Reserve Bank fines Nedbank R35 million over FICA violations

Jan

Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
13,714
Reaction score
11,478
Location
The Rabbit Hole
Nedbank slapped with R35 million FICA fine

The South African Reserve Bank (SARB) has imposed a R35 million administrative sanction on Nedbank Limited for failure to comply with certain administrative provisions of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA).

The SARB on Friday also directed the bank to take remedial action following an inspection conducted in 2019 in terms of FICA.
 
skimread said:
Good. Now fine government 35 billion for the same.
Click to expand...
Problem is government wont pay - the tax payers do!

What we need is for people to get fired / some actual accountability which we all know is never going to happen...
 
“It is important to highlight that there was no evidence of Nedbank being involved in or facilitating transactions involving money laundering or the financing of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Sooooo...... Nedbank assisted in facilitating transactions of money laundering or financing terrorism, but there just were no sufficient evidence, so they got slapped with a fine for it?

But hey, it could have been worse... could have been like the ANC openly supporting all these communist countries like China, Russia, etc.
 
in that it failed to report a significant number of cash transactions that exceeded the threshold of R24 999.99
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to know how many were missed and what the values of these transactions were.

It also opens so many more interesting questions.

Was there a special list of accounts that were not reported? Was it random? Was it everyone? Was it during specific dates?

Also, 35 Million (with 15 to be suspended) is small change considering they were reporting earnings in the billions.
 
Just some background. Nedbank did not facilitate any dodgy transactions to their or the SARB's knowledge. The SARB dithered on the requirements for 2 years, and then finalized them a few months before the audit when Nedbank was in the middle of a massive system upgrade. They did not manage to implement all the requirements in time thanks to the SARS delay, and Nedbank SELF REPORTED that they had failed to declaire some transactions over the amount (none of which where suspicious). The fine was primarily for what Nedbank acknowledged and its a fairly common fine these days for all the banks. This is not that big a deal.
 
Cius said:
Just some background. Nedbank did not facilitate any dodgy transactions to their or the SARB's knowledge. The SARB dithered on the requirements for 2 years, and then finalized them a few months before the audit when Nedbank was in the middle of a massive system upgrade. They did not manage to implement all the requirements in time thanks to the SARS delay, and Nedbank SELF REPORTED that they had failed to declaire some transactions over the amount (none of which where suspicious). The fine was primarily for what Nedbank acknowledged and its a fairly common fine these days for all the banks. This is not that big a deal.
Click to expand...
How do they know it was not suspicious?
 
These guys phone me every month asking me why my debit order didnt go off. Then I ask them, you tell me...
This goes on month after month, of them failing to process their debit order and they dont know why.

On another account, when asking them technical details regarding balance and bank fees, they were unable to answer. They then told me I should get a new account. It seems to me they dont know the rules of my account.
It's probably all lying in some legacy code and lost jira board.
I opened a query got a number and everything. They pretty much just ignored the issue. They dont know if the bank fees I am paying are correct. I'll be disputing all of them soon.

The wheel is turning but there's no hamster
 
r00igev@@r said:
How do they know it was not suspicious?
Click to expand...
No way to be absolutely certain obviously but no current evidence that any of the unreported transactions where dodge. I also think they did manual checks for a while until the system was up.
 
Yet when they close Surve's accounts ,they get sued...........epic own goal SARB.
 
Cius said:
No way to be absolutely certain obviously but no current evidence that any of the unreported transactions where dodge. I also think they did manual checks for a while until the system was up.
Click to expand...
How does any of this stop business email compromise transactions. Its strange that all these scammers have accounts at the big banks and get away with it. If an account is reported as BEC should not that id and/or the id of every director associated with the account if its a business one be flagged across all banks?
 
r00igev@@r said:
How does any of this stop business email compromise transactions. Its strange that all these scammers have accounts at the big banks and get away with it. If an account is reported as BEC should not that id and/or the id of every director associated with the account if its a business one be flagged across all banks?
Click to expand...
Totally with you there. The amount of online fraud in SA is staggering and yet every bank account has an ID number associated with it. Clueless how the recovery for money stolen via online fraud is that low. Something seriously wrong with the system on that front if you ask me. Feels like they are not even trying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter