Banxso's legal team argues that the FSCA has misapplied Section 252 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act (FSRA).
Image: File
A legal storm has erupted in the Western Cape High Court over allegations that South Africa's financial watchdog has misused its regulatory powers and improperly shared confidential information in what critics describe as an unprecedented attack on due process.
The argument, which centres on the Financial Sector Conduct Authority's (FSCA) handling of confidential information in its pursuit of financial services provider Banxso, has exposed a contentious debate about the limits of regulatory power and the protection of sensitive information.
The FSCA has defended its actions in providing confidential interview transcripts to private attorneys, stating: "The FSCA is under a legal duty to comply with a subpoena until it is set aside. As the subpoena had not been set aside, the FSCA complied with it. In any event, the FSCA was under a duty in terms of section 251 of the FSR Act to disclose the information required in terms of the subpoena."
However, Banxso's legal team strongly contests this interpretation, arguing that the FSCA has misapplied Section 252 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act (FSRA). Court documents allege that the FSCA failed to follow prescribed procedures that require careful consideration of whether disclosure would defeat the purpose of any investigation, prejudice the effectiveness of the FSCA's supervision, or be contrary to the public interest.
The court documents reveal what is described as an "unlawful partnership" between the FSCA and law firm Mostert and Bosman, allegedly formed to circumvent established regulatory procedures. Of particular concern is the handling of incomplete interview transcripts as the investigation is still ongoing. Banxso contends that this selective sharing of partial information has created a distorted narrative about the company's operations.
In a striking contrast to the legal proceedings, court documents reveal that while Mostert and Bosman and their proposed liquidators have identified twelve dissatisfied clients, this represents a very small sample of Banxso's customer base. Multiple clients have filed supporting affidavits defending the company's services and practices, raising questions about the proportionality of the regulatory response.
The controversy deepened with revelations that Banxso offered security exceeding R50 million, which was rejected by the opposing attorneys, without the knowledge of all the clients they represent. This rejection, according to court documents, suggests ulterior motives behind the liquidation attempt and raises questions about the true objectives of the proceedings.
The case has exposed what appears to be a concerning pattern of regulatory overreach. Banxso's legal team argues that the FSCA's actions, particularly its interpretation of Sections 251 and 252 of the FSRA, represent a dangerous precedent for how regulatory powers might be exercised in the future. The affidavit specifically challenges the FSCA's decision to share information from ongoing investigations, arguing that such disclosures should have been protected under Section 252's provisions. This includes interview transcripts that were incomplete and preliminary findings that had not yet been fully processed through the regulatory framework.
The financial services sector is watching the case closely, as its outcome could have far-reaching implications for regulatory governance and institutional accountability. Legal experts suggest that the court's decision could fundamentally reshape how regulatory bodies interact with private legal firms and handle confidential information obtained through their supervisory functions.
Banxso is seeking punitive costs against Mostert and Bosman, citing significant damage to their business operations through what they characterise as an "unlawful and abusive attempt" to liquidate a functioning financial services provider.
As this legal battle unfolds, it raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of regulatory authority and the safeguards necessary to prevent the misuse of regulatory powers in private legal proceedings. The industry awaits a resolution that could redefine the relationship between financial regulators and the entities they oversee, potentially setting crucial precedents for the protection of confidential information and the balance between regulatory oversight and private legal actions in South Africa's financial sector.
IOL