
MBSE expands regulatory exam training with new RE1 programme
Developed in response to industry demand, the online course focuses on building the regulatory knowledge aspiring Key Individuals need for their oversight responsibilities.

Developed in response to industry demand, the online course focuses on building the regulatory knowledge aspiring Key Individuals need for their oversight responsibilities.

Moonstone’s Paull Lawrence shares practical insights on why DOFA is far more than an administrative record, and where hidden compliance risks can emerge for FSPs.

The Authority says preliminary findings point to a risk of harm to clients, but the investigation remains ongoing and Imermarket has been given an opportunity to respond.

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.

Missed submissions could trigger enforcement as the Regulator scrutinises how firms handle access to information requests.

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

The Full Bench finds that the information available to the FSP was sufficient to justify initiating the statutory debarment process.

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 FST erred because it focused on contractual obligations rather than the broader fit and proper requirements.