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 With the possibility of certain of the exemptions issued in terms of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, being withdrawn by the new amendment act, I’m worried that our firm will now have to comply with all areas of FICA.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Although many of the exemptions have been withdrawn, it is clear that they remain relevant and that it is important for accountable institutions to obtain professional advice to ensure compliance with the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
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