South Africa was accepted as a member of the FATF in June 2003 after it was evaluated and found to have developed a comprehensive legal structure to combat money laundering activities. SA hosted the presidency of the FATF in 2005/2006 which was chaired by the late Professor Kader Asmal.
An on-site FATF evaluation team was hosted by South Africa in August 2008; where SA’s full legal structure to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism was evaluated against the Recommendations issued by FATF. The mutual evaluation report has been published on the FATF portal (www.fatf-gafi.org).South Africa received a positive rating from the evaluation team and the FATF.
The following sections are not yet operational:
The Centre’s guidelines cannot impose new obligations or detract from existing obligations. The guidance notes are issued to provide guidance on the existing obligations and requirements contained in the FIC Act and Regulations, thus it cannot be enforceable in law, but merely prescribe an acceptable standard to indicate the level of efforts expected from responsible institutions in order to comply with the provisions of the FIC Act. The primary purpose is to provide guidance to institutions on how they can perform their duties and comply with their FIC Act obligations.
Although the Centre remains committed to assisting the various sectors in meeting their obligations and may be consulted from time to time to view material compiled by individuals and consultancies; the Centre has not endorsed and does not endorse any training product, software product and information and communication technology (ICT) processes or any services purported to be used for FIC Act compliance.
The term “accountable institution” is defined as a person referred to in Schedule 1 of the FIC Act. Thus a person or organisation that carries on the business of any entity listed in Schedule 1 of the Act would be regarded as an accountable institution.
A supervisory body is a functionary or institution referred to in Schedule 2 of the FIC Act, for example; an estate agent as defined in the Estate Agency Affairs Act 112 of 1976.
A reporting institution refers to a person referred to in Schedule 3 of the FIC Act, and could be either a motor vehicle dealer or a Kruger rand dealer.
An organisation’s status as an accountable institution is not influenced by whether or not it is supervised by a supervisory body listed in Schedule 2 of the FIC Act. Some institutions such as the Postbank are listed as accountable institutions but are supervised by the Centre as there is no dedicated supervisory body for such institution.
The Money Laundering Control Regulations defines “identification document” in respect of a natural person who is a citizen of, or resident in the republic, as an "official identity document".
The old identity documents cannot be construed as official identity documents. However, regulation 4 of the Money Laundering Control Regulations provides for exceptional cases where a person is unable to produce an official identity document. In such instances, the institution must be satisfied that the client has an acceptable reason for being unable to produce an official identity document and may then accept an alternative valid document, which contains the person’s:
The following are examples of documents that may be accepted in such exceptional circumstances as an alternative form of verification: