The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Finance completed clause-by-clause deliberations on the omnibus anti-money-laundering Bill on 23 September 2026 but did not formally adopt it.
The proposed changes include a more specific legal test governing lifestyle audits conducted by the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) at another public body’s request, protection for people making cash-conveyance reports, and revised terminology for reporting discrepancies in beneficial-ownership information.
The General Laws (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorism Financing) Amendment Bill proposes amendments to the Close Corporations Act, Nonprofit Organisations Act, Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA), Companies Act, and Financial Sector Regulation Act (FSRA).
The Bill is intended to address outstanding deficiencies identified during the Financial Action Task Force’s enhanced follow-up and grey-listing processes and to prepare South Africa for its next mutual evaluation, which is expected to be completed in October 2027.
More specific test for lifestyle audits
One of the principal changes for public bodies concerns the conditions under which the FIC may conduct a lifestyle audit at their request.
The Bill would permit the FIC to audit people referred to in Schedule 3A (list of Domestic Politically Exposed Persons) to FICA, or another category prescribed by the Minister of Finance, at the request of an organ of state, public entity, or municipality.
As introduced, the provision would apply if the FIC reasonably believed the requesting entity was “affected by or has an interest in” the information obtained through the audit.
National Treasury proposed replacing this formulation with a requirement that the entity “is entitled to” the information. The FIC would have to be “satisfied”, rather than reasonably believe, that this condition had been met.
Advocate Shalili Misser, chief director of legislative services at National Treasury, said the requesting entity would have to demonstrate its entitlement through a legal basis, the consent of the person concerned, or another verifiable means.
The same wording would apply to the consequential amendment governing disclosure of information obtained through the audit.
The proposal differs from the change Treasury indicated in August. It said then that the requesting body would have to be legally entitled to the information, but that the FIC would retain the “reasonably believes” test.
New category for discrepancy reporting
Treasury also proposed replacing references to an “obliged entity” with “discrepancy reporting institution” in the relevant Companies Act amendments and the Bill’s long title.
A discrepancy reporting institution would be a category of persons prescribed by the Minister.
Misser said not all accountable institutions would have access to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission’s beneficial-ownership register or be required to report differences between the register and information they hold.
The scope of the duty will therefore depend on which categories the Minister prescribes. These institutions would be required to report material discrepancies to the Commission.
Other Companies Act amendments would provide for the CIPC to deregister a company that fails to submit its securities register or register of beneficial interest for two years or more in succession. The CIPC said in August that deregistration would follow a demand from the Commission.
The CIPC could also impose an administrative fine for failure to comply with a compliance notice concerning submission of the required register. A person on whom an administrative fine was imposed could apply to the Companies Tribunal for a review.
Protection for cash-conveyance reports
Treasury proposed adding section 30 of FICA, which concerns reports on cash conveyed to or from South Africa, to the reporting provisions covered by the protection in section 38.
The amendment arose from the public hearings, where the question was raised whether the protection afforded to people making other reports should extend to section 30 reports. Misser said the amendment also recognised the South African Revenue Service’s role in cash-conveyance reporting.
The Bill would separately require a person authorised by the Minister to receive cash-conveyance reports to send a copy to the FIC within a prescribed period.
Procurement wording remains unfinished
The Bill contemplated including the Public Procurement Office established under section 4 of the Public Procurement Act among the institutions with which the FIC could share information.
Treasury initially proposed deleting the references because they were linked to that Act, which was invalidated by the Constitutional Court on 17 September 2026.
Pieter Smit, executive manager: legal and policy at the FIC, said bringing those involved in public procurement within FICA’s scope remained a policy objective. However, the FIC would have to reconsider how to achieve this following the judgment. He supported removing the references for the time being.
Advocate Empie van Schoor, head of Treasury’s Office of the General Counsel, subsequently asked the committee to allow Treasury to develop replacement wording.
She proposed referring instead to National Treasury and linking the provision to its powers under the Public Finance Management Act and Municipal Finance Management Act, so information concerning procurement fraud and other irregularities could continue to be shared.
The replacement wording had not been finalised.
Other provisions affecting accountable institutions
Several other FICA amendments remained unchanged during the deliberations.
Specified record-retention periods would increase from five to seven years. The FIC previously said institutions would not have to reconstruct records that had already been lawfully destroyed, but records still in existence when the amendments commenced would become subject to the longer period.
Risk Management and Compliance Programmes would have to address risks associated with new delivery mechanisms and new or developing technologies.
An accountable institution operating internationally would also have to consider the host country’s risk level. Where local law prevented implementation of measures required by FICA, the institution would have to apply appropriate additional measures and inform the FIC and the relevant supervisory body.
Accountable institutions would also be non-compliant and subject to administrative sanction if they gave effect to a business relationship or single transaction involving an anonymous client or a client acting under a false or fictitious name.
No further changes were proposed to the FSRA amendments, which concern the designation of new financial products and services, possible licensing under the FSRA despite licensing under another financial-sector law, information requests directed at significant and beneficial owners, and the circumstances in which a financial-sector regulator may institute an investigation.
NPO issues remain before Parliament
The committee began its meeting by addressing a letter from the NPO Working Group received after the formal public-hearing and response process had concluded. The letter raised concerns about specific clauses in the Bill. The NPO Working co-ordinates the South African non-profit sector’s engagement on legislation and policy affecting NPOs.
The Bill would expand the functions of the Directorate for NPOs to include monitoring and enforcing compliance with the NPO Act. It would also empower the Directorate to impose administrative sanctions, provide for appeals against sanctions to the Arbitration Tribunal, extend the use of compliance notices, and increase the maximum penalty for offences to R1 million, five years’ imprisonment, or both.
Committee chairperson Joseph Maswanganyi expressed concern that Parliament could face a procedural legal challenge if it appeared to have ignored the Working Group’s late submission. Some committee members, however, questioned whether accepting further stakeholder input after the public-participation process had closed would create an unsustainable precedent.
Advocate Frank Jenkins of Parliamentary Legal Services advised the committee to table and consider the letter. He said the committee should apply its mind to the additional information and remain open to changing the Bill if warranted.
In a briefing requested at the committee’s previous meeting, the Department of Social Development (DSD) responded to concerns the NPO sector had raised earlier in the parliamentary process.
These included fears of intrusive monitoring of all NPOs, excessive sanctions and unfair deregistration, inadequate opportunities to appeal, unnecessary registration burdens, unfair treatment of religious organisations, disruption to cross-border humanitarian work, unnecessary disclosure of NPO information, and penalties resulting from failures of the department’s online portal.
Mpho Mngxitama, acting deputy director-general: Community Development, said supervision would be targeted, proportionate, and risk-based. Religious affiliation or cross-border activity would not, on its own, make an organisation high risk.
She pointed to existing provisions dealing with compliance notices, opportunities to remedy non-compliance, extensions of the compliance period, cancellation of registration, and appeals to an independent panel of arbitrators.
The DSD indicated that the practical application of several safeguards would be addressed through regulations and standard operating procedures. Mngxitama said the scope of appeals would have to be extended to accommodate the new administrative sanctions, and that the regulations would be published for public comment.
The department said some proposals in the Working Group’s subsequent letter appeared to fall within the Bill’s scope, whereas others fell outside it. Some issues could be addressed through the NPO policy that the DSD is developing with the sector.
Treasury also proposed substituting section 7 of the NPO Act. The existing provision already requires the Minister of Social Development to table a written narrative and financial report on the Directorate’s activities in Parliament within six months after each financial year.
Under the proposed substitution, the report would form part of the national department’s annual reporting, and the narrative would have to include the information necessary to demonstrate implementation of the Act.
Treasury said the DSD would use the mechanism to improve transparency around risk-based supervision, compliance interventions, administrative sanctions, appeals, enforcement action, remedial measures, and resource use.
The reporting amendment would strengthen parliamentary oversight of the Directorate, but it would not change the provisions governing how its proposed monitoring, sanctioning, and enforcement powers would be exercised.
Adoption remains outstanding
Maswanganyi said that given the number of changes to be made and the issues raised by stakeholders, the committee needed time to compile its report before adopting the Bill.
MK Party MP Des van Rooyen questioned whether the Bill had been correctly classified under section 75 rather than section 76 of the Constitution, citing its possible implications for provincial and local government.
Jenkins’ provisional view was that the section 75 classification remained appropriate because the Bill did not substantially affect an area of concurrent national and provincial legislative competence listed in Schedule 4. He nevertheless undertook to reconsider the classification and said Parliament’s Joint Tagging Mechanism would be advised if it had to change.
The Bill will go to the National Council of Provinces under either classification. The difference is that, under section 75, the National Assembly may override the NCOP’s objections, whereas section 76 gives the provinces a stronger role through mandated provincial votes.
