Close This website uses modern features that are not supported by your browser. Click here for more information.
Please upgrade to a modern browser to view this website properly. Google Chrome Mozilla Firefox Opera Safari
Financial Services Intelligence Watch
Sub Menu



FSCA fines SATRIX managers R60,000 for contravening sections of the FIC Act

Publish date: 02 November 2018
Issue Number: 46
Diary: CompliNEWS
Category: Enforcement

The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has issued an administrative sanction against Satrix Managers (Pty) Ltd.

The firm had contravened the following legislative provisions under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (the FIC Act):

•  Section 43B(1) - Registration

Every accountable institution referred to in Schedule 1 and every reporting institution referred to in Schedule 3 must, within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner, register with the Centre.

An accountable institution that fails to appoint the person referred to in section 43(b), is guilty of an offence, is deemed non-compliant and is subject to an administrative sanction.

•  Section 21(1)(a) - Failure to identify persons

An accountable institution that performs any act to give effect to a business relationship or single transaction in contravention of section 21(1) or (1A) is guilty of an offence, is deemed non-compliant and is subject to an administrative sanction.

•  Regulation 24(4) of the Regulations promulgated in terms of GN R1595 in GG 24176 of 20 December 2002 - Cash Threshold reporting

A report under section 28 of the Act must be sent to the Centre as soon as possible but not later than 2 days after a natural person or any of his or her employees, or any of the employees of officers of a legal person or other entity, has become aware of a fact of a cash transaction or series of cash transactions that has exceeded the prescribed limit.

Any person or institution which fails to send a report to the Centre within the period referred to in regulation 24 or 24A is non-compliant and is subject to an administrative sanction.

Copy of Annexure A - Administrative Sanction

Working Smart

 By Lee Rossini

Andile heads up the administration department of a financial services provider (an FSP). He receives the application forms from the financial advisers after they have recommended a particular product to a client. He picks up that there is a big delay between the financial advisers seeing the client and the forms reaching his department. As a result, he is receiving a lot of complaints about delays. After a brief discussion with a senior manager, they decide that the financial advisers should attend a time-management training programme the following week in the hope that it will solve the problem. Andile outsources the training to a company that specialises in courses of this nature. The financial advisers attend the course and the evaluations indicate that they enjoyed it and anticipate that the newly acquired skills will assist them to perform their jobs better. Andile anticipates an improvement in their performance, but unfortunately this never happens.

What went wrong and why didn’t Andile get the results he was expecting?


Subscribers are reminded that they can now complete their monthly CPD quizzes and claim CPD hours. For more on accessing the CPD quizzes, please click on the CPD FAQs button on the top bar of the screen.