The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) has published its 2026 Three-Year Regulation Plan (1 April 2026 – 31 March 2029), setting out its strategic roadmap for the development of South Africa’s financial sector regulatory framework over the next three years. The Plan highlights a continued focus on transparency, stakeholder engagement, and a carefully managed transition to the Conduct of Financial Institutions (COFI) Bill, while advancing key reforms across financial markets, governance, operational resilience, retirement funds, payment services, and emerging areas such as artificial intelligence and sustainable finance.

The FSCA has emphasised that regulatory reforms will be implemented in a phased and proportionate manner, with extensive industry consultation to ensure that changes are practical, effective and appropriate for the South African financial sector. SAIFM encourages members and industry stakeholders to familiarise themselves with these important developments and participate in consultation opportunities as they arise.

Read the documents below:

• 📄 2026 FSCA Three-Year Regulation Plan
• 📄 FSCA Press Release – The FSCA publishes 2026 Three-Year Regulation Plan (3 July 2026)

On 1 June 2026, the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, issued a judgment in Mangundhla & Dangaiso v South African Reserve Bank (Case No. 2022-029979) that expressly departs from an earlier decision of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria. In that decision, in Standard Bank of South Africa v South African Reserve Bank 2025 (5) SA 289 (GP), the Court held that cryptocurrency is not capital for purposes of the Exchange Control Regulations.

The facts

In the Mangundhla & Dangaiso case, one of the applicants used Luno accounts to transfer approximately 1680 bitcoin, purchased in South Africa and worth under ZAR 182 million, to bitcoin wallets accessible only through cryptocurrency exchanges registered outside of South Africa.

The South African Reserve Bank (SARB), under Exchange Control Regulation 22B, declared forfeited to the State of just under ZAR 6 million of bitcoin assets and money standing to the applicants’ credit in their Standard Bank and Luno accounts. The basis for the forfeiture was that this money and cryptocurrency constituted either the proceeds of or was itself in the process of being the subject of a contravention of the Exchange Control Regulations.

The central question before the court was whether cryptocurrency, specifically bitcoin, constitutes ‘capital’ for the purposes of Exchange Control Regulation 10(1)(c). This regulation provides that ‘[n]o person shall, except with permission granted by the Treasury and in accordance with such conditions as the Treasury may impose enter into any transaction whereby capital or any right to capital is directly or indirectly exported from the Republic’.  

The judgment

The Court, in applying established principles of statutory interpretation, considering the ordinary grammatical meaning, context, and purpose of the provision, concluded that bitcoin must be ‘capital’ for purposes of the Exchange Control Regulations.

This was on the basis that bitcoin is plainly capital in the sense that it is a financial asset that is capable of holding value and being used as a medium of exchange. It can be exchanged for fiat currency, as it is possible to buy bitcoin using South African rand, to hold it in the expectation that its rand price will increase, and to then sell it for a profit. Also in some places, bitcoin is accepted by merchants as a form of currency.

A copy of the judgment is available here.

It should, however, be noted that the SARB appealed the Standard Bank case decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal and that the final position on the exchange control regulatory treatment of cryptocurrency remains unknown pending the outcome of the appeal.

There is currently no regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies in South Africa, although under the draft Capital Flow Management Regulations, which were recently published, South Africa is actively integrating crypto assets into the exchange control legal framework. In the absence of a framework, one thing is clear – navigating the exchange control landscape in South Africa is complex. 

On 28 May 2026, the National Payment System Department of the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) issued a joint communication relating to the use of crypto assets for domestic payment purposes (Joint Communication).

The purpose of the Joint Communication is to clarify that crypto assets (which includes stablecoins) used for payments in accordance with the declaration of crypto asset as a financial product in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 2002 (FAIS):

• are not considered payments in terms of the National Payment System Act, 1998 (NPSA);
• currently fall outside the application of the NPSA; and
• are neither money as defined in the NPSA nor funds and are therefore not legal tender.

The scope of the Joint Communication is limited to crypto assets that are used for domestic payments, including payment of goods and services, and person-to-person, person-to-business or business-to-business payments within South Africa and does not extend to cross-border payments.

The FSCA continues to process licensing applications under FAIS relating to crypto assets, including for payment-type activities, provided that these activities fall within the definition of ‘financial services’ under FAIS. However, a licence granted by the FSCA under FAIS does not include the regulation, supervision and oversight of crypto assets used for payments as contemplated under the NPSA, which is still subject to further policy and regulatory framework development by the SARB.

It remains incumbent on crypto asset service providers (CAPSs) licensed by the FSCA to adhere to all the applicable requirements under FAIS. Licensed CASPs must also communicate clearly and unambiguously with financial customers regarding the limited scope and nature of the activities for which they are licensed by the FSCA (noting that these activities do not constitute legal tender).

A copy of the Joint Communication can be accessed here.

By Bright Tibane, Partner and Tshepo Twala, Senior Associate, Bowmans

On 17 April 2026, the National Treasury published the draft Capital Flow Management Regulations of 2026 (draft CFM Regulations) for public comment. The draft CFM Regulations are intended to repeal and replace the current Exchange Control Regulations of 1961.

The draft CFM Regulations seek to, amongst others:

• align the South African exchange control framework with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Financial Action Task Force’s recommendations aimed at combating money laundering, terrorist financing and the proliferation of illicit financial flows;
• bring crypto-assets within the ambit of the exchange control framework in order to address risks and ensure oversight of emerging financial instruments;
• clarify exemptions, permissions, and conditions in respect of exchange control restrictions; and
• impose administrative sanctions where there is non-compliance with the South African exchange control.

The amendments contemplated in the draft CFM Regulations address gaps in the current South African exchange control regulations, including in relation to cross-border crypto asset transactions. They will complement the existing regulation by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) and Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC). In this regard, the draft CFM Regulations provide for various changes to the current South African exchange control regulations. Some of the notable changes proposed under the draft CFM Regulations are as follows:

• The definition of ‘capital ’ has been expanded to include anything with a monetary value, or which can be converted to money or disposed of for monetary consideration, including crypto assets, excluding immovable property.
• The definition of ‘export of goods or capital’ has been broadened to include, without derogating from the generality of that term, the cession or creation of a hypothec or other form of security over, or the assignment or transfer of any capital or any right to capital to or in favour of a person who is not resident in South Africa.
• The requirement to declare foreign assets is expanded to include the declaration of crypto assets after obtaining control, or possession or becoming entitled to sell, procure the sale of, or transfer, any foreign asset or crypto asset. This must be made within the prescribed period to the National Treasury or to an authorised person (understandably, the South African Reserve Bank) in writing and in the form and manner prescribed.
• The National Treasury or an authorised person may impose administrative sanctions on authorised dealers or authorised crypto asset service providers for failure to comply with any of the provisions of the draft CFM Regulations, or any condition imposed thereunder. The administrative sanctions imposed in this regard may include any or a combination of a financial sanction, public reprimand or censure, suspension or revocation of the appointment as an authorised dealer, disqualification of directors, senior management or key personnel from serving in their roles, restrictions on or curtailment of transactions that may be entered into by the authorised dealer and an order to take specified remedial action.
• Penalties that can be imposed on persons found guilty of offence under the draft CFM Regulations have increased to a fine not exceeding ZAR 1 million, imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or both a fine and imprisonment. A person who is convicted of an offence in terms of the draft CFM Regulations, in relation to any money, crypto asset or property may be liable to a fine not exceeding ZAR 1million, or a sum equal to the value of the money, crypto asset or property, whichever is the greater.
• The National Treasury or an authorised person may exempt all persons or a specified class of persons from compliance with any of these regulations under the draft CFM Regulations, either in respect of all transactions contemplated in a regulation or in respect of specified types or categories of transaction.

According to the Minister of Finance, the amendments contemplated in the draft CFM Regulations signal South Africa’s readiness to modernise and adopt a ‘positive bias’ approach to managing cross-border capital flows through fewer transaction pre-approvals, a focus on reporting, the surveillance of high-impact and high-risk cross-border transactions, and the combating of illicit financial flows.

Once finalised, the draft CFM Regulations are expected to align South Africa with international best practices, while also managing various risks using a risk-based approach and existing macroprudential tools.

Written comments on the draft CFM Regulations must be sent to National Treasury at commentdraftlegislation@treasury.gov.za by close of business on Monday, 18 May 2026.

For ease of reference, a copy of the draft CFM Regulations can be accessed here.

By Christine Lawson (MIFM)

The Compliance Function at an Inflection Point

For decades, compliance has operated as a downstream control – reviewing decisions after they are made, identifying gaps after risks materialise, and remediating issues after the fact. In today’s environment, that model is no longer simply inefficient. It has become a risk in itself.

The convergence of regulatory reform and technological change is placing compliance under structural pressure. Across industry forums – including ICA and IFCA gatherings and the inaugural IFCA and CISA Joint Summit, which included a dedicated panel on skills and the future compliance professional – a consistent theme is emerging: compliance is increasingly being viewed not simply as a function, but as a leadership capability embedded in how organisations make decisions.

At the same time, regulatory signals from the FSCA and the trajectory of the COFI framework point in the same direction. The question is no longer whether compliance must evolve. It is whether firms are keeping pace with what that evolution demands.

Read more

By Herculaas Cecil Lamprecht

The Conduct of Financial Institutions (COFI) Bill represents the most significant proposed transformation of South Africa’s financial sector conduct regulatory framework since the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 (FSR Act) established the twin-peaks model.

The Bill, which will consolidate and supersede the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services (FAIS) Act, the Long-term Insurance Act, the Short-term Insurance Act, and portions of the Banks Act within a single overarching conduct framework, introduces enhanced obligations across the full spectrum of financial institutions. This has particularly significant implications for the approximately 7,000 independent Financial Service Providers (FSPs) licensed by the FSCA.

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the COFI Bill’s strategic implications for independent FSPs, examining: (i) the legislative background and policy rationale; (ii) key provisions including the duty of care, product governance obligations, enhanced fit-and-proper requirements, and data governance standards; (iii) the differential impact on small and independent FSPs relative to large financial institutions; (iv) a comparison with international conduct regulatory frameworks, particularly the UK’s Consumer Duty (FCA, 2023) and the EU’s MiFID II; and (v) a practical preparation framework for independent FSPs.

The paper concludes that while the COFI Bill will impose material compliance costs on independent FSPs, it also creates a significant competitive opportunity for those who invest in genuine compliance capability, since TCF-compliant, client-centric advisory practices are both a regulatory requirement and a sustainable commercial differentiator.

Click here to read more.

By Kirsten Kern, Head of Financial Services Regulatory and Bright Tibane, Partner, Bowmans

On 6 February 2026, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) issued FSCA Communication 1 of 2026 announcing that a draft determination relating to foreign collective investment schemes (CISs) has been submitted to Parliament (draft Determination). The draft Determination follows the FSCA’s request for (and consideration of) written submissions from the public which were due on or before 11 October 2024.

The draft Determination sets out the requirements and conditions for foreign CISs soliciting investments in South Africa under the Collective Investment Schemes Control Act, 2002 (CISCA). It is intended to replace and repeal Board Notice 257 of 2013 (BN 257), which has governed these requirements and conditions since 13 December 2013.

The draft Determination was created because:

• BN 257 has become outdated due to the shift from a predominantly rules-based to a principles-based regulatory approach; and
• the Financial Services Tribunal’s (FST) decision in Greenman Investments S.C.A., Sicav‑Fis v FSCA Case No.: A2/2021 meant that a review of BN 257 was required. In this decision, the FST held that the FSCA has the discretion to categorise foreign CISs for the purposes of applying legislation that is not pre-stated as being applicable to foreign CISs, but such discretion is limited to a specific purpose (ie to apply the provisions of CISCA).

The draft Determination retains the format of application for approval of a foreign CIS under section 65(1) of CISCA as contemplated under BN 257. However, it proposes to expand the conditions for approval under section 65(1) of CISCA. At a high-level, the draft Determination states that a foreign CIS applying for approval in terms of section 65(1) of CISCA will be required to satisfy the FSCA on an ongoing basis that, amongst others:   

• The manager of a foreign CIS will organise and control the foreign CIS in a responsible manner.
• The foreign CIS does not lend or advance any money, except that the foreign CIS may lend or offer to lend assets included in the foreign CIS in the manner, within the limits or on the conditions determined in the founding document or the instruments of incorporation or the prospectus.
• The investments that a foreign CIS proposes to offer for sale in South Africa have a risk profile that is not significantly higher when compared to the risk profile of similar investments in participatory interests offered for sale in South Africa by managers registered under CISCA.
• The solicitation of investments in the foreign CIS will not be contrary to the interests of investors, potential investors, the financial sector or the public interest. The FSCA will consider and apply this criterion based on the facts of each matter, its regulatory and supervisory insights and principles of fairness. The FSCA will, in due course, consider whether it is necessary to issue further guidance that informs the public interest criteria but it is not possible at this stage to confirm that such guidance will indeed be issued.
• The structure of the foreign CIS is one which is allowable in South Africa under CISCA.
• The liquidity of the securities of the foreign CIS will not compromise the liquidity terms of the foreign CIS.

The draft Determination also proposes to impose the following conditions on foreign CISs:

• The manager of a foreign CIS may not, prior to approval in terms of section 65 of CISCA, include in or have part of the name of its business or in any description of its business any reference to a scheme approved under section 65 of CISCA without the approval of the FSCA.
• Prior to approval in terms of section 65 of CISCA, a foreign CIS or its manager may not perform any act to lead the public to believe that it has been approved to solicit investments in the foreign CIS from the members of the public in South Africa.
• A foreign CIS may not utilise any of the following investment strategies or approaches, or invest in the following assets or instruments in respect of and on behalf of its foreign scheme: (i) uncovered short selling; or (ii) a synthetic portfolio or synthetic exchange-traded fund that creates synthetic exposure for an investor, excluding where such portfolio or fund is only promoted to any investor that is not a ’qualified investor’ as defined in Board Notice 52 of 2015 (Determination on the Requirements for Hedge Funds).

In the FSCA’s view, the draft Determination is representative of a process of updating the existing BN 257 to better reflect international best practice and the supervisory experiences pertaining to applications by foreign CISs since its publication in December 2013.

In terms of the draft Determination, an application for approval in terms of section 65 of CISCA submitted to the FSCA before the commencement of the draft Determination but which has not been finally determined will be considered by the FSCA based on BN 257.

It is expected that the draft Determination, once implemented, will result in a stronger and more appropriate regulatory framework governing the advertisement and solicitation of foreign CISs in South Africa, thereby resulting in better protection for investors/customers.

The FSCA envisages that the cost implication, if any, of the draft Determination will not be significant as it is largely based on existing requirements contained in BN 257 and the associated guidance notices. The draft Determination is proposed to come into effect on the date of publication once it has been finalised.

For ease of reference, a copy of the draft Determination and the related supporting documents can be accessed here.

By Caper van Heerden and Jan Kruger, Partners, and Alison Mellon, Knowledge Lawyer, Banking and Finance, Bowmans

The Market Practitioners Group (MPG), established by the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) to oversee the transition from JIBAR to the South African Overnight Index Average (ZARONIA), has published updated guidance recommending that 1 May 2026 be adopted as the effective date for the ‘No new JIBAR’ milestone (instead of the initially proposed end of March 2026).

Importantly, the MPG has recommended that the SARB issue a formal regulatory directive to give effect to this milestone, confirming the full scope of JIBAR tenors prohibited for new use, setting an unambiguous effective date and defining what constitutes ‘new’ use consistent with offshore regulatory practice.

Once the directive is issued, market participants would no longer be permitted to enter into new financial contracts referencing JIBAR (including loans, floating rate notes and money market instruments) except in limited, narrowly defined circumstances. JIBAR itself will cease to be published at the end of December 2026.

The MPG has recommended a broad definition of ‘new’: it captures renewals, refinancings, rollovers, reopenings, re-issuances and material amendments that create additional JIBAR risk. The MPG has also recommended limited dispensations and exceptions to address specific risk management and operational needs. These include:

• Defined exceptions for existing JIBAR exposures: examples given were market-making to support client activity related to pre-milestone transactions and associated hedges, hedging or reducing pre-milestone JIBAR exposure, novation and resets of pre-milestone JIBAR trades, central clearing counterparty (CCP) auction participation and associated hedges, physical delivery of options (including swaptions) executed before the milestone, and JIBAR-linked cash market instruments with robust, hardwired contractual fallback language.

• Trade finance: trade finance transactions that require a known interest rate at the start of the interest period, including working capital loans, supply chain finance and invoice discounting, letter of credit discounting and financing, receivables discounting, trade loans between banks and fixed-term working capital loans.

• Retail and property finance: a regulatory dispensation for JIBAR-linked retail home loans, related funding transactions and commercial property finance in securitisation; these may continue to reference JIBAR until cessation.

• Securitisations: JIBAR-linked securitisations that meet certain criteria. For example, where the underlying assets rely on a forward-looking term rate, where active transition would be onerous or costly, or where transitioning to ZARONIA compounded in arrears would weaken the credit structure due to structural impediments or basis risk.

• Offshore-aligned exceptions: use of defined exceptions aligned to offshore best practices.

The legislative safety net

The SARB is working on amendments to the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 to designate replacement benchmarks for legacy contracts without adequate fallback provisions, including statutory safe harbours from liability. However, institutions should not view this as a ‘silver bullet’ — different replacement rates may be designated for different product classes, and proactive transition planning remains essential.

• The full MPG publications and recommendations are available on the SARB MPG webpage. 

Click here to read the joint Prudential Authority and FSCA communication outlining supervisory expectations for the transition from JIBAR to ZARONIA and the “No new JIBAR” initiative.