Prudential Authority imposes hefty sanctions on three major banks for FIC Act breaches
The Prudential Authority (PA) is mandated to supervise and enforce compliance by accountable institutions with the provisions of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (FIC Act) and with any order, determination or directive made in terms thereof.
Image: Supplied
The Prudential Authority (PA) has unleashed a wave of administrative sanctions on three prominent international banks operating within South Africa following notable breaches of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) Act.
This decisive move underscores the authority's commitment to enforcing compliance within the financial sector, as mandated by the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb).
In a recent statement, the PA said it imposed administrative sanctions on Citibank N.A. South Africa Branch (Citibank) as a result of its non-compliance with certain provisions of the FIC Act.This followed an inspection conducted on Citibank in 2022 in terms of section 45B of the FIC Act.
"The administrative sanctions imposed on Citibank consist of a caution not to repeat the conduct which led to the non-compliance as well as a financial penalty totalling R6 million, which is fully and conditionally suspended for a period of 12 months as from 5 March 2025," said the PA.
"These administrative sanctions stem from Citibank's failure to comply with section 42 of the FIC Act, in that it failed to implement its Risk Management and Compliance Programme in relation to the assessed advance payment transactions."
The PA said Citibank cooperated and has undertaken the necessary remedial action to address the identified compliance deficiencies and control weaknesses.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
Building on this trend of accountability, HBZ Bank has also found itself in the hot seat, facing a total penalty of R9m due to its own lapses uncovered during a 2022 inspection.
The sanctions against HBZ include three cautions, two reprimands, and a financial penalty — R1.5m of which is conditionally suspended for 24 months, commencing on 5 March 2025.
Specifically, HBZ was found to have neglected its customer due diligence (CDD) obligations under the FIC Act, failing to perform adequate checks on 18 medium-risk and 5 high-risk client files.
The regulator also imposed a caution not to repeat the conduct which led to the non-compliance as well as a reprimand after HBZ failed to comply with sections 22 and 23 of the FIC Act, in that it failed to keep records in relation to one of its high-risk trade finance active and terminated client relationships.
Furthermore, the bank received additional reprimands related to insufficient record-keeping practices concerning high-risk client relationships and the absence of a documented rationale for the inherent risk rating of trade finance transactions.
The third institution caught in this compliance crackdown is the Bank of Taiwan, South Africa Branch (BOTSA). The PA's inspections revealed deficiencies in the bank's management of its RMCP Introduction Manual.
The PA said BOTSA failed to secure necessary approvals from its Executive Committee prior to implementing material changes to this vital document.
Moreover, the bank did not effectively manage the annual reviews of its RMCP and neglected required due diligence measures on assessed correspondent banking relationships, as stated in its governance policy.
It also implemented its RMCP and undertake the requisite due diligence measures in relation to two of its assessed correspondent banking relationships in respect of Vostro accounts; and provide evidence that its Screening of Customers and Transactions Manual had been reviewed and approved after 2020.
"The PA confirms that BOTSA cooperated with the PA and that the bank has undertaken thenecessary remedial action to address the identified compliance deficiencies and control weaknesses," said the PA.
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Prudential Authority imposes hefty sanctions on three major banks for FIC Act breaches
The Prudential Authority (PA) is mandated to supervise and enforce compliance by accountable institutions with the provisions of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (FIC Act) and with any order, determination or directive made in terms thereof. Image: Supplied The Prudential Authority (PA) has unleashed a wave of administrative sanctions on three prominent international banks operating within South Africa following notable breaches of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) Act. This decisive move underscores the authority's commitment to enforcing compliance within the financial sector, as mandated by the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb). In a recent statement, the PA said it imposed administrative sanctions on Citibank N.A. South Africa Branch (Citibank) as a result of its non-compliance with certain provisions of the FIC followed an inspection conducted on Citibank in 2022 in terms of section 45B of the FIC Act. "The administrative sanctions imposed on Citibank consist of a caution not to repeat the conduct which led to the non-compliance as well as a financial penalty totalling R6 million, which is fully and conditionally suspended for a period of 12 months as from 5 March 2025," said the PA. "These administrative sanctions stem from Citibank's failure to comply with section 42 of the FIC Act, in that it failed to implement its Risk Management and Compliance Programme in relation to the assessed advance payment transactions." The PA said Citibank cooperated and has undertaken the necessary remedial action to address the identified compliance deficiencies and control weaknesses. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading Building on this trend of accountability, HBZ Bank has also found itself in the hot seat, facing a total penalty of R9m due to its own lapses uncovered during a 2022 inspection. The sanctions against HBZ include three cautions, two reprimands, and a financial penalty — R1.5m of which is conditionally suspended for 24 months, commencing on 5 March 2025. Specifically, HBZ was found to have neglected its customer due diligence (CDD) obligations under the FIC Act, failing to perform adequate checks on 18 medium-risk and 5 high-risk client files. The regulator also imposed a caution not to repeat the conduct which led to the non-compliance as well as a reprimand after HBZ failed to comply with sections 22 and 23 of the FIC Act, in that it failed to keep records in relation to one of its high-risk trade finance active and terminated client relationships. Furthermore, the bank received additional reprimands related to insufficient record-keeping practices concerning high-risk client relationships and the absence of a documented rationale for the inherent risk rating of trade finance transactions. The third institution caught in this compliance crackdown is the Bank of Taiwan, South Africa Branch (BOTSA). The PA's inspections revealed deficiencies in the bank's management of its RMCP Introduction Manual. The PA said BOTSA failed to secure necessary approvals from its Executive Committee prior to implementing material changes to this vital document. Moreover, the bank did not effectively manage the annual reviews of its RMCP and neglected required due diligence measures on assessed correspondent banking relationships, as stated in its governance policy. It also implemented its RMCP and undertake the requisite due diligence measures in relation to two of its assessed correspondent banking relationships in respect of Vostro accounts; and provide evidence that its Screening of Customers and Transactions Manual had been reviewed and approved after 2020. "The PA confirms that BOTSA cooperated with the PA and that the bank has undertaken thenecessary remedial action to address the identified compliance deficiencies and control weaknesses," said the PA. BUSINESS REPORT
IOL News
13 hours ago
- IOL News
Pityana's calls for increased scrutiny of banking regulator's powers
Sipho Pityana said the judgment is a win not just for me, but for the integrity of our financial system and the rule of law in South Africa. Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi/Independent Newspapers BUSINESS leader Sipho Pityana has described the SA Reserve Bank's (Sarb's) Prudential Authority (PA) as a rogue institution that places itself above the law. Pityana recently secured a major victory against the PA when it was found that it had unlawfully blocked his appointment to the Absa board. 'What was the basis for their objection? They never said I was unfit,' Pityana said. 'The Reserve Bank first indicated they had issues with my nomination by suggesting I may not be a 'fit and proper person' — without ever formally asserting that I was implicated in harassment or any misconduct,' Pityana said. 'In fact, in all the court papers, they stated that they never asserted I was unfit or unqualified. They never actually said I wasn't a fit and proper person.' The PA acted without legal justification, relying instead on informal, 'backroom processes' to strong-arm the Absa Board into rejecting Pityana. The PA had firmly defended its legality and conduct amid debates over its role in the appointment of bank executives. Central to its arguments was that it had not acted unlawfully or beyond its powers under the Banks Act. In court filings, the PA stated: 'The Authority always acted lawfully,' affirming that its interactions with banks were in line with regulatory standards. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Regarding the nomination process itself, the PA highlighted its statutory authority to review and potentially object to candidate appointments. It said: 'Section 60(5) of the Banks Act read with Regulation 42(1)(a) of the Regulations and section 60(5)(b) of the Banks Act provide that the notice must reach the Authority at least 30 days before the proposed date of appointment,' and that 'the Authority may object to the proposed appointment by means of a written notice, stating the grounds for objection.' The PA further argued that its oversight included providing early guidance to banks. 'Financial institutions often engage with the Authority in advance of any nomination of directors or senior executives. They seek early guidance regarding any fitness or proprietary concerns,' it said, underlining that these interactions were part of the regulatory process and were intended 'to facilitate compliance with the statutory requirements by banks'. In her judgment, Judge Luleka Flatela underscored that the PA's actions went beyond these prescribed procedures. 'The First Respondent acted unlawfully and in excess of its powers per the Banks Act 94 of 1990 by engaging in an informal process with the Second and Third Respondents in connection with the nomination of the Applicant as Chairperson of the Second and Third Respondents' board of directors, and in particular by notifying the Second and Third Respondents of its objection, alternative intention to object to the Applicant's nomination.' Pityana did not mince words when describing the PA's conduct: 'They knew the process they were following was unlawful. Everything they submitted in court suggested they understood the unlawfulness of their actions but looked for excuses to justify using the informal process.'
