What are the consequences of paying an admission of guilt fine?

“My son was recently arrested after being in a bar fight. The police offered him the option of paying an admission of guilt. While he did not accept it, I do wonder if it would not have been the better option. What are the consequences of paying an admission of guilt?”

The South African Police may offer an arrested person the option of paying an admission of guilt fine, but only if the person has been arrested for a less serious offence, and so doing lighten the load of congested court rolls. This fine is paid before the accused appears in court, and can create the impression that it is an easy and affordable way out. In many instances the accused only pays the fine to secure his release and avoid a night in a police cell.

It is important to note that the amount payable to be released on bail differs from the amount payable for an admission of guilt fine. If the person pays an admission of guilt, he will get a criminal record.  It is against the law to force an accused to pay an admission of guilt, as well as to create the impression that should an accused not pay the fine, he will be denied bail.   As soon as a suspect’s fingerprints have been taken and a formal police docket has been opened, a person will get a criminal record should he pay the admission of guilt fine. However this does not mean that should a person pay a regular speed fine, he will also have a criminal record!

If a criminal record arises from paying an admission of guilt fine, the criminal record will be valid for 10 years, which naturally has serious implications. If the admission of guilt appears on a person’s SAP69 (criminal record), the person may have trouble getting a visa to travel overseas, struggle to successfully apply for a firearm license, struggle to get a job, etc.

If a person is however unaware that he got a criminal record by paying an admission of guilt fine, our High Court can be approached with an application to clear the person’s name. But such an application has obvious cost implications.

There is a place for admissions of guilt, but it’s always advisable to first contact your attorney for advice before making any admissions of guilt, especially considering the serious consequences it holds.

April 6, 2018
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Nearly 5 decades after its original enactment, South Africa’s copyright regime is undergoing one of the most significant reforms in its history. The Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] introduces modern protections to secure the financial and digital interests of authors and performers, thereby strengthening their economic rights in an increasingly digital world. While parts of the Bill remain under constitutional review, a landmark 2025 court ruling has already enforced critical protections for users with disabilities. This article breaks down the primary measures intended to safeguard South African creativity.

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The excitement of a merger or acquisition often sits in the “big picture” strategy, but the success of the deal lives or dies in the details. Due diligence is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the point at which assumptions are tested, risks are priced, and uncomfortable questions are asked. This article explores why looking before you leap, by conducting a thorough due diligence, is the golden rule of mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions.

Customary marriages stand equal

Customary marriages stand equal

In a landmark judgment delivered on 21 January 2026, the Constitutional Court pronounced welcomed clarity on the interplay between customary marriages, civil marriages, and antenuptial contracts (“ANC”). The Court, by majority decision in VVC v JRM and Others (CCT202/24) [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) , declined to confirm a High Court order that had declared section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (“the Recognition Act”) unconstitutional. The majority decision powerfully reaffirmed the equal constitutional status of customary marriages and established that spouses cannot unilaterally alter their matrimonial property regime without judicial oversight.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest