how the regulator can investigate, serve enforcement notices, resist premature disclosure, and respond to attempts to delay investigations.
Read: Banxso, Medbond, and Steinhoff drive FSCA penalties to R2.9bn
Presenting the report on 31 July, Gerhard van Deventer, divisional executive: enforcement, said regulatory action often attracts “a lot of push-back”, including litigation. He said the report did not cover every case involving the FSCA but highlighted several matters because of their importance to the regulator’s enforcement work.
Tribunal reconsiderations: fewer new cases, more decisions upheld
During the reporting period, 44 new applications for reconsideration of FSCA decisions were lodged with the Financial Services Tribunal, down slightly from 47 in 2024/25. The number of finalised Tribunal matters decreased from 34 to 28, while ongoing applications increased from 13 to 16.
Of the matters finalised in 2025/26, the FSCA’s decisions were upheld in 16 cases, compared with 11 in the previous year. Six applications were withdrawn, meaning the FSCA’s decisions remained in force. Five cases were set aside by consent order and referred for further consideration, while one FSCA decision was set aside.
The report also notes that the FSCA took 1 323 administrative decisions during the reporting period, of which only a small fraction was challenged through reconsideration applications. The comparison places the Tribunal figures in context: although reconsiderations remain an important accountability mechanism, they represented only a limited portion of the Authority’s overall administrative decision-making.
Viceroy: cross-border digital misconduct and electronic service
One of the most significant legal developments was the High Court ruling in the Viceroy matter. The case concerned the FSCA’s ability to impose administrative penalties on foreign persons whose conduct has consequences in South African markets.
The FSCA had previously investigated Viceroy Research Partnership and its partners and determined that they had contravened section 81 of the Financial Markets Act by making false, misleading, or deceptive statements regarding a listed entity. Acting under section 167 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act (FSRA), the FSCA imposed an administrative penalty of R50 million on the Viceroy partners.
The Viceroy partners, who were peregrini, meaning they were not domiciled or resident in South Africa, were served electronically with the FSCA’s enforcement notice. They applied to the Tribunal for reconsideration, arguing that the FSCA lacked jurisdiction because service had not occurred while they were physically present in South Africa.
The Tribunal found unanimously that subject-matter jurisdiction was established because the conduct had direct consequences in South Africa. However, the majority set aside the penalty on the basis that the FSCA lacked personal jurisdiction, finding that electronic service abroad was insufficient under the common law.
The FSCA took the Tribunal’s decision on review. In July 2025, the High Court exercised its inherent power under section 173 of the Constitution to regulate its process and develop the common law. It held that electronic service on peregrini could suffice to address cross-border digital misconduct.
Read: FSCA can serve penalty notices electronically on foreign respondents
The report says the Court emphasised that regulatory effectiveness in a global economy requires modernised service rules. It also says the ruling has significant implications because foreign actors can cause harm to South African markets without being physically present in the country.
Van Deventer told the media the judgment was important because of the digital and interconnected financial system in which South Africa operates. He said the High Court’s ruling meant that where the FSCA can serve electronically anywhere in the world, it may have jurisdiction, subject to the legal requirements being met.
The Viceroy partners have lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which has granted leave. The FSCA has cross-appealed the granting of a costs order against it.
The report says the FSCA is also preparing contingency plans depending on whether the High Court’s development of the common law is upheld and will engage policymakers on possible statutory amendments to authorise electronic service on foreign actors expressly.
MEPF: protecting investigation records from premature disclosure
The second major legal development concerned the FSCA’s ability to resist the production of investigation records before an investigation is complete. The issue arose in litigation involving the Municipal Employees’ Pension Fund (MEPF) and its administrator, Akani.
The FSCA had started investigating the affairs of the MEPF and Akani in relation to alleged contraventions of the Pension Funds Act. Search warrants were executed at the premises of both the MEPF and Akani in July 2022. The investigated parties later instituted proceedings challenging the validity of the warrants and seeking their review and setting aside, including a review of the FSCA’s decision to apply for the warrants.
Pending the outcome of the challenge, the parties concluded an escrow agreement under which all seized material was placed in the custody of an independent third party. The report says the FSCA investigators have therefore been unable to access the seized material and finalise the investigation.
The MEPF sought to compel production of the FSCA’s record under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The FSCA resisted the application on the basis that the decision to apply for a search warrant did not constitute reviewable administrative action and that the matter was not ripe for judicial determination.
The High Court ruled against the FSCA, but the Authority appealed to the SCA. The SCA delivered judgment on 8 May 2026 and found that the FSCA was not required to produce the records of its investigation at that stage.
The SCA relied on the Constitutional Court’s decision in Famous Idea Trading v GEMS, which held that an applicant in review proceedings must establish in its founding affidavit that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the review. The SCA held that where a decision-maker asserts that its decision is not reviewable, this raises a question of review jurisdiction that must be determined as a preliminary issue.
Read: SCA backs FSCA in dispute with fund over investigation record
The report says the judgment is important because it limits premature or tactical use of Rule 53 to access investigative records. It reinforces the FSCA’s ability to resist disclosure where the alleged decision is not reviewable or where jurisdiction has not been properly established.
The FSCA says this is particularly important in enforcement matters involving search warrants and ongoing investigations, where early disclosure may compromise investigative integrity. The report warns that premature disclosure can reveal the FSCA’s evidence, strategy, and areas of focus, potentially enabling investigated parties to conceal, destroy or manipulate evidence, or co-ordinate responses.
Van Deventer told the media that the SCA ruling protected the FSCA’s evidence from premature disclosure. The MEPF and Akani have subsequently applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, and the matter remains pending.
Anova Wealth: investigation commencement is not a reviewable decision
The report also highlights the Anova Wealth matter, which concerned an attempt to challenge the FSCA’s decision to commence an investigation. The FSCA describes such litigation as part of a broader pattern of procedural challenges that may be aimed at disrupting or delaying investigations.
The FSCA commenced an investigation into Anova Wealth (Pty) Ltd for allegedly contravening provisions of the FAIS Act, including failing to pay client redemptions. Soon after the investigation began, Anova lodged a reconsideration application with the Financial Services Tribunal. It sought, among other things, an order setting aside the FSCA’s decision to conduct the investigation.
The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application in terms of section 234(4) of the FSRA, which allows the Tribunal to dismiss an application if it is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial. It found that, under section 218(k) of the Act, a decision to conduct an investigation does not qualify as a “decision” and is therefore not subject to reconsideration by the Tribunal.
Read: FSP loses bid to halt investigation and lift licence suspension
The report says the significance of the case is that the FSCA’s decision to commence an investigation cannot be taken on reconsideration to the Tribunal, and that such an application cannot be used to delay or disrupt an investigation.
The report’s message is that enforcement is not only about penalties and debarments. It is also about preserving the regulator’s ability to investigate effectively, act across borders where conduct affects South African markets, and respond to procedural challenges.
Click here to download the 2026 Regulatory Actions Report.
