From greylisting to enforcement: Companies to face penalties for non-compliance

South Africa’s removal from the greylist in October 2025 did not mark the end of compliance obligations for companies. The National Treasury proposed a draft General Laws (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating Terrorism Financing) Amendment Bill, 2025 (“Draft Amendment Bill 2025”), which was out for public comment until 2 March 2026. The regulatory framework implemented from 1 April 2023 laid the foundation for compliance in South Africa. The Draft Amendment Bill 2025 intends to build on the foundation, aiming to strengthen compliance measures ahead of the Financial Action Task Force (“FAFT”) mid-2026 review. Over the past two years, the focus has been on improving compliance systems and addressing deficiencies. However, Treasury made it clear that 2026 will shift the focus from remediation to strict enforcement.

The Draft Amendment Bill 2025 introduces stricter compliance requirements to align South African companies with international compliance standards.  Proposed amendments to the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“Companies Act”) further empower the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) to enforce deregistration and impose administrative penalties for non-compliance. 

Beyond alignment with international standards, the Draft Amendment Bill 2025 introduces several amendments to the existing Companies Act and establishes clear rules that companies must follow to avoid penalties and deregistration. The proposed amendment to section 82 of the Companies Act empowers the CIPC to deregister companies that fail to submit beneficial ownership information and maintain accurate securities registers, in the prescribed manner and form, in terms of section 33 of the Act, for a period of two years or more in succession. This could have significant legal, financial, tax and operational consequences, particularly when a company is unable to function effectively.

Further amendments to sections 171 and 175 provide for administrative fines where companies fail to comply with compliance notices, including failures relating to beneficial ownership reporting and securities registers. These registers play a critical role in identifying the beneficial owners of a company and ensuring transparency in corporate structures. The administrative fine will be determined by not exceeding the greater 10% of the company’s turnover for the period during which the company failed to comply with the compliance notice or a R10 million fine. 

The Draft Amendment Bill 2025 clearly signals Treasury’s intention to move from remediation to enforcement. Companies will no longer be able to rely on leniency and must ensure full compliance with legislative requirements. The overarching objective is to strengthen South Africa’s anti-money laundering framework through ongoing regulatory enhancements.

Companies that are uncertain about their compliance status, particularly in relation to beneficial ownership and securities registers, should seek professional advice to ensure full compliance and avoid the risk of deregistration or penalties. Our dedicated Trust Office Team specialises in assisting companies with their compliance to ensure that it aligns with the regulatory requirements. Feel free to contact our Trust Office Team to discuss how we can help you.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).

April 22, 2026
Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Pay first… maybe not

Pay first… maybe not

For decades, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has relied on the “pay now, argue later” rule as a cornerstone of tax administration. This principle permits SARS to collect disputed taxes before the underlying dispute has been resolved, often placing significant financial strain on taxpayers. While the rule serves an important fiscal purpose, it also raises critical questions regarding fairness, proportionality, and the limits of administrative discretion.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest