The Financial Sector Conduct Authority is examining the growing role of financial content on social media as part of its broader focus on digital fraud and consumer protection.
During a panel discussion at the FSCA’s Industry Conference on 19 March, officials outlined a market study into finfluencers, alongside initiatives to improve co-ordination across the financial sector in response to evolving fraud risks.
Koko Kubelo, senior manager for economic analysis and market research at the FSCA, said the regulator has commissioned a market study to better understand the finfluencer ecosystem and its influence on consumer decision-making.
The study, which is under way, examines how financial content shared on social media platforms affects consumer behaviour and what role the FSCA could play in this environment. It includes a consumer-facing component aimed at gathering direct input on how individuals engage with such content.
Kubelo said the study is considering a range of risks, including misleading financial information, deceptive marketing practices, and inadequate disclosures. This includes instances where financial products are presented as personal experiences or testimonials when they may in fact be sponsored content.
She noted that many finfluencers derive influence from their visibility or perceived credibility, and consumers may rely on familiarity or recognition when engaging with such content, potentially affecting their decision-making.
At the same time, finfluencers can play a positive role by making financial information more accessible and relatable, particularly for audiences that may not engage with traditional financial advice channels.
The FSCA expects to publish the study during the 2026/27 financial year.
Digital fraud as a systemic conduct risk
Sindiswa Makhubalo, the FSCA’s head of banks and payment providers supervision, described digital fraud as “one of the most serious conduct risks of our lifetime”, emphasising that reported losses represent real harm to consumers.
She said that the R2.4 billion in reported losses in 2025 reflects actual individuals who have been affected, including pensioners losing lifetime savings, professionals losing substantial amounts, and victims of romance scams who believe they are transferring funds to trusted individuals.
Makhubalo emphasised that “none of us is immune”, noting that fraud affects consumers regardless of age, background, or level of digital literacy.
Makhubalo said a key challenge is the lack of co-ordinated visibility across the ecosystem. Although different stakeholders – including banks, telecommunications providers, and regulators – are taking steps to combat fraud, insights remain fragmented.
She noted that institutions typically have visibility within their own environments, but there is no consolidated view of fraud activity across the system. As a result, it is not currently possible to determine “what fraud we experienced yesterday” across the ecosystem.
To address this, the FSCA has launched a digital fraud project aimed at improving co-ordination and intervention. The initiative was developed through engagement with industry stakeholders, including workshops with banks and telecommunications providers and sessions with bank chief risk officers.
Workstreams include improving and streamlining fraud reporting, expanding participation across stakeholders, and developing mechanisms to “disrupt the disruptors”.
This has led to the development of an anti-scam centre in a proof-of-concept phase, with the longer-term objective of establishing a national capability to support co-ordinated responses and reduce fraud.
Makhubalo also highlighted the importance of customer outcomes, noting that victims are often vulnerable at the point of loss. She said that, in some cases, banks have chosen to “meet the customer halfway” on losses despite not being at fault.
Regulatory boundaries
Gerhard van Deventer, the head of enforcement at the FSCA, said the growth of financial content on social media has increased focus on the distinction between financial education and regulated advice.
He noted that individuals may share factual information about financial products without requiring authorisation. However, where content constitutes a recommendation relating to a financial product, it falls within the definition of financial advice and requires a licence under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act.
Van Deventer said consumers often face difficulty in identifying the appropriate authority when reporting fraud or misconduct.
He distinguished between regulated entities, which fall within the FSCA’s mandate, and unregulated activities, where the regulator has no jurisdiction. He also highlighted the role of unregistered operators – entities that should be licensed but are not – in many fraudulent schemes.
He noted that the FSCA frequently receives complaints that need to be redirected to other authorities, including the National Credit Regulator, the National Consumer Commission, the Prudential Authority, and the South African Reserve Bank.
He said work is under way to develop clearer communication and systems to assist consumers in directing complaints to the appropriate authority.
Behavioural drivers of fraud vulnerability
Nicolette Mashile, founder of Financial Fitness Bunnies and a member of the FSCA’s Consumer Advisory Panel, said fraud increasingly exploits behavioural and psychological factors.
She described this as the “psychology of deception”, where scams are designed to bypass rational thinking by triggering emotional responses such as urgency, excitement, or the ear of missing out.
Mashile said financial decisions are often made from a non-neutral position, and personal circumstances, including financial pressure, can increase vulnerability even where warning signs are present.
She also highlighted the use of “trust cues” in fraudulent communications, where scams closely mimic legitimate institutions. In some cases, detecting fraud may depend on subtle inconsistencies, such as minor errors in branding.
In addition, she said scammers increasingly rely on social proof, including the use of recognisable names or identities, to reinforce credibility and encourage engagement.
Responsibilities of financial content creators
Mashile said financial content creators operate within a commercial and regulatory environment that requires a clear understanding of their responsibilities.
She noted that content creators in the financial space are effectively running businesses and should be familiar with the applicable regulatory framework, including the distinction between financial education and advice under the FAIS Act.
Mashile said creators should understand when content moves beyond factual information into recommendation, and disclaimers do not remove regulatory obligations where advice is effectively being given.
She also pointed to structural factors that may contribute to problematic content. These include commercial arrangements where financial institutions engage creators to promote products within constrained formats, sometimes encouraging content that blends education and marketing or that presents promotional material as personal experience.
Mashile said content creators should be able to assess such arrangements and decline participation where content may be misleading or fall outside their expertise. She added that creators should recognise the limits of their knowledge and avoid presenting information on topics they do not fully understand.
She also cautioned against treating disclaimers as a “get out of jail” mechanism, noting that regulatory requirements continue to apply regardless of whether a disclaimer is included.
Mashile said there is also a need for greater engagement between regulators and financial content creators to improve understanding of regulatory expectations and to support the responsible dissemination of financial information.
Rising fraud volumes and evolving techniques
Providing an industry perspective, Andre Wentzel, the chief executive of the South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC), said digital banking fraud is increasing in both scale and severity.
According to SABRIC data, participating banks – representing about 80% of transactions – recorded about 97 000 digital banking fraud incidents in 2024, with losses of R1.86bn. Provisional figures for 2025 indicate incidents increased to approximately 210 000, with losses rising to R2.4bn.
Wentzel said banking applications account for most losses, increasing from 82% in 2024 to 89% in 2025. Internet-based scams, while lower in volume, have grown significantly as a share of losses, rising from 8% to 30%.
He said current fraud trends are driven primarily by social engineering rather than weaknesses in banking systems themselves, with criminals targeting consumers upstream.
Wentzel outlined several techniques driving this trend, including AI-driven phishing messages and impersonation, the use of off-the-shelf scam kits and automated workflows, behavioural manipulation exploiting trust and urgency, and the use of mule accounts to move funds rapidly.
He noted that funds can move across multiple banks and exit the banking system within seconds to minutes, significantly reducing the opportunity for recovery, particularly in the context of real-time payments.
He said digital fraud is increasingly about “breaking trust” rather than compromising systems. Victims often delay reporting because of stress and shame, which further reduces recovery prospects.
