![FSCA fines African Bank R700 000 for misleading advertising [VIDEO]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.citizen.co.za%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2025%2F04%2FFSCA-fines-African-Bank.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
FSCA fines African Bank R700 000 for misleading advertising [VIDEO]
By telling customers that a personal loan was an investment—not debt—African Bank prompted an investigation by the FSCA.
The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has imposed a R700 000 administrative penalty on African Bank for a social media advert that urged consumers to take out a personal loan as an 'investment'.
According to the FSCA, it found that African Bank contravened Conduct Standard 3 of 2020 for banks. The Conduct Standard is a regulatory framework that enables the FSCA to critically and urgently supervise the market conduct of banks according to its mandate as outlined in the Financial Sector Regulation Act.
The Conduct Standard establishes high-level requirements that banks must adhere to, aimed at ensuring they treat their financial customers fairly when offering financial products and services.
The FSCA imposed the penalty after investigating African Bank's #KeFestive social media campaign from December 2023 and finding that it contained factually incorrect and misleading statements. The advertisement featured a well-known public figure and encouraged consumers to take out personal loans with the phrase 'It's not a skoloto chomi! Ke investment'.
This is the advert that was flighted on TikTok:
ALSO READ: Most South Africans not happy with financial institutions' handling of complaints
FSCA found African Bank advert misrepresented nature of loan product
During the investigation, the FSCA found that this statement was factually incorrect and misleading as it misrepresented the nature of the loan product offered, implying that it was an investment rather than a credit facility.
The FSCA says that by misleading financial customers and failing to provide clear and accurate information about the nature of the product, African Bank contravened sections 6(1), 6(3)(a) and 6(3)(b) of the Conduct Standard.
Section 6(1) requires that banks must ensure that its financial products and financial services are advertised to financial customers in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading, while section 6(3)(a) requires that bank's advertising must be factually correct and not contain any statement, promise, or forecast which is fraudulent, untrue, or misleading.
In addition, the FSCA found deficiencies in African Bank's governance and oversight processes regarding the review and approval of the advertisement. This was a contravention of section 6(9) of the Conduct Standard, which requires that banks must have processes and procedures in place for the approval of advertisements and advertising methods.
A senior person with expertise within the bank must approve advertisements, and this must form part of its governance arrangements.
ALSO READ: FSCA fines 3 financial services providers R1.2 million for Fica non-compliance
African Bank cooperated and already paid the FSCA fine
The FSCA points out that African Bank cooperated during the investigation and took prompt remedial action to comply with the Conduct Standard. Considering the nature of the contravention, as well as the remedial steps African Bank implemented, the FSCA suspended R200 000 of the R700 000 for two years, subject to the bank remaining fully compliant with the Conduct Standard.
African Bank has already paid the remaining fine of R500 000.
The FSCA urges all financial institutions to take note of this sanction and reminds them of the importance of providing clear and accurate information to financial customers regarding the nature of the products and services they offer.
'For many financial customers, advertising and marketing material significantly influence their decisions about which financial products to buy. Financial customers who rely on misleading adverts or false impressions are more likely to select unsuitable products, which could result in financial losses or other prejudicial outcomes,' the FSCA says.
ALSO READ: FSCA finds banks do not handle consumer complaints properly
Banks must be careful not to position credit as investments
In this case, positioning the product as an investment rather than a credit product, financial customers were misled about the longer-term risks and potential costs associated with taking up the product.
'Financial institutions must have robust internal governance and approval processes to ensure compliance with all requirements of the Conduct Standard, including the development and publication of marketing material and other key information disclosed to customers.'
The FSCA states that it will continue to take firm regulatory action against financial institutions that do not prioritise the fair treatment of customers across their governance arrangements, business processes, and procedures.
