
Premium-collection relief retained for three years
The extension preserves the existing framework allowing qualifying juristic representatives to collect and deal with insurance premiums on behalf of insurers.

The extension preserves the existing framework allowing qualifying juristic representatives to collect and deal with insurance premiums on behalf of insurers.

Qualifying Category I and Category IV underwriting-manager FSPs remain exempt from the section 13 requirement, subject to the existing conditions.

Qualifying Category I FSPs that handle insurance premiums on behalf of insurers may continue relying on the existing exemption until 30 June 2029.

Qualifying providers and certain juristic representatives will continue to benefit from targeted regulatory relief, with the existing exemption conditions unchanged.

The decision highlights the distinction between punishing misconduct and compensating consumers who claim to have suffered losses.

The FSP could not prove key elements of the process, including proper notice of the proceedings, and the conduct of the hearing.

The decision turned on the adviser’s acceptance of personal benefits from a client, the lack of proper compliance disclosure, and the higher standard expected of a KI.

Crypto assets fall outside the NPS Act, but intermediary-led payment-type activity involving crypto may still trigger a licensing requirement.

A failure to verify a client’s income amounted at most to negligence, but the evidence did not justify debarment for dishonesty.

Sanlam found that the client’s signatures were forged, but its own handwriting expert came to a different conclusion.

Ministerial Directives issued in July 2021 applied only to specified businesses under the Businesses Act, not to FAIS-regulated FSPs.

The Tribunal confirms Assupol’s decision to debar a representative after forensic evidence showed he advised on life policies while unauthorised.

The evidence accumulated by Momentum supported its finding that the agent lacked honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal said allegations of not following sales scripts may breach internal policy but do not in themselves demonstrate dishonesty or a lack of integrity.

The Tribunal agrees with the FSCA that the entity’s key individual did not ‘come clean’ about her past misconduct.

Section 14(1)(b) of the FAIS Act cannot be stretched to catch misconduct discovered after a representative’s tenure.

Luvuyo Burial and Consulting did not pay the claims in full even after the Ombud’s Office intervened.