The Financial Sector Conduct Authority has sanctioned two small financial services providers after its inspections found non-compliance with the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA).
Vereeniging-based DSL Solutions (Pty) Ltd was fined R200 000. Opes Trust, a business trust in Centurion, was fined R500 000, of which R250 000 was conditionally suspended. In both cases, the fines had to be paid by 1 July.
The entities have the right to lodge an appeal with the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) Appeal Board within 30 days of receiving the notices of sanction, which were dated 2 June. If an entity does not pay the fine by the due date and does not lodge an appeal within the prescribed period, the FSCA can ask the High Court to register the notice of sanction, making it a civil judgment.
Francois Meyer, Opes Trust’s trustee and sole representative, told Moonstone that he could not afford to pay the fine of R250 000. He intends to file an appeal with the FIC Appeal Board.
Meyer, who has been in the financial services industry for 41 years, said he supports laws and controls designed to ensure the integrity of the financial sector, but the regulators should be targeting those who are facilitating government corruption and running online scams, not small authorised FSPs.
He said 95% of Opes Trust’s business consists of clients with living or life annuities, which were bought using retirement savings funded by salary deductions. Meyer said he knew all his clients very well, and not one of them was involved in money laundering (ML), let alone terrorist financing (TF).
According to the FSCA, the origin of the sanctions on Opes is an inspection conducted in January 2022, when the Authority found that the Trust did not have a Risk Management and Compliance Programme (RMCP). In response, Opes submitted a newly developed RMCP.
Opes said in its representations that it fully addressed the findings of the 2022 inspection and believed itself compliant, as confirmed by the FSCA. However, the Authority said the 2022 review had been limited in scope.
In February 2024, the FSCA conducted a follow-up inspection, which found that the RMCP was defective because it had not been updated to reflect the 2022 amendments to FICA.
In November 2024, the FSCA issued a notice of intention to sanction. Opes Trust submitted representations in December, including an amended RMCP and updated client files. The Authority noted some improvements but found gaps, leading to the final sanction notice in June 2025.
Moonstone approached DSL for comment, but none had been received by the time of publication.
Common inspection findings across both institutions
All accountable institutions are required to develop, document, maintain and implement an RMCP that addresses ML, TF, and proliferation financing (PF) risks (section 42 of FICA).
Accountable institutions must also carry out customer due diligence (CDD) (sections 20A to 21H), screen clients against the Targeted Financial Sanctions (TFS) lists, file suspicious and unusual transaction reports (STRs) with the FIC as required and maintain an effective compliance function with a person of sufficient competence and seniority responsible for compliance (section 42A(2)).
The FSCA said its inspections uncovered a broadly similar pattern of non-compliance at both entities. It identified five core categories of failure:
Deficiencies in the RMCP
Both entities had RMCPs that the FSCA assessed as technically and operationally deficient, lacking clear processes or adequate documentation for critical anti-money-laundering, counter-terrorist financing, and counter-proliferation financing controls. The RMCPs did not adequately prescribe implementation steps and, in some instances, were not updated to reflect legislative or guidance changes.
Extensive CDD failures
The inspections recorded widespread failures to identify and verify client identities, to obtain and retain source-of-funds information, to determine Politically Exposed Person status where required, and to perform ongoing due diligence in accordance with client risk ratings.
TFS screening omissions
Both institutions failed to demonstrate that they had screened client information against the applicable TFS/United Nations Security Council lists published under the Protection of Constitutional Democracy Against Terrorist and Related Activities Act. Sampled client files had not been screened against the lists as required by section 28A read with section 26B of FICA.
Reporting of suspicious and unusual transactions
The FSCA’s inspection found that Opes had attempted to submit a suspicious and/or unusual transaction report, which was rejected by the FIC because it did not contain all information required by regulation 23A of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Control Regulations. The FIC informed the FSCA of the rejected submission, and the inspection record showed that Opes did not remediate the rejected report.
The FSCA found that DSL’s RMCP did not provide for required procedures relating to confirming information when doubts arise and for reporting suspicious and unusual transactions.
Weak governance and ineffective compliance functions
The compliance function in each entity lacked evidence of sufficient competence, appropriate seniority, or effective operation. In several instances, the person assigned to the compliance role did not demonstrate the operational capacity or training expected for oversight of the RMCP and day-to-day compliance obligations.
Sanctions
The FSCA said it regarded the identified contraventions as serious, emphasising that accountable institutions must have robust risk management and anti-money-laundering controls, and failing to do so undermines the integrity of the financial system.
The FSCA said these failures were material because the RMCP, CDD, and TFS screening are primary tools for identifying and mitigating ML/TF/PF risks.
The FSCA imposed a fine of R200 000 on DSL – R100 000 for RMCP non-compliance, R50 000 for CDD non-compliance, and R50 000 for TFS screening failures. In addition, DSL received a written caution not to repeat the conduct and a reprimand for governance failings.
The fine of R500 000 imposed on Opes comprised R200 000 for RMCP failure, R200 000 for CDD failures, and R100 000 for TFS screening omissions. Of the total, R250 000 was due for payment on or before 1 July. The remaining R250 000 was suspended for two years on condition that Opes maintains full compliance with the specified sections of FICA during the suspension period.
The Authority said accountable institutions must comply fully with FICA, and regulatory action will be taken where deficiencies are found.
It would be interesting to know who pockets these fines.
Fines are paid into the National Revenue Fund – so, essentially, the government/state.
first inspection 2022.
Action taken.
second inspection 2024 Febr.
Fined in June 2025…
first question – Is this how long the process takes?
second question – this seems to be penny wise and pound foolish…..
what about direct insurers and even banks that keep on phoning us via other recruitment companies to bully consumers into business with them??
We never hear about any FIC or FICA action taken against these people harrassing all and everybody telephonically every day – but, we as small adviser practices are bombarded with compliance daily to place a small policy insuring one vehicle – for example – so frustrating.
Not to mention the scam investment schemes. But they aren’t registered with the FSCA so they can’t do anything! If you report them, they tell you that a ‘client’ has to complain and then probably only after they have lost their life’s savings.
I have lodged at complaint to FAIS/FICA regarding a registered FSP, Mdalisu Financial Services, fraudulently deducted R3750 from my husband’s bank account.
A service to date that has not been provided.
This is a simple case, yet slowly becoming a Cold Case.
Please advise me, who else i can escalate the matter if FAIS or FICA has not contacted me yet to investigate the FSP.
How many other people are being defrauded by them.
Vanie C
cattigv@gmail.com
This is becoming an extortion racket. It isn’t a case of WILL I get fined, it is HOW MUCH will I get fined! I am fully behind fining and debarring brokers who are stealing and defrauding their clients, but not having some documents on file does not warrant a fine big enough to close you down (I wonder if the FSCA staff are incentivised based on the size of the fine?) We all know who the money launderers are, just read the news. Our very own president laundered R4m just the other day and nothing happened to him.
And one in 30,000,000 people in this country are sponsoring terrorists.
I am just biding my time so that I can retire and get the hell out of this industry. Done right, it is rewarding business (I mean rewarding in that you can assist people with their financial futures) but having this sword at your neck every day is just too much. The regulations are killing this industry. I am turning down business because the rewards are far too small for the risks I have to take.
Maybe in time, we will come to our senses.
Fica is a joke then.
Plenty of issue for them to catch, but they have an article on these small things.
Go and audit all linked government companies and tell us about the billions being laundered and funding terrorist organisations
This entire situation is becoming ludicrous.
It’s practically impossible for a small FSP to comply with the FIC act. You need a legal degree to understand the act and a full time employee to solely focus on FICA. The compliance officers are just as confused. We spend so much time and money trying to comply but still don’t know if we are doing it correctly.
Last week yet another ridiculous rule was added – Fsp’s must now log into the goaml message board every single day or face fines. There is no plausible reason for this rule as you already get an email when there is a new message. It just boggles the mind.
Why is it the responsibility of us as intermediaries to perform this onerous due diligence. Surely the majority of due diligence should fall on the product and investment houses who can afford dedicated teams in these areas.
Why is any due diligence required on certain products like a pure risk policy. There is no possible way of laundering funds or sponsoring terrorism through a pure risk policy.
CA is absolutely right that these regulations are ruining the industry. It’s made the environment miserable to work in. Constantly feel like you walking on eggshells.
The types of fines being dished out to honest FSP’s simply trying to do a good for clients is disgusting!
Where are the industry bodies on this matter and how it’s ruining the livelihoods and future of small Fsp’s (FIA, FPI etc). You receive millions in fees every year from us yet don’t take on the regulator and fight for us.
But when you consider how many people have been scammed by conmen, with ZERO consequences, it makes me mad.
And why can’t the FIC just send an email WITH the info, not making us log on just to find out they have changed their phone number or something as trivial as that. Or that some guy in Iraq is now on their list. Like we really are going to sell him a thousand Rand RA or something!
Fraud and corruption at Sharemax and Picvest was reported to FIC in 2019 by various advisors and myself and nothing happened. There is currently CIPC Preliminary Report on the CIPC’s desk for mpre than a year. The CIPC is forced NOT TO RELEASE THIS REPORT. I dare FIC to do their job and force the CIPC to release this report.