'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,' the FSCA says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Philippines Scam Hub Targeting South Africans Exposed Whilst Local Regulator Remains Selectively Silent
South Africans are falling victim to sophisticated international scams, including a recently exposed call centre in the Philippines. As the Financial Sector Conduct Authority remains silent, troubling inconsistencies in regulatory enforcement come to light. While South Africans were being systematically defrauded by sophisticated international scam operations, including a recently exposed call centre in the Philippines that specifically targeted our citizens, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority's response has revealed troubling inconsistencies in regulatory enforcement. International Exposure, Local Silence According to Rolling Stone Philippines, a scam hub disguised as a call centre in Cebu City was recently shut down after YouTube hacktivist "mrwn" leaked CCTV footage of its operations on May 18, 2025. The operation, which specifically targeted South African victims, was raided by Philippines authorities on May 21 following the viral exposure that garnered over 1.6 million views. The Philippine Star reported that the investigation was prompted by the hacktivist's frustration over authorities' initial lack of response, leading him to "take matters into his own hands". Multiple Philippine agencies—including the Philippine National Police, Department of Information and Communications Technology, Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Centre, and Criminal Investigation and Detection Group—immediately launched coordinated investigations into the call centre's activities. Yet despite South Africans being the primary targets of this international fraud operation, the story has received virtually no coverage in local media, and there has been no public statement from the FSCA regarding South African victims or any collaborative efforts with Philippine authorities to protect our citizens. "What we are witnessing is a regulator that appears capable of decisive action when it chooses to act but demonstrates concerning silence when South Africans are being targeted by international fraud syndicates," said a leading regulatory expert. "The contrast between swift action in some cases and prolonged inaction in others suggests priorities that don't align with genuine consumer protection." A Pattern of Selective Enforcement This silence stands in stark contrast to the regulator's approach to other matters. As previously reported by IOL, the FSCA's handling of the Astrix Data investigation—involving what has been dubbed the "Scam Empire"—demonstrates a troubling pattern of regulatory inconsistency that undermines public confidence in financial oversight. Despite mounting evidence of systematic fraud involving hundreds of millions of rands, fake identities, manipulated trading platforms, and sophisticated cryptocurrency laundering schemes, Astrix Data and its associated entities continue to operate with active FSCA licences. The regulator has been aware of complaints since late 2023 and announced an investigation in June 2024, yet nearly a year later, no regulatory action has been taken. "The Astrix matter represents a fundamental test of regulatory competence," the expert noted. "We have overwhelming evidence making global headlines of systematic fraud, fake identities, manipulated platforms, and yet the regulator maintains that it needs more time to investigate whilst licensed operations continue to potentially harm consumers daily." More concerning still, new iterations of these types of pressure cooker operations continue to emerge. Trade FT, operating under FSP number 53871 and linked to Grand Trading Pty Ltd, represents the latest evolution these types of entities. Despite benefitting from AI-themed third party affiliate marketing advertisements featuring unauthorised images of celebrities like Patrice Motsepe, Elon Musk, and Trevor Noah, and despite glaring red flags including no registered Key Individuals listed for its FSP number, Trade FT continues to operate without regulatory interference or even an official warning to the public from the regulator. "When you see entities with no registered Key Individuals—a basic compliance requirement—continuing to operate whilst others face immediate sanctions, it raises serious questions about enforcement consistency," the regulatory expert observed. "This isn't about complex legal interpretation; it's about fundamental compliance standards being selectively applied." When the FSCA Chooses to Act The regulator's capacity for swift action becomes apparent when examining its treatment of Banxso. In that case, the FSCA moved decisively to provisionally withdraw the entity's licence before completing its investigation—a stark contrast to its approach with Asterix and its affiliated operations. The disparity is particularly striking given the evidence available. While Banxso demonstrated a willingness to work with regulators and voluntarily refunded R14 million to affected consumers, entities with documented connections to international fraud syndicates and systematic deception continue to operate with full regulatory approval. "The message this sends is deeply troubling," the expert continued. "Entities that cooperate with regulators face immediate sanctions, whilst those with sophisticated deception schemes appear to benefit from prolonged 'investigations' that allow continued operations. It's regulatory policy that incentivises non-compliance." The Human Cost of Inconsistent Enforcement Each day that deceptive operations remain active represents additional South Africans falling victim to sophisticated fraud schemes. The recently exposed Philippine call centre targeting our citizens is merely one visible component of a much larger ecosystem of deception that appears to operate with relative impunity. "Every day of regulatory delay represents real people losing their life savings," the expert emphasised. "Whilst regulators debate process and procedure, pensioners are losing modest investments of R3,500 and business owners are transferring millions to sophisticated fraud schemes. The human cost of inconsistent enforcement cannot be measured purely in rands—it's about destroyed trust in our entire financial regulatory system." "It is particularly telling that the very media organisations which trumpeted the Banxso affair in bold headlines, at times to the point of obsession, have remained conspicuously silent regarding these other cases and their far more serious implications. Such selective reporting may well have contributed to the external pressures that compelled the FSCA to act with such haste in one instance whilst turning a blind eye to far more egregious violations in others." Questions That Demand Answers The FSCA's selective enforcement raises fundamental questions about regulatory priorities and consistency. Why does an entity implicated in a global fraud scheme, involving fake identities and systematic theft of investor funds, continue operating without restriction whilst others face immediate sanctions for lesser allegations? How can the regulator justify the continued licensing of entities with no registered Key Individuals whilst simultaneously pursuing aggressive enforcement actions against compliant FSPs? What message does this send to would-be fraudsters about the consequences of sophisticated deception versus regulatory cooperation? "The inconsistency is so stark it appears almost deliberate," the regulatory expert noted. "You have to ask whether there are factors beyond public consumer protection influencing enforcement decisions. The pattern suggests a regulator that's either compromised by external pressures or fundamentally misunderstands its mandate to protect South African investors." A Crisis of Regulatory Credibility Financial regulation depends on consistent, transparent enforcement applied equally to all market participants. When certain operators appear to receive preferential treatment whilst others face the full force of regulatory action, the entire regulatory framework's credibility comes under question. The recent Philippine call centre raid demonstrates what coordinated, decisive action against scam operations looks like. Multiple agencies working together, swift response to evidence, and immediate shutdown of fraudulent activities. This stands in sharp contrast to the FSCA's apparent tolerance for ongoing operations despite overwhelming evidence of systematic fraud. "What happened in the Philippines should shame our local regulator," the expert concluded. "Foreign authorities acted within days of receiving evidence, whilst we have entities operating for years with active licences despite overwhelming evidence of systematic fraud. It's a damning indictment of regulatory priorities." South African investors deserve better than a regulatory system that appears to operate on double standards. They deserve protection that is consistent, predictable, and proportionate to the actual risk posed to consumers. Until the FSCA can demonstrate equal vigour in pursuing all entities that threaten investor protection—regardless of their sophistication, connections, or ability to maintain a veneer of compliance—public confidence in financial regulation will continue to erode. The regulator's silence on the Philippine scam operation targeting South Africans, combined with its inconsistent domestic enforcement, paints a troubling picture of regulatory priorities that seem divorced from the genuine protection of South African investors. This is not just an administrative failure—it represents a fundamental breach of the public trust that financial regulation is meant to uphold.
Mail & Guardian
3 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
Buy now, panic later: A legal deep dive into South Africa's payment revolution
New legislation seeks to close regulatory gaps to protect consumers and promote a competitive digital finance system. Photo: Nadine Hutton/Bloomberg via Getty Images) Buy now, pay later (BNPL) payment options have strutted onto South Africa's financial runway with the swagger of innovation, offering interest-free instalments, bypassing traditional credit checks and boasting sleek user interfaces that make old-school lay-bys look prehistoric. For consumers, it feels like a dream: swipe today, split it tomorrow. For platforms, it's fintech gold. But beneath the surface of this frictionless façade lies a regulatory grey zone thick with risk, ambiguity and potential litigation. Is BNPL empowering consumers or quietly indebting them? And when the legal hammer finally drops, who's left holding the bill? BNPL services allow consumers to make purchases immediately and pay for them in installments over a set period, usually without interest if payments are made on time. However, as BNPL use increases, so do concerns around consumer debt, regulatory arbitrage and financial exclusion. The central question in South Africa is whether BNPL products fall within the ambit of the National Credit Act (NCA) or the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act). The National Credit Regulator is responsible for compliance with the NCA, while the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) is responsible for compliance with the FAIS Act. The South African BNLP landscape The consumer credit environment in South Africa is governed by the NCA, which regulates all credit providers and mandates affordability assessments along with other consumer protection mechanisms. BNPL providers often argue that they are not credit providers, as their terms and conditions do not constitute a credit agreement. This is because they charge no interest and operate within a very short payment cycle (for example 4 to 6 weeks). As a result, many BNPL firms claim exemption from NCA obligations. According to the Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group, BNPL falls into a regulatory void. The NCR has taken limited action against providers, while the FSCA has yet to issue clear guidance. Consumers thus face reduced transparency, no guaranteed recourse mechanisms and inconsistent contract terms. BNPL's legal classification determines the scope of regulatory obligations. If BNPL is credit, then the NCA mandates affordability checks, registration with the NCR and extensive disclosures (among other things). However, most BNPL operators avoid these obligations by structuring their offerings as payment solutions or deferred billing. The FAIS Act regulates financial advice and intermediary services. BNPL providers rarely claim to offer financial advice and, as such, FAIS oversight is generally not invoked. This ambiguity causes a jurisdictional conflict between the NCR and FSCA, with little hope of resolution. Moreover, South African consumers are often unaware of potential late fees, the implications of missed payments and the lack of legal recourse, especially when providers collapse or change terms unilaterally. While legal classification remains unresolved, enforcement action against BNPL providers in South Africa has been minimal. In practice, the NCR's enforcement has focused largely on traditional credit providers, while the FSCA's mandate remains unclear in the absence of explicit statutory triggers. This lack of supervisory clarity raises risks of selective