What is the impact of the withdrawal of exemptions under FICA?

“I’m responsible for FICA at my accounting firm. With the possibility of certain of the exemptions issued in terms of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, being withdrawn by the new amendment act, I’m worried that our firm will now have to comply with all areas of FICA. Will this be the position?”

You are correct in that it appears that changes brought about by the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment Act 1 of 2017 (“Amendment Act”), have lead to the withdrawal of many of the exemptions previously approved under the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (“FICA”).

The Amendment Act introduces a risk-based approach as an integral element to complying with FICA. This approach makes these exemptions redundant as these exemptions are now implicitly included in the provisions of the Amendment Act and will need to be addressed in an accountable institution’s Risk Management and Compliance Programme (“RMCP”).

While the Amendment Act requires accountable institutions to obtain more information from clients than before, it at the same time allows accountable institutions greater flexibility to themselves to determine the extent of customer due diligence to be conducted based on the risk relating to a specific client. This assessment should be carried out by taking into account the money laundering and terrorist financing risks posed in relation to the client, the products and services rendered to the client as well as other relevant factors.

The content of the exemptions may therefore still act as a guide to accountable institutions in order to determine the suitable verification measures to be taken in accordance with its RMCP. This basically means that, the higher the risk, the more questions will need to be asked and the more documents should be collected by the accountable institution in order to ensure that the client’s information is correct. In cases of lower risk clients, simplified measures may be applied.

Although many of the exemptions have been withdrawn, it is clear that they remain relevant and that it is important for accountable institutions to obtain professional advice to ensure compliance with the Amendment Act. Our advice is to contact an attorney to assist you with your RMCP and to ensure that such is in line with the new legal framework established by the Amendment Act.

October 10, 2017
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest