The Financial Sector Conduct Authority’s annual Regulatory Actions Reports often make headlines with administrative penalties running into hundreds of millions – and, more recently, billions – of rand. Those penalties are frequently accompanied by other enforcement measures, including debarments, licence withdrawals, and referrals for criminal investigation. Less visible is what happens after those enforcement actions are announced.
Read: Banxso, Medbond, and Steinhoff drive FSCA penalties to R2.9bn
Following the release of the FSCA’s 2025/26 Regulatory Actions Report, Moonstone asked the Authority for updates on several matters that featured in the previous year’s report or remained unresolved when earlier enforcement action was announced. This article focuses on selected matters on which Moonstone sought specific follow-up from the FSCA.
Steinhoff: one investigation, different outcomes
Few matters have attracted as much public attention as the FSCA’s enforcement action arising from the collapse of Steinhoff, widely regarded as South Africa’s biggest corporate scandal. Over several years, the regulator has taken enforcement action against the company and several former executives, with different outcomes.
The first major enforcement action was against Steinhoff International Holdings N.V. itself. In September 2019, the FSCA imposed a record R1.5-billion administrative penalty after finding that the company had published false, misleading, and deceptive statements to the market. Exercising its powers under the Financial Sector Regulation Act (FSRA), the Authority later remitted the penalty to R53 million, citing the group’s precarious financial position and the interests of creditors and shareholders. According to the FSCA, the reduced penalty was paid before Steinhoff International’s restructuring into the private Dutch holding company now known as Ibex Group Holdings.
The regulator’s enforcement action against former chief executive Markus Jooste followed a more complex path.
In October 2020, the FSCA imposed a R161.6m administrative penalty for insider trading. The Financial Services Tribunal subsequently set aside the penalty and referred the matter back to the regulator to determine an appropriate sanction. The FSCA imposed a revised R20m penalty in December 2022, which the Tribunal upheld in September 2023.
On 20 March 2024, the Authority imposed a separate R475m administrative penalty – the largest it has imposed on an individual – after finding that Jooste and former Steinhoff European finance director Dirk Schreiber had contravened sections 81(1)(a) and (b) of the Financial Markets Act (FMA) by making or publishing false, misleading, or deceptive statements, and omitting material facts, in Steinhoff’s financial statements and annual reports for the 2014 to 2016 financial years and the 2017 half-year.
Because of Schreiber’s extensive co-operation, the FSCA entered into a statutory leniency agreement and did not impose an administrative penalty.
Jooste died on 21 March 2024. By then, the South African Reserve Bank had attached assets linked to him and associated entities as part of its exchange control investigation. Subsequent forfeiture proceedings have continued separately from the FSCA’s enforcement action.
The FSCA told Moonstone it has not recovered any money or assets from Jooste’s estate in respect of the R20m insider-trading penalty and the R475m administrative penalty. It said all known assets belonging to Jooste or entities associated with him had already been attached by the SARB several years before his death, and no additional assets had since been identified that the FSCA could seek to attach.
The regulator said the executor has acknowledged and registered its two claims against the estate, which total R495m, excluding interest. However, the FSCA ranks as an unsecured creditor, as does the SARB, while the South African Revenue Service is a preferent creditor. The estate’s final liquidation and distribution account also remains outstanding.
The FSCA has recovered R1.5m from Dr Gerhardus Diedericks Burger, one of the individuals who sold Steinhoff shares after receiving inside information from Jooste shortly before the company’s collapse. Burger was originally fined R3m in October 2020 for insider trading.
The Steinhoff enforcement action is continuing.
In March 2026, the FSCA imposed a R358.75m administrative penalty on former Steinhoff legal counsel and director Stéhan Grobler after finding that he had participated in the publication of false, misleading, and deceptive financial statements and annual reports between 2014 and 2017, in contravention of sections 81(1)(a) and (b) of the FMA.
The regulator told Moonstone that Grobler has not made any payment towards the penalty and has filed an application for reconsideration with the Tribunal. In terms of the FSRA, the filing of that application suspends the penalty pending the Tribunal’s decision, which the FSCA said it intends to oppose. The application is set to be heard in October.
The Authority also confirmed that one further person remains subject to enforcement action arising from its Steinhoff investigation.
Banxso: record penalties, recovery on hold
The Banxso matter accounted for most of the almost R2.9bn in administrative penalties imposed by the FSCA during the 2025/26 financial year.
It arose from an investigation launched in March 2024 into the online trading platform’s use of deceptive deepfake advertisements, misleading sales practices, and the misappropriation of client funds.
On 4 July 2025, the FSCA made the provisional withdrawal of Banxso’s FSP licence final and provisionally withdrew Afrimarkets Capital’s licence. The FSCA said the entities were linked through common directorships and key persons, although Afrimarkets maintained it was a distinct legal entity from Banxso.
On 4 July 2025, the regulator finally withdrew the FSP licence of Banxso and provisionally withdrew the licence of related entity Afrimarkets Capital (Pty) Limited. It said Afrimarkets and Banxso were linked through common directorships and key persons and conducted their financial services business in a similar manner. Afrimarkets maintained it was a distinct legal entity from Banxso.
On 9 December 2025, the FSCA imposed administrative penalties totalling more than R2bn. These included a R2bn penalty, imposed jointly and severally, on Banxso (Pty) Ltd and directors Harel Adam Sekler and Warwick David Sneider; a further R16m penalty on Banxso; R20m on former chief executive Manuel de Andrade; R10m on Mohammed Bux; and R5m on Henry James Simpson. The regulator also debarred the five individuals for periods ranging from 10 to 30 years and referred its findings and supporting evidence to the Hawks to support possible criminal proceedings.
Separately, the FSCA also finalised the withdrawal of Afrimarkets Capital’s FSP licence.
Banxso’s challenge to the withdrawal of its FSP licence was unsuccessful. On 11 December 2025, the Tribunal dismissed applications for reconsideration of the licence withdrawal.
However, in February 2026, the five individuals lodged separate applications for reconsideration of the administrative penalties and debarment orders. The FSCA told Moonstone that payment and recovery of the penalties are therefore held in abeyance until those proceedings have been finalised.
On 2 March 2026, the Western Cape High Court placed Banxso into final liquidation after finding the company commercially hopelessly insolvent and accepting extensive evidence of illegality arising from the FSCA’s investigation.
The liquidation has further complicated the recovery of the administrative penalties.
The FSCA told Moonstone it has not yet lodged a claim in the liquidation because it must consider not only its own interests but, more importantly, those of affected clients. It said it would consider subordinating or even waiving its claim if doing so would produce fair outcomes for affected clients.
The regulator also highlighted the broader enforcement measures taken during the investigation. It referred its preliminary findings to the Financial Intelligence Centre, which subsequently froze Banxso’s bank accounts.
The Authority confirmed that the Hawks’ investigation remains ongoing.
The court-appointed liquidators are responsible for recovering client assets, although the FSCA said it has assisted, and will continue to assist, where legally permissible.
Finally, it said the investigation into Afrimarkets Capital has been completed and referred for consideration of whether further enforcement action should be taken.
N-e-FG: penalties imposed, but members still waiting
The N-e-FG matter has been unfolding for almost five years, leaving hundreds of retirement fund members waiting to recover their savings.
After N-e-FG Administrators entered business rescue in September 2021, the FSCA withdrew the FSP licences of N-e-FG Administrators and N-e-FG Fund Management in December 2021.
In May 2022, it appointed a statutory manager to oversee the retirement fund administrator’s affairs after expressing concern that it had failed to manage the funds under its administration responsibly.
The statutory manager subsequently reported that retirement fund assets had been invested outside their mandates, that members had been misled about the whereabouts and value of their investments, and that as much as R470m in retirement savings could be at risk.
The FSCA’s investigation found that about R111.8m in client funds, including R79m invested through Lion of Africa Assurance Company’s Optimal Living Annuity product, had been channelled through an unauthorised FSP and invested contrary to clients’ mandates.
In November 2024, the regulator imposed administrative penalties of R30m each on Corné Jansen van Rensburg and Frederick (Erik) Young du Preez, and R8m on Steyn Jansen van Rensburg. It also debarred Corné Jansen van Rensburg and Du Preez for 30 years, Steyn Jansen van Rensburg for 20 years, and Christiaan Janse van Rensburg for 10 years.
In August 2025, the Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration applications brought by all four individuals.
Despite that outcome, the FSCA told Moonstone that none of the administrative penalties has yet been paid. It said it is engaged in enforcement processes to recover the penalties.
Separately, it said efforts to recover money for affected retirement fund members remain at an early stage.
It said the boards of the affected retirement funds are exploring ways to expedite recoveries, including the appointment of an attorney on a pro bono basis.
The FSCA-appointed independent trustees have instituted civil proceedings against the funds’ former auditors, Forvis Mazars, in an effort to recover losses for members. The FSCA, which is not a party to that litigation, said progress has been slow because of funding challenges.
It also confirmed that the N-e-FG matter had been referred to the National Prosecuting Authority, but it had no recent feedback on the prosecution.
Viceroy: a penalty in legal limbo
The Viceroy matter has been unfolding since January 2018, when the US-based activist short seller published its report, Capitec: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.
The report, which alleged serious weaknesses in Capitec Bank’s lending practices and financial position, triggered a sharp fall in the bank’s share price and became one of the most controversial episodes in South Africa’s financial markets.
Following a lengthy investigation, the FSCA concluded that Viceroy Research Partnership and its partners had contravened section 81 of the FMA by publishing false, misleading, or deceptive statements and, in September 2021, imposed a R50m administrative penalty.
The Viceroy partners applied to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the penalty, arguing that the FSCA lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they had not been validly served in South Africa.
In November 2022, the Tribunal unanimously held that the FSCA had subject-matter jurisdiction because the alleged conduct had direct consequences in South Africa. However, by majority, it found that the regulator lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign respondents because, under the common law, they had not been served while physically present in South Africa. A minority member dissented, holding that electronic service was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction where attachment of property was not required.
The FSCA challenged that decision in the High Court in Pretoria. Although the Court rejected the regulator’s primary grounds of review, it accepted its alternative argument that the common law should be developed to reflect the realities of a digital economy in which foreign actors can affect South African financial markets without ever entering the country.
In a judgment delivered in July 2025, the Court held that electronic service on peregrini could establish personal jurisdiction where there is a sufficiently close connection with South Africa. It set aside the Tribunal’s majority decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
Read: FSCA can serve penalty notices electronically on foreign respondents
The Viceroy partners have since obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
The FSCA told Moonstone that the SCA has not yet allocated a hearing date because procedural steps remain outstanding, although it expects the appeal to be heard within the next year. It confirmed that it has not sought to enforce the R50m penalty in any foreign jurisdiction while the appeal remains pending.
The regulator also said it has not yet engaged National Treasury on possible legislative amendments arising from the case, although it continues to consider whether statutory changes may be necessary. It nevertheless remains confident that the SCA will uphold the FSCA’s and the High Court’s interpretation of the law.
Long road from penalty to payment
The above cases show that an enforcement announcement is often the beginning rather than the end of a lengthy legal process. Tribunal reconsideration applications, liquidation proceedings, and estate administration can delay or complicate both the implementation of enforcement measures and the recovery of administrative penalties.
Briefing the media on this year’s Regulatory Actions Report, FSCA Commissioner Unathi Kamlana said the Authority pursues all reasonable and lawful avenues to recover a penalty, as is required by the Public Finance Management Act.
He said recovery is not always possible, particularly in cases where an entity becomes insolvent or is liquidated, or when other legal complications arise.
“But this does not diminish the importance of administrative penalties as a regulatory tool to hold wrongdoers accountable, and importantly, to deter future misconduct and reinforce confidence in the integrity of the financial sector,” Kamlana said.