Daily Maverick
4 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Can a new leader elevate the Hawks, help SA mount a more effective response to serious crime?
To effectively tackle serious crime, South Africa's Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation requires a strong leadership team. The process to appoint a new head of the Hawks – officially South Africa's Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation – is under way. This key criminal justice appointment should receive broad public attention. Lieutenant-General Godfrey Lebeya, who headed the Hawks from 2018, retired on 30 May. The Hawks' deputy head, Lieutenant-General Siphesihle Nkosi, is currently the acting head. Under the South African Police Service (SAPS) Act, the appointment is made by Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, with concurrence by the Cabinet. It is not clear how long the new appointment process will take. In early June, Mchunu withdrew the initial advertisement, indicating that the time frame for applications would be extended to find the best possible candidate. Against the backdrop of high levels of serious crime in South Africa, what are the prospects for this specialised unit? Could a new head help the country mount a more effective response to serious crime? A high-performing Hawks unit is crucial to tackling organised crime, financial crime and corruption, which are the focus of its mandate. Most of these crimes have cyber-forensic elements, and some have complex international dimensions. The global intergovernmental body, the Financial Action Task Force, requires South Africa to prove its ability to prosecute money laundering, illicit financial flows and terror financing. The Hawks must provide specialised investigation services to get these cases to court. During his time as Hawks head, Lebeya reported publicly each quarter on the directorate's successes. For the January to March 2025 period, he indicated that the unit had made arrests for various crimes, seized firearms, shut down drug laboratories and secured convictions against 239 persons. While there have been achievements, external observers have highlighted the Hawks' shortcomings, including a lack of skills. These hinder its ability to conduct complex investigations such as the 'proactive identification' of money laundering networks. The unit has never received sufficient budget funding to reduce its vacancy rate below 50%. Last week, Ian Cameron, chair of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police, lamented how long it was taking for the Hawks to complete an investigation into corruption at the SAPS training centre in Philippi, Cape Town. When Mchunu announced the extension of the Hawks head application period, Cameron emphasised the need to make the 'right appointment'. Lebeya may have wanted to turn things around. But like his National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) colleague Shamila Batohi, he has had little room for manoeuvre. Turning criminal justice organisations around requires more than simply appointing good heads. A programme of strategic institutional strengthening must be directed by a skilled executive team that has political backing and financial support. The Hawks' history is intertwined with State Capture. Its predecessor, the Directorate for Special Operations, or Scorpions, was closed in 2009 by supporters of former president Jacob Zuma as a way to neutralise its investigations against Zuma and others. Following the Hawks' establishment, Zuma used his power over senior appointments to manipulate and undermine the unit and other criminal justice agencies. Following legal challenges, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2011 and again in 2014 that the state was obligated to establish an effective independent anti-corruption agency. The judgments said the Hawks should perform this role and that legislation must be amended to strengthen its independence. Notwithstanding these rulings, the process and criteria for senior leadership appointments remain challenging throughout the criminal justice system – including for the SAPS, NPA, Independent Police Investigative Directorate and the Hawks. While constitutional provisions entrench executive influence over certain senior criminal justice appointments, the extent to which this can be used to weaken such agencies must be curtailed. A key requirement is that independent professional panels run merit-based, competitive and transparent selection processes, and make recommendations. Rather than considering how to strengthen the Hawks, debate in Parliament and elsewhere has focused on setting up alternative structures to investigate corruption. At this point, it's unclear what responsibility the Hawks would retain in this regard. Either way, there is more than enough for the specialised unit to work on. South Africa must establish strategic centres for fighting organised and financial crime. Priority must be given to taking down networks that support the use of assassinations, particularly the killing of whistle-blowers, political leaders and community activists. The country also needs answers on where illegal guns are coming from and how to stop the supply. The new Hawks head should boost staff confidence by leading vigorous and independent investigations of priority crimes that demonstrate the unit's vital role in South Africa. This will require a strategic leadership team to galvanise public support and build the Hawks' capacity to work on complex crimes. The team should establish the Hawks as an employer of choice and a highly skilled law enforcement agency. The new head should also contribute to the overall strategic leadership of South Africa's multi-agency system for investigating organised crime, financial crime and corruption. This should include advocating for a crime intelligence and analysis apparatus aligned with the realities of crime in the 21st century. DM