compliance, where only larger players seek legal advice or act preemptively, while smaller or offshore providers bypass South African oversight altogether. Moreover, without designated supervisory frameworks, enforcement becomes reactive, often occurring only after consumer harm has materialised. The Conduct of Financial Institutions Bill is envisaged to address these regulatory gaps. A modern regulatory regime must therefore address, not only classification and jurisdiction, but also enforcement mechanisms, investigative powers and co-ordinated oversight, possibly through inter-agency memoranda of understanding or joint supervisory task teams. Without this, regulatory gaps become systemic vulnerabilities. Global BNLP landscape UK: The Financial Conduct Authority will regulate BNPL under new legislation taking effect in 2026. Providers will be required to conduct affordability checks, obtain authorisation, and ensure clear disclosures. Consumers will be granted section 75 protections under the Consumer Credit Act. Australia: The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has introduced legislation bringing BNPL under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. From mid-2025, providers must hold a credit licence, conduct responsible lending assessments and comply with disclosure obligations. These requirements are tailored to balance innovation with consumer protection. US: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has classified BNPL loans accessed via digital accounts as 'credit cards', triggering protections under Regulation Z. Dispute resolution, refunds and chargeback rights are now part of BNPL transactions, although industry litigation may reverse this. These models demonstrate that proactive regulation, coupled with flexibility, is essential for managing BNPL risks. Comparative legal analysis of South Africa South Africa's current dual-regulator model (the NCR and FSCA) is ill-equipped for the digital fragmentation of modern finance. The lack of a clear BNPL regulatory framework stands in contrast with jurisdictions where regulators have already expanded definitions of credit to include BNPL explicitly. Key takeaways include: The UK's reliance on disclosure and licensing. Australia's focus on credit licenses and suitability assessments. The US approach of function-over-form classification (if it behaves like a credit card, it is regulated like one). The hope is that the Conduct of Financial Institutions Bill will reconcile institutional gaps and avoid regulatory arbitrage by expanding statutory definitions and enforcing consistency. Fintech partnerships and platform liability BNPL services are frequently integrated directly into online retail platforms via application programming interface partnerships. This embedded finance model raises questions of liability, especially when the BNPL provider operates outside the regulatory net. In South Africa, it is unclear whether a platform offering BNPL at checkout could be deemed to be providing or facilitating credit under the NCA. Retailers and marketplaces must consider whether they are indirectly exposing themselves to liability or reputational risk, especially if their BNPL partners engage in misleading conduct, impose unlawful fees or collapse without notice. Globally, regulators are beginning to scrutinise not just BNPL providers, but also the platforms and merchants who offer such services. The UK's Financial Conduct Authority, for example, has signalled that contractual and operational accountability may extend beyond the primary credit provider. South African platforms should pre-emptively assess their BNPL partnerships through the lens of operational risk, consumer protection and reputational resilience. Digital identity and affordability in a credit-light economy One major challenge for effective BNPL regulation in South Africa lies in consumer verification and affordability assessments. Without a robust credit history or consistent income documentation, many consumers who use BNPL services remain invisible to traditional risk models. This opens the door to over-indebtedness, particularly among the underbanked. Future BNPL regulation must therefore account for the reality of fragmented digital footprints and low formal credit participation. There is room for innovation — open banking frameworks, mobile payment data and transactional analytics could support dynamic affordability models. However, this would require legal certainty around data access, privacy and proportional use of financial profiling. BNPL operators who proactively invest in these tools, backed by transparent disclosures and consent practices, will probably be best positioned when regulation catches up. BNPL has redefined consumer finance by promising simplicity and speed but the country risks repeating mistakes seen in unregulated microcredit booms if it fails to address its regulatory gaps. Global trends show that regulation can evolve in tandem with technology. By embracing reform and cross-sector collaboration, South Africa can lead in creating a safe, competitive digital finance ecosystem. Lerato Lamola & Anél de Meyer are partners at Webber Wentzel.
TimesLIVE
4 days ago
- TimesLIVE
Cape Town labour court reinstates driver sacked for negligence at African Bank
A driver fired for negligence after leaving company equipment in a vehicle with a leaking roof has won a labour court battle to be reinstated in his job with back pay at African Bank. The bank fired Alistair Steenkamp — who was initially employed as a customer relations consultant — in 2021 after charging him with negligence and the use of a company vehicle for private purposes. 'During the period October 25 to 26 2019 you allegedly acted in a negligent manner when you left the company [audio] speakers, used for marketing, overnight in the vehicle when it was raining while you were aware of the leaking roof. The speakers were damaged due to your negligence,' read the charges. 'On November 28 2019 you allegedly acted in a negligent manner by not keeping the company laptop safe while it was in your possession and you lost the laptop due to your negligence. On November 27 2020 you allegedly left the company cellphone in an unlocked vehicle without taking proper care, the cellphone was stolen, resulting in a loss of R3,899. 'During the period January to December 2019 it is alleged that you parked the company bus at times at the residence of a relative without overnight authority. This is in breach of the bank's rules and policy.' Steenkamp, who was working as a driver when he was fired, pleaded guilty to the first charge and was found guilty on it by the chairperson of a disciplinary hearing. He had been working for the bank since 2018.
