What drew you to specialize in fintech, payments, crypto, and retirement fund regulation in South Africa?

I’m a person who enjoys innovation and a challenge and so what better way to marry innovation with law than to specialise in fintech and crypto? In fact, this space continues to be ever changing with newer innovations within the crypto world as well as its diversity in the different types including non-fungible tokens (NFTs), stablecoins, utility tokens and so forth. These areas specifically sit at the intersection of law, technology, and real-world financial impact. In South Africa in particular, these sectors are heavily regulated but also deeply innovative, which creates interesting legal and commercial challenges. I enjoy working in spaces where the law is still evolving and where good regulatory advice can enable innovation rather than block it.

Crypto and digital assets remain one of the most dynamic areas of financial regulation. From your experience advising global and regional crypto exchanges, what are the biggest regulatory hurdles foreign players face when entering the South African market?

One of the most significant hurdles is underestimating how localised South Africa’s regulatory framework is. Foreign players often assume that global compliance standards will automatically translate, but South Africa has very specific requirements under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 2002 (commonly known as FAIS), the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, and exchange control regulations. Licensing scoping, AML/CTF implementation, and local governance expectations are frequently more complex than anticipated, especially with the recent changes implemented from the FATF recommendations.

In practice, what we have observed is that operational barriers can be just as challenging as legal ones. For instance, what we have observed within the industry is that a number of foreign crypto exchanges often struggle to open local bank accounts, particularly where their risk profile is perceived as high or where there is limited local substance. Similarly, obtaining professional indemnity insurance - which is a mandatory requirement for Financial Services Providers licensed by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA), being the regulatory body responsible for overseeing the conduct of financial institutions - can be difficult for crypto-focused entities, as insurers remain cautious, skeptical or impose restrictive terms. These practical constraints can materially delay market entry and licensing, even where the legal framework itself is clear.

South Africa has adopted a more structured approach to crypto regulation in recent years. Do you think the current framework strikes the right balance between innovation and investor protection?

Overall, yes — though it is still maturing. Bringing crypto asset service providers (CASPs) within the FAIS framework has provided regulatory certainty and improved consumer protection without banning or over-prescribing the technology itself. The challenge going forward will be proportionality. The FSCA, in its capacity as conduct regulator, will need to continue distinguishing between different business models and risk profiles so that innovation is not unintentionally stifled by compliance designed for traditional financial institutions.

A practical example of this balance is how CASPs have been brought into the FAIS framework without prescribing the underlying technology. Instead of banning or over-regulating crypto activities, the FSCA has focused on conduct, disclosure, and governance obligations. This balance allows innovation to continue while still ensuring that consumers receive appropriate disclosures, complaints handling, and regulatory oversight. In addition, the FSCA’s regulatory sandbox plays a significant role in that, it allows fintech and crypto businesses to test new products or business models in a controlled environment, with regulatory engagement and appropriate safeguards in place. For example, a firm exploring a novel crypto payments or custody solution can engage the FSCA early, refine its compliance approach, and address consumer protection concerns before scaling commercially.

Together, these mechanisms signal a regulatory philosophy that aims to enable responsible innovation rather than stifle it. That said, the ongoing challenge will be ensuring proportionality, particularly for smaller or lower-risk business models, so that compliance obligations remain aligned with actual consumer and systemic risk.

You regularly advise banks, pension funds, and fintechs on licensing and regulatory structuring. What are the most common compliance blind spots you see across these institutions?

A recurring blind spot is the gap between governance on paper and governance in practice. Many institutions have well-drafted policies, but weaker implementation, oversight, and escalation mechanisms. Another issue is underestimating cross-functional regulatory risk — for example, treating AML, data protection, and conduct regulation as separate silos when regulators increasingly assess them holistically. In fintechs, licensing scoping errors and informal product evolution without regulatory reassessment are particularly common.

A practical example of what I’m talking about and what we have seen, is product or process changes being implemented by business teams without a corresponding regulatory reassessment. For instance, a fintech may start out offering a narrowly scoped payments service but gradually introduce wallet functionality, crypto exposure, or credit-like features. While each change may seem incremental, together they can push the business into a different regulatory category, triggering new licensing, capital, or conduct obligations that are only identified after the fact. This also speaks to the fact that many institutions fail to harmonise the product introduction process and only involve Compliance near the end or once a product is launched.

Another common issue is the siloed treatment of compliance risks. AML, data protection, and conduct requirements are often managed separately, even though regulators increasingly assess them holistically. In pension funds, this can manifest in strong governance structures at board level, but inconsistent member communication or service provider oversight, which ultimately undermines the intended member-centric outcomes.

 What major regulatory reforms do you expect in South Africa’s pension law and financial services sector, and how might they impact retirement funds and fintech?

We have already seen a significant reform with the implementation of the two-pot retirement system implemented in September 2024. The legislator’s rationale for this reform was to strike a balance between protecting long-term retirement savings while allowing limited, controlled access for individuals facing genuine financial distress. The trend observed by the State was that a number of people would resign from their employment in order to receive a lumpsum of payment to pay for arising debts or liabilities and then when retirement comes, their savings have been severely depleted and they become a burden on the State as South Africa provides grants to pensioners in order to sustain those without savings. Consequently, from a policy perspective, this reform reflects the State’s recognition that rigid preservation can create hardship, while still maintaining the primary objective of retirement funds which is long-term income security.

Looking ahead however, we are awaiting the promulgation of the Conduct of Financial Institutions (COFI) Bill, which will be one of the most impactful reforms across the broader financial services sector. A key development under COFI is the introduction of the Omni-Risk Return approach, which reflects the FSCA’s shift towards outcomes-based regulation. Rather than focusing only on narrow risk categories, financial institutions will be expected to assess and manage risk holistically across products, customers, and distribution channels, with a clear emphasis on fair customer outcomes. They have started rolling out the implementation of this Return in phases.

From a retirement fund perspective, COFI will also bring public sector retirement funds within the ambit of the Pension Funds Act, 1956. This is a significant shift, as it means these funds will become subject to the governance, conduct, and investment limits under Regulation 28. The practical impact is substantial particularly in relation to asset allocation, governance structures, and compliance oversight, which means that a number of public sector retirement funds will need to adjust their operating models accordingly; alternatively request exemptions from certain provisions having regard to the size of the fund, its assets under management and the investment strategies they have employed in the past years which have yielded the requisite returns for their members.

For both retirement funds and fintechs operating in this space, these reforms signal a move towards greater accountability, transparency, and consumer-centric design, while also increasing the regulatory and operational sophistication required to remain compliant.

Having worked closely with regulators and contributed to policy development, what role do you believe lawyers should play in shaping financial sector reforms beyond advisory work?

Lawyers should act as translators and contributors, not just technicians. What do I mean by this? Well, beyond advising clients, as legal practitioners we have a responsibility to engage with the relevant regulators, participate in consultations and actively comment on proposed legislation as and when it gets published for comment, and provide practical insights into how proposed rules will operate in reality. Most often than not, having worked with a variety of clients within the financial services sector, you become au fait with the manner in which business runs and whether a certain piece of legislation can be practically implemented and sometimes non-issues are being cured whilst stifling progress holistically. As a legal practitioner who is then exposed to how financial institutions work, you are better placed to try and influence policy by participating in the legislative process instead of taking a laissez-faire attitude. Good financial regulation benefits from legal input that is commercially informed and implementation-focused, rather than purely theoretical.

Financial regulation is often perceived as complex and rigid. How do you translate dense regulatory requirements into commercially workable solutions for clients?

I start by understanding the client’s actual business model and risk appetite before looking at the regulation. The rule of thumb with law, especially litigation, is that what you have working for you is knowing the facts of the case; likewise understanding a client’s business model and what they wish to achieve with the model is usually the first port of call. Once you understand what the client is really trying to do, the regulation becomes a design constraint rather than a blocker. I focus on explaining regulatory requirements in plain language, mapping them to operational steps, and identifying where flexibility exists. The goal is always compliance that supports the business, not compliance for its own sake.

That said, there are instances when a particular product or service as designed is at odds with the law and in such a case, you advise the client of the pitfalls and where alternatives to the model can be implemented you include those in your recommendations.

With AML/TF compliance becoming more stringent, particularly for fintechs and crypto businesses, what practical steps should early-stage companies prioritise to stay ahead of regulatory expectations?

