logo
FSCA's Deepfake Admission Sparks Industry Outrage: Why is Banxso facing the brunt?

FSCA's Deepfake Admission Sparks Industry Outrage: Why is Banxso facing the brunt?

IOL News10 hours ago

The FSCA has issued a stark warning about deepfake investment scams targeting South Africans, implicating high-profile figures. Yet, why is Banxso facing severe penalties while others evade scrutiny?
Image: IOL / Ron AI
The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has issued a damning public warning over a sophisticated network of deepfake investment scams exploiting high-profile South African figures, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, Dr Patrice Motsepe, Ms Leanne Manas, and Deputy President Paul Mashatile. But industry insiders are asking a pointed question: why is Banxso being crucified when others are quietly cautioned?
This month's FSCA release formally acknowledges what many in the financial services industry have long suspected — that the problem of unauthorised third-party affiliates deploying AI-generated deepfake advertisements is industry-wide, not confined to one firm. Yet, in what critics describe as a deeply unbalanced enforcement approach, Banxso has seemingly become the regulator's scapegoat whilst other implicated platforms escape scrutiny.
The Scale of Deception
The FSCA's June 10, 2025, warning reveals the alarming sophistication of these fraud networks. Scammers are promising investors "unrealistic returns of between R13,000 and R17,000 per day, on an investment of R4,500" using fabricated endorsements from South Africa's most trusted public figures.
In one particularly brazen deepfake video, Dr Motsepe appears to promote the investments, whilst Deputy President Mashatile is shown "confirming that the platform is authorised and that investors will receive returns". Another synthetic video features President Ramaphosa endorsing "guaranteed returns" — content so convincing it has fooled hundreds of potential investors.
The FSCA explicitly states that "the individuals behind the platforms are not authorised in terms of any financial sector law to provide financial services to the public" and that these operators "failed to respond to FSCA queries." This represents a clear acknowledgement that multiple unauthorised entities are operating these schemes across various platforms and seemingly the FSCA has no way of combatting this.
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
Selective Enforcement Under Fire
"Banxso acted swiftly when made aware of the deepfakes — refunding over R14 million of their own capital to affected consumers and laying criminal charges against the entity identified as operating the scam," an anonymous compliance expert said. "Other firms stayed silent or claimed ignorance. Why is only one company facing the full weight of enforcement?"
Indeed, whilst the FSCA's press release highlights "platforms" plural using synthetic media to promote fraudulent investments, there is no specific mention of Banxso, nor any indication that Banxso continues to operate in connection with these ongoing scams. The regulatory warning appears to confirm that the deepfake problem extends far beyond any single financial services provider.
Still, Banxso — a firm currently locked in multiple legal battles and awaiting judgment in a liquidation application that allegedly stems from the FSCA enforcement action — remains the only market participant to face such intense regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action. The company has not only ceased operations but has also proactively worked to trace the perpetrators of the fraudulent advertisements.
Industry-Wide Problem, Singular Punishment
"The FSCA is finally admitting that this isn't about one rogue actor. The deepfake threat is pervasive and sophisticated," said a fintech policy analyst. "These scammers are using unauthorised platforms, fake documentation, and AI-generated content to deceive consumers on a massive scale. But the regulator's response has been wildly inconsistent. Where is the fairness in targeting the one company that did the right thing?"
The FSCA's own guidance emphasises that consumers should "verify that an entity or individual is authorised by the FSCA to provide financial products and services" and warns against "investment or trading offers on social media platforms or any unsolicited offers." This advice tacitly acknowledges that the deepfake threat spans multiple channels and operators — yet enforcement action remains concentrated on a single entity.
Legal documents reviewed by IOL confirm that Banxso has initiated criminal proceedings against those behind what they believe to be the third party affiliate marketing scam, a fraudulent offshore entity believed to be at the centre of these AI-powered scams. The company has cooperated fully with authorities, and voluntarily compensated affected consumers — actions that stand in stark contrast to the unnamed platforms that continue operating without consequence.
Questions of Proportionality
"There is no question that regulation is necessary to protect consumers from these sophisticated fraud networks," added the regulatory source. "But we must ask who it truly protects when it turns a blind eye to some actors whilst hanging others out to dry. The FSCA's own warning confirms this is an industry-wide crisis, yet only one firm faces consequences for crimes it neither initiated nor condoned."
The regulator's approach becomes more questionable when considering that the FSCA provides multiple verification methods for consumers to check authorisation status, including a toll-free number (0800 110 443) and online databases. These resources exist precisely because unauthorised operators are a systemic problem across the financial services landscape, not an isolated incident.
Regulatory Inconsistency Under Spotlight
The FSCA has advised the public to exercise "caution when considering investment or trading offers on social media platforms" and to verify that "the FSP number utilised by the entity or individual offering financial services matches the name of the FSP on the FSCA database." This guidance implicitly acknowledges that multiple unauthorised entities are exploiting regulatory gaps and consumer trust.
Yet despite this industry-wide acknowledgement, enforcement actions remain conspicuously one-sided. Whilst unnamed platforms continue operating with apparent impunity, Banxso remains embroiled in costly legal proceedings despite its proactive response to the fraud network.
"The selective enforcement sends a dangerous message to the industry," observed a former FSCA official. "Companies that cooperate, self-report, and take corrective action face harsher treatment than those who remain silent or deny responsibility. This approach will inevitably discourage transparency and cooperation in future incidents."
The Broader Implications
The FSCA's deepfake warning represents more than just consumer protection — it's an admission that South Africa's financial regulatory framework is struggling to keep pace with sophisticated AI-powered fraud networks. These criminals exploit the trust South Africans place in respected public figures whilst operating through unauthorised offshore entities that deliberately evade regulatory oversight.
The scams described in the FSCA warning, promising guaranteed daily returns through fabricated celebrity endorsements, represent a clear and present danger to consumer confidence in legitimate financial services. Yet the regulator's response suggests a troubling pattern of selective enforcement that may ultimately undermine its stated objectives.
Call for Balanced Response
As artificial intelligence continues blurring the line between authentic and fabricated content, and as scammers become increasingly sophisticated in their tactics, the need for a coherent and even-handed regulatory response has never been more urgent. The FSCA's own warning confirms that deepfake investment fraud is a systemic threat requiring industry-wide vigilance and proportionate enforcement.
But for now, Banxso remains the public face of a crime it neither initiated nor condoned whilst other implicated platforms escape meaningful scrutiny. The company paid dearly to correct a fraud perpetrated against it and its clients yet continues facing disproportionate regulatory consequences whilst the actual perpetrators operate with apparent impunity.
The FSCA has not commented directly on the perceived imbalance in its enforcement actions, despite mounting questions from the financial services community about the consistency and fairness of its regulatory approach.
With consumer protection hanging in the balance, South Africa's financial sector deserves regulatory oversight that targets actual wrongdoers.
For verification of authorised financial service providers:
Toll-free: 0800-110-443
Online: Click here.
FSP Search: Click here.
IOL

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Another Sixty60 driver dies in horrific head-on collision
Another Sixty60 driver dies in horrific head-on collision

The South African

time42 minutes ago

  • The South African

Another Sixty60 driver dies in horrific head-on collision

A Checkers Sixty60 driver has tragically died after a head-on collision with a police van in Cape Town. The accident marks the third recorded fatality this year from the delivery service, known for operating in any and all circumstances, within a one-hour timeframe. According to the supermarket chain, drivers are outsourced to independent contractors who purchase their own motorcycles and uniforms. In videos circulating on social media, a police van reportedly collided with a Checkers Sixty60 motorcycle, where a driver was fatally injured. In the clip, the delivery driver was seen wedged under the front tyres of the double-cab vehicle. The accident occurred on Voortrekker Road in Bellville on Monday 23, June. Police have confirmed that the incident is under investigation. No other details of the incident have been made public. This week's accident marks the third fatality of a Checkers Sixty60 driver this year. In January, a driver died in a head-on collision with two vehicles in Camps Bay, Cape Town. In May, another was tragically killed by a drunken driver in Bela Bela. Later that month, two Sixty60 drivers collided, as seen in CCTV footage at an unknown location. Earlier this month, a Sixty60 driver was captured on CCTV footage colliding with a car after speeding through an intersection in Durba. A few days later, another driver was found unconscious at an accident scene in Heiderand, Mossel Bay. This week another viral video revealed another Sixty60 motorcycle crash, which occured during rainy weather conditions, reportedly in the Western Cape. According to the Shoprite Group, Checkers Sixty60 has a service guarantee in place to deliver 'no matter the weather.' The group's Chief Strategy Officer, Neil Schreuder, said in a statement: ' In South Africa, this can be tricky at times given load shedding-related traffic congestion, rainy weather, and other challenges faced by drivers on the roads.' According to BusinessTech , Checkers Sixty60 drivers are independent contractors who own motorbikes and purchase their uniforms. The drivers are expected to deliver their orders within 60 minutes, failing which could result in alleged deductions. Additionally, customers will receive free delivery if an order arrives more than 30 minutes after the estimated time of arrival and if the order contains less than 80% of a customer's first-choice products. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.

How the Middle East war and Trump's Israel-Iran ‘ceasefire' caused crude oil chaos
How the Middle East war and Trump's Israel-Iran ‘ceasefire' caused crude oil chaos

Daily Maverick

timean hour ago

  • Daily Maverick

How the Middle East war and Trump's Israel-Iran ‘ceasefire' caused crude oil chaos

In a world used to chaos at the pump whenever missiles fly in the Middle East, the current conflict offered a plot twist worthy of a geopolitical thriller: war broke out, oil prices first soared and then crude prices crashed. The conflict escalated rapidly, with Israel launching 'Operation Rising Lion' to strike Iranian nuclear sites. Iran retaliated with missile barrages. Then the US joined the fray, bombing major Iranian facilities and setting the world on edge. Traders panicked. Prices surged. Brent crude spiked to over $80 a barrel. The fear? That Iran might block the Strait of Hormuz, choking off a fifth of global petroleum. But behind the scenes, a different drama was unfolding. According to satellite imagery and backchannel chatter, the US quietly evacuated its airbase in Qatar before Iran launched a retaliatory missile attack – one that conveniently caused zero casualties and was telegraphed 12 hours ahead of time. The conflict's crescendo, it turns out, was more theatre than war. And just like that, the markets yawned and went about their business. When fear vanishes, fundamentals return Without the risk of a Hormuz shutdown, traders refocused on the oil market's unsexy reality: Opec+ has spare capacity, up to 4 million barrels per day sitting on standby; US shale is booming and approaching 21 million barrels daily in total liquids production; Inventories are rising and the US saw a surprise 4.2 million barrel build mid-conflict; and Demand is limp because China's refinery output is down, and global indicators point to economic slowdown. The net effect? Once the speculative fear bubble burst, there was nothing holding prices up. In fact, Brent and WTI both settled below their pre-conflict levels. The market not only priced out the risk, it remembered how oversupplied and under-demanded the landscape really is. Fragile ceasefire, fragile peace Despite the ceasefire, Iran and Israel couldn't even agree whether it was a ceasefire. Within hours, more missiles flew. Israel blamed Iran. Iran denied. The truth didn't matter; the damage to credibility was done. Still, markets didn't panic. They'd seen this movie before. Short-term volatility, yes. Full-scale war? Not yet. As one trader told Bloomberg: 'We've had 25 Strait of Hormuz scares in the last decade. None of them closed the tap.' What this means for you If you're a South African motorist anxiously watching global headlines, here's the deal: The price of crude oil is just one factor in our monthly fuel price now, the drop in international oil prices could ease pressure on future fuel hikes. However, the rand is the wild the rand strengthens and oil stays subdued, we might see a fuel decrease in the next pricing window. But if the rand weakens – or if the war in the Middle East flares up – those savings could be wiped out. Lessons from the paradox The oil market's response to the war in the Middle East teaches us that modern trading is less about what happens and more about what is believed to be possible. The threat of catastrophe inflates prices. If there's no escalation, we return to normal. So, when war broke out in the world's most volatile oil region, and oil fell, it wasn't madness. It was math. The real madness may be what happens next. DM

Electricity tariffs force a choice between food or power, says Electricity Minister Ramokgopa
Electricity tariffs force a choice between food or power, says Electricity Minister Ramokgopa

Daily Maverick

timean hour ago

  • Daily Maverick

Electricity tariffs force a choice between food or power, says Electricity Minister Ramokgopa

The minister brokered an agreement between City Power and Eskom, which had almost ended up in court. With electricity tariffs up by an average of 12.74% between April and July (when municipal tariff increases kick in), Electricity Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa said energy poverty was biting South Africans. Ramokgopa said that the rapidly rising cost of electricity was forcing households to choose between food and energy (see this report from Daily Maverick in 2024). Because people can't afford their bills, debt owed by municipalities to Eskom is growing at R3-billion a month and has now overshot a total of R100-billion. This, in turn, threatens Eskom's viability. Ramokgopa was speaking, along with Johannesburg Mayor Dada Morero, to announce a deal over a festering dispute between the city distributor, City Power, and Eskom, which almost ended up in court in December. The utility threatened to cut off four substations where most of the R4.9-billion billing debt had racked up; City Power, in turn, said that R3.4-billion had been incorrectly billed and breathed fire at Eskom. On Tuesday, 24 June, Ramokgopa brokered an agreement for R3.2-billion to be paid over four years, with an additional tariff relief of R830-million. An upcoming data investigation by the Daily Maverick has found that there are more than 30,000 power cuts in the city each quarter as City Power struggles with declining revenues (because people can't afford their electricity bills) and a R44-billion bill to upgrade aged infrastructure. Ramokgopa said state departments should not be taking each other to court and that the SA National Development Institute (Sanedi) had mined the data and evidence to help the parties find an agreement that worked for them. Its report took three months rather than three weeks to complete because the work was more complex than initially thought. It offered a template for other billing disputes between Eskom and municipalities. Council proceedings show that City Power increased revenue by 17.4% in the year to June, but expenses shot up by 23%, resulting in a net loss of R602-million. It has a bank overdraft of R15.34-billion in the year to June. Ramokgopa said that while big cities such as Johannesburg could work around the national cost of the power crisis, smaller municipalities were falling off the cliff. Municipalities levy charges on the sale of electricity and make most of their revenue from these. DM

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store