
Court and Tribunal rulings strengthen regulator’s enforcement hand
Key judgments clarified the FSCA’s ability to investigate misconduct, resist procedural delays, and pursue cross-border enforcement.

Key judgments clarified the FSCA’s ability to investigate misconduct, resist procedural delays, and pursue cross-border enforcement.

The regulator is scrutinising how derivative positions, suspicious trading, and failures by gatekeepers can undermine market integrity.

The applicant’s own admissions supported Sanlam’s decision, and the section 14 process does not mirror a disciplinary hearing or a trial.

The Regulatory Actions Report shows how the Authority is combining penalties, licence withdrawals, and debarments to tackle serious misconduct.

The regulator highlights how digital scams, referral models, and trading signals can pull consumers into unlicensed services.

The Tribunal found both that the process was unfair and that the FSP had not established dishonesty, recklessness, or lack of fitness and propriety.

CDH says the decision highlights the risks for businesses that incorporate cover or risk-transfer arrangements into broader commercial offerings.

The Tribunal finds that the alleged misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and materiality all depended on the contractual issue the FSP declined to establish.

The decision examines why client complaints, cellphone records, and handwriting evidence failed to establish dishonesty on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal held that procedural shortcomings must be distinguished from conduct showing a representative lacks honesty and integrity.

Five related decisions involving former Pineapple reps illustrate how misconduct affecting internal operational records may engage the honesty and integrity requirements.

The source of an obligation does not determine whether disputed conduct amounts to genuine fit-and-proper misconduct.

The decision clarifies when prior civil proceedings may prevent the Pension Funds Adjudicator from investigating a complaint over withheld benefits.

The ruling explains why exemption applications require objective statutory grounds rather than pleas for indulgence.

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 FST dismisses former EOH director Anushka Bogdanov’s application for reconsideration of sanctions imposed over misrepresented qualifications.