FIC Directive 12 sets tight RMCP submission deadlines for accountable institutions

Directive 12, issued under section 43A(1) of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001, requires accountable institutions listed in Schedule 1 items 1, 2, 3, 9, 11 (excluding banks, mutual banks, and co-operative bank credit providers), 14, 20, 21, and 22 to submit copies of their Risk Management and Compliance Programmes (RMCPs) to the FIC via its registration and reporting platform on an annual basis. Institutions under items 1, 2, 9, and 11 must submit by 9 October 2026 and annually by 9 October thereafter; those under items 3, 14, 20, 21, and 22 must submit by 31 October 2026 and annually by 31 October thereafter. New accountable institutions must submit within 90 days of commencing business, and any updated RMCP must be filed within 10 days of approval. Non-compliance exposes institutions to administrative sanctions under sections 61(c) and 45C of the FIC Act.

Liquidators of a company sought and obtained an order declaring the transfer of two motor vehicles to the first respondent void under s 341(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The vehicles had been transferred as part of a retrenchment package paid by the company while in financial distress. The first respondent applied for leave to appeal.

The court held: The court granted leave to appeal to the Full Court, finding reasonable prospects of success. It identified the question as novel and noted conflicting authority: the court a quo held the dispositions were not in the ordinary course of business, while Gainsford NO v Joubert held that such expenses are to be regarded as incurred in the ordinary course of a business in distress. The heightened threshold under s 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act was met.

Legal impact: The grant of leave signals that the Full Court will address a live conflict in authority on whether retrenchment-related dispositions by distressed companies are shielded from avoidance under s 341(2). A binding resolution could significantly affect how liquidators challenge pre-liquidation asset transfers and how employees or former employees retain benefits received from distressed employers. The substantive question remains open pending the appeal.