
South Africa: FSCA penalises African Bank for misleading 'investment' advertisement
The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has imposed an administrative penalty of R700,000 on African Bank for an advertising campaign that presented a credit product as an investment offering.
Investigation
The penalty followed an investigation by the FSCA into African Bank's #KeFestive social media campaign, which was found to contain factually incorrect and misleading statements.
As part of its ongoing supervisory activities, the FSCA identified and assessed a social media advertisement flighted by African Bank in December 2023.
The advertisement, which featured a well-known public figure, encouraged consumers to take out personal loans with the phrase 'It's not a skoloto chomi! Ke investment".
It said in a statement: "The FSCA found the above statement to be factually incorrect and misleading as it misrepresented the nature of the loan product that was on offer, implying that it was an investment rather than a credit facility."
The FSCA said African Bank contravened sections 6(1), 6(3)(a) and 6(3)(b) of the Conduct Standard, which require the following:
- Section 6(1): A bank must ensure that its financial products and financial services are advertised to financial customers in a way that is clear, fair, and not misleading.
- Section 6(3)(a): Advertising by the bank must be factually correct; and (b) not contain any statement, promise, or forecast which is fraudulent, untrue, or misleading.
Further to the above, the FSCA also found deficiencies in African Bank's governance and oversight processes relating to the review and approval of the aforementioned advertisement. This was a contravention of section 6(9) of the Conduct Standard, which requires the following:
- Section 6(9): A bank must have in place processes and procedures for the approval of advertisements and advertising methods by a person of appropriate seniority and expertise within the bank, which must form part of [its] governance arrangements.
Fully cooperative
The FSCA said African Bank fully cooperated during the investigation of this matter and took immediate action to remedy the concerns raised.
"Taking into account the nature of the contravention, as well as the remedial steps implemented by African Bank, R200,000 of the R700,000 administrative penalty imposed on the bank has been suspended for two years, subject to African Bank remaining fully compliant with the Conduct Standard during the suspension period.
The FSCA confirms that African Bank has paid the immediately due amount of R500,000.
All financial institutions are urged to take note of this sanction and are reminded about the importance of providing clear and accurate information to financial customers regarding the nature of products and services being offered. For many financial customers, decisions about which financial products to purchase are significantly influenced by information conveyed in advertising and marketing material."
According to the FSCA, financial customers who rely on misleading advertisements or false impressions are more likely to choose unsuitable products, potentially leading to financial losses or other adverse outcomes. In this case, by presenting a credit product as an investment, African Bank misled customers about key aspects of the offering, including the long-term risks and potential costs associated with taking up the product.
The FSCA said financial institutions must have robust internal governance and approval processes to ensure compliance with all requirements of the Conduct Standard, including in respect of the development and publication of marketing material and other key information disclosed to customers.
"The administrative penalty imposed in this case serves as a reminder that misleading advertising will not be tolerated, particularly as financial customers increasingly find themselves under pressure to make important decisions regarding their future financial resilience and well-being.
Fair customer treatment is integral to maintaining public trust and confidence in the integrity of the financial system," it concluded.
All rights reserved. © 2022. Bizcommunity.com Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Al Ain court obligates a man to pay 51,430 for causing traffic accident
The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a person to pay Dhs51,430 plus a fine of Dhs5,000 as a compensation to another man for damaging two vehicles while driving. Earlier, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in which he requested that he be obligated to pay Dhs51,430, which was the cost of repair for his damaged car plus Dhs75,000 as the rental of a car of the same type that he had to rent while his car was under repair. He also requested the court to obligate the defendant to pay the incurred charges, expenses and lawyer's fees. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant caused damage to his vehicle, noting that the defendant was convicted of the charge in a lawsuit that had already been filed against. In support of his lawsuit, the plaintiff attached to his docket a copy of the traffic accident report and a copy of the supervising judge's decision to appoint a technical expert to investigate the issue and assess the cost of repair of the plaintiff's vehicle. The technical expert decided that the total repair costs of Dhs51,430 as incurred by the plaintiff were reasonable and in line with the extent of the damages resulting from the accident, assuming that he had bought original spare parts. As for the plaintiff's request for Dhs75,000 as a compensation for not being able to use his car for approximately 6 months from the date of the accident until the date of the actual repair of the car, the court estimated that a Dhs5,000 compensation for the material harms caused to the plaintiff due to the defendant's error would be sufficient.


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
e-biker dies in Dubai accident, driver ordered to pay blood money and Dhs10,000 fine
Mohammed Yaseen, Staff Reporter Dubai Misdemeanour Court fined a vehicle driver Dhs10,000 and suspended his licence for six months from the date of the ruling for causing the death of an electric bike rider on Marsa Drive Street. Court also ordered the driver to pay Dhs200,000 in full blood money (diyah) to the heirs of the electric bike rider. The incident dates back to January when Dubai Police received a report of a run-over accident in the Marsa Drive area. A policeman testified that he rushed to the scene and found the victim lying lifeless on the ground next to his electric bike, along with the driver of the vehicle responsible for the accident. The policeman added that after inspection, it was determined that the vehicle driver was responsible for the accident as he entered the road without ensuring it was clear, colliding with the electric bike rider, who was in the correct lane. This was affirmed through an examination of the accident site and CCTV footage, the policeman added. On being questioned, the suspect denied causing the victim's death, claiming that the victim was riding his electric bike at high speed and was not wearing reflective clothing, making it difficult to spot him. The court found the suspect's fault proved, as he failed to exercise caution while driving, adding that by entering the road without ensuring it was clear, he collided with the electric bike, which was in its correct lane, causing severe injuries to the rider which led to his death.


Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Gulf Today
Al Ain court orders man to pay Dhs38,000 for selling someone else's car
Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Cases ordered a man to pay Dhs38,000 to another, after the first man advertised a car for sale, prompting the second to send him the purchase amount but the seller delayed delivering the car, and it was later discovered that the car belonged to someone else. The purchaser filed a lawsuit against the seller, demanding he pay Dhs41,300 along with fees and expenses. The appellee had advertised a 2014 model car for sale, and the plaintiff transferred the purchase amount but the appellee delayed delivery, and it was found that the car belonged to another person. The plaintiff also requested that the appellee be directed to take a decisive oath, swearing that he did not owe the plaintiff Dhs38,000, the amount paid for the car. The plaintiff submitted supporting documents, including a bank transfer receipt for the claimed amount and a payment invoice for fines totaling Dhs3,300. The appellee failed to attend the session allocated for the oath despite being notified. The court stated that since the appellee did not attend the session for the decisive oath, it issued a ruling in absentia, ordering him to pay the plaintiff Dhs38,000.