Early-stage companies should prioritise getting the basics right early rather than retrofitting later; like the English saying says: prevention is better than cure. This includes clearly scoping their regulatory perimeter which can be done using tools like jurisdictional questionnaires where an entity operates or wishes to operate in multiple jurisdictions, appointing accountable compliance leadership, implementing risk-based customer due diligence, and building transaction monitoring that matches their product risk. The FSCA, in our experience, is less concerned with perfection and more concerned with whether a business understands its risks and is actively managing them.

You have also shown a strong interest in estate planning and deceased estates. Why do you think estate planning remains overlooked despite its significant legal and personal implications?

Estate planning forces people to confront uncomfortable topics such as death, incapacity, and family dynamics which many prefer to postpone and/or never broach at all especially in African families. There is also a misconception that estate planning is only for the wealthy or elderly. In reality, it is about control, clarity, and reducing burden on loved ones, regardless of the size of the estate because as long as you have a salary and a few assets, you have an estate.

Why is estate planning especially important for people holding digital assets and crypto?

Digital assets introduce unique risks: private keys, platform access, and jurisdictional complexity. Without proper planning, assets can be permanently lost or inaccessible on death. Traditional estate planning tools often do not adequately address these issues, which makes proactive planning essential to ensure digital assets can be identified, accessed, and transferred lawfully, especially upon death.

From your experience speaking on wills and succession, what is the most common misconception people have about estate planning?

That a will alone is sufficient. While a will is critical, effective estate planning also involves beneficiary nominations, structuring of assets, liquidity planning, and consideration of tax and administration processes. A will is a starting point, not a complete solution.

In addition, what I have come to see is that people don’t understand the hidden costs that creep up upon their death which leaves their beneficiaries in a worse off place financially even for those individuals who have paid off all their assets including property and vehicles. For instance, whilst the estate is being unwound there are maintenance expenses that remain such as rates & taxes as well as levies (if you leave in a gated community) on a monthly basis. Where one’s estate exceeds R250 000, the Master’s Office cannot unwind such an estate and an attorney is required to unwind. If the estate is not liquid and is only tied up in physical assets, you have a risk of those hard-earned assets being sold off to pay for expenses incurred in the winding up of an estate.

Estate planning also speaks to creating wealth and preserving it which is why it is best to start doing it whilst you are young and building your estate; this allows you to be in control of structuring it correctly in a manner that benefits you and your beneficiaries.

Finally, for young lawyers interested in financial services regulation, fintech, or pensions law, what skills or experiences should they intentionally build to remain relevant in this rapidly changing field?

The most important thing young lawyers can do is to get comfortable sitting slightly outside their comfort zone. Trust me, the one thing being in the financial services regulatory space has taught me is that it is very dynamic and ever-changing, just when you think you’ve got the hang of one thing, something new comes up however if you enjoy challenges like me and coming up with solutions to problems, then this is definitely the field to be in because it does not remain static. In fact, it is a niche area to work in. Of importance, is that financial regulation is not just about reading legislation — it’s about understanding how businesses actually operate.

Practically, my advice to young lawyers  would be to build three things early on. First, strong regulatory literacy — not just knowing the law, but understanding why it exists and how regulators think. This can also be achieved by building a network with colleagues who work within the regulator to better understand certain concepts. In South Africa, we are also fortunate that the FSCA publishes interpretation notices as well as guidance notices to elaborate on certain pieces of legislation. These primarily deal with the practical effect of the legislation on financial institutions.

Second, commercial awareness. Ask how a product makes money, how risk is priced, and what happens if something goes wrong. That perspective is what allows you to give advice that is actually usable.This is information you can glean directly from the client and then you can slowly understand how each piece of the puzzle comes together in the client’s business model. Third, communication skills matter enormously. The ability to explain complex regulatory requirements in plain language (which we generally take for granted), whether to a client, a board, or a non-legal colleague, is what distinguishes trusted advisors from technical specialists. Clients want to work with people who understand what they do and can provide practical advice to practical problems they are facing. So, if you are able to articulate the law into a language they understand, you have won them over. It’s a basic rule of life: know your audience and pitch to them at their level.

Finally, stay curious. Fintech, crypto, and pensions law evolve constantly. The lawyers who remain relevant are those who actively engage