
FIC accepting RMCPs after the 12 March deadline
But institutions that file their RMCPs after the deadline are regarded as non-compliant and may be sanctioned.
But institutions that file their RMCPs after the deadline are regarded as non-compliant and may be sanctioned.
They must submit a copy of their RMCP to the Financial Intelligence Centre by 12 March.
Clients with UBOs in sanctioned areas face enhanced risk, potentially triggering relationship termination and strict regulatory measures.
The Guidance Note reflects significant amendments relating to an accountable institution’s RMCP.
Guidance Note 7A provides further guidance to accountable institutions about their Risk Management and Compliance Programme obligations.
The FIC has directed financial institutions to freeze the designated assets and comply with reporting requirements under FICA.
If you’re in the agricultural sector and deal in high-value goods, you may be subject to FICA. Moonstone Compliance’s free webinar will unpack what compliance entails.
Standard Bank’s compliance failures include the untimely submission of suspicious activity reports and neglecting system alerts.
The amendments to the Companies Act, FICA, and the Financial Sector Regulation Act are designed to close regulatory gaps and enhance enforcement.
The revised draft of PCC 23A brings further clarity to the interpretation of credit providers under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.
Risk management failings, inadequate customer due diligence, and lack of senior management oversight are key lessons for the industry.
Accountable institutions that did not pay the smaller fine or remediate their non-compliance now face harsher penalties.
The FSCA highlights the role of RMCPs in safeguarding financial institutions and the financial system after compliance breaches by two FSPs.
The Appeal Board dismisses an FSP’s argument that its close ties with its sole shareholder reduced the need for comprehensive due diligence.
Starting 30 April 2025, CASPs and FSPs will have to collect and share detailed client information when engaging in crypto transfers.
A couple who were victims of business email compromise argued that FICA imposed a private law duty on Nedbank to protect them from financial harm.
The firm of attorneys said its non-compliance was not intentional and was the result of a lack of awareness.
Notifications