The full might of the conduct regulator on display
The Financial Sector Conduct Authority delayed news of its largest administrative penalty yet to the cusp of the 2025-2026 holidays. In a December 2025 press release, FSCA Commissioner Unathi Kamlana confirmed a R2 billion administrative penalty against Banxso (Pty) Limited and its directors, Harel Sekler and Warwick Sneider, jointly and severally.
Multi-decade debarments
A fine of R20 million was imposed on another director, Manuel de Andrade, and fines of R10 million and R5 million on key individuals Mohammed Bux and Henry Simpson respectively. The FSCA also debarred Sekler, Sneider, De Andrade and Bux for 30 years and Simpson for 10 years. These tough steps were a long time coming and should not deflect from the significant financial harm caused by a business that had little interest in regulatory compliance beyond window-dressing.
The FSCA fired the first warning shot in this case as early as 19 April 2024 in a follow-on from a prior public warning against Immediate Matrix. In April 2024, the authority informed the public that it was investigating possible contraventions of financial sector laws by Banxso, an authorised Category I financial services provider (FSP) with licence number 37699. “The investigation follows several complaints in relation to the conduct of Banxso,” they wrote, adding that no findings had yet been made. Banxso was reportedly co-operating with the investigation.
Over the ensuing 20-odd months, consumers became bystanders as the typical progression from investigation to official warning to full-blown censure played out. By 16 October 2024, the FSCA provisionally withdrew Banxso’s licence, saying that based on its preliminary investigations into the brand’s activities it was “concerned that there may be a risk of harm to clients and / or the general public if it continued its operations…” It also noted a “possible association” between Banxso and the aforementioned Immediate Matrix, which had been flagged for running deepfake advertisements late in 2023.
Deepfakes featuring billionaires
Your writer struggled to track down the text of the Immediate Matrix warning online but found a copy of the original presser in his inbox. In that write-up, the FSCA warned the public that Immediate Matrix was offering financial services without the required authorisation.
“Entities offering investments in financial products to South African citizens and / or within South Africa must be authorised by the FSCA; Immediate Matrix is not authorised in terms of any financial sector law…” they wrote. They also alleged that the entity was using deepfake images of high-profile individuals, including Elon Musk and Patrice Motsepe, in its marketing.
Returning to its October 2024 action, the FSCA criticised the “aggressive and pressurised sales techniques [being applied] by Banxso agents when selling financial products to clients”, including the usual ‘tells’ of unrealistic returns. Sales agents were also doing little to comply with FAIS Act Fit and Proper requirements such as conducting financial needs and risk analyses prior to placing clients in financial products. It also emerged that the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) had placed holds on seven Banxso bank accounts.
An update on Banxso’s website informed clients of its licence withdrawal: “We are no longer authorised to offer or facilitate any financial services or products; all trading activities have ceased, and we are no longer accepting deposits or executing transactions on behalf of clients.” The update noted the gravity of the situation; the firm’s commitment to transparency, regulatory co-operation and the fair treatment of all clients; and categorically denied all allegations of financial misconduct, data breaches or fraudulent marketing activities.
Not fit and proper
It took a further nine months for the FSCA to complete the necessary investigation, including considering Banxso’s submission to contest the provisional licence withdrawal, before making the withdrawal final from July 2025. “The FSCA is of the view that Banxso contravened various financial sector laws in a material manner and that it no longer meets the fit and proper requirements to be a financial services provider,” they wrote. The long list of transgressions included misappropriation of client funds; providing false and / or misleading information to clients and the regulator; promising unrealistic returns; and not acting in the best interests of clients.
Per Banxso website update, the Western Cape High Court granted a provisional liquidation order against the firm in August 2025. “We strongly disagree with this ruling and are actively challenging the order through all available legal remedies, including appeals,” Banxso wrote, adding that its clients’ interests were paramount, and that it would do everything necessary to secure a just and equitable outcome and prevent the dissipation of client funds. Alas, things played out differently.
More details emerged in the administrative penalty notice mentioned in our opening paragraph. According to the FSCA, Banxso and its key persons materially contravened a long list of legislation, including:
- Financial Sector Regulation Act, No. 9 of 2017;
- Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No. 37 of 2002;
- General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial Services Providers and Representatives, 2003;
- Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Act, No. 28 of 2001;
- Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for Financial Services Providers, 2017; and
- Financial Markets Act Regulations, 2018.
Promising unfeasible returns
The extent of the administrative penalty levied against this business reflects the serious nature of its transgressions. As many before it, Banxso aggressively courted clients using deception, including deepfake celebrity endorsements, and a sales process designed to convince desperate and poorly educated consumers that they would make quick and safe returns. This hard-sell approach only works absent FAIS Act consumer protections such as financial needs analyses, risk profiling and plain-language disclosures.
Although welcome, the multi-year outcome in this case again raises concerns over the FSP licensing process that financial consumers have come to rely on. Licence-based trust risks being eroded when supervision and enforcement lag behind rapidly evolving business models. A valid FSP licence may satisfy a threshold requirement, but it does not, on its own, prevent misconduct. Consumers should also be wary of international footprints and licences used in local firms’ marketing efforts. These ‘bells and whistles’ do not change a firm’s legal obligations in South Africa, nor do they prevent the misappropriation of client funds.
Another uncomfortable reality is that this story does not begin and end with one brand. As Banxso came under scrutiny, Afrimarkets emerged as a related platform offering similar products, using similar methods and linked through overlapping leadership and operational footprints. Its licence was also withdrawn.
The regulatory implication here is that enforcement cannot stop at a single entity or a single set of directors. It has to follow the lead sources, marketing pipeline and movement of staff and client books. It would help too, for local regulators to share their lists of censured individuals with other countries to prevent these individuals simply setting up offshore.
Is jail time a better deterrent?
For consumers, the lesson is straightforward. You should steer clear of any opportunity that promises easy money or excessive returns. And you should proceed cautiously if the adviser ‘pushing’ a product glosses over the all-important financial needs and risk assessments.
In arriving at the R2 billion-plus-change administrative penalty, the FSCA said it had considered the financial benefit that Banxso and its key persons derived from their unlawful conduct, including the extent to which client funds were misappropriated; the gains accumulated through misleading practices; and the overall economic advantage obtained.
As a final deterrent to would-be transgressors, the FSCA indicated that it had reported the matter to the South African Police Service (SAPS) and undertook to share evidence and assist the SAPS where necessary, if requested. Your writer reckons jailtime is more fitting punishment than a fine that is unlikely to be paid.
Writer’s thoughts:
Enforcement outcomes matter less to clients than the recovery of lost capital. Would a greater focus on criminal prosecution improve outcomes for South African financial consumers? Please comment below, interact with us on X at @fanews_online or email us your thoughts [email protected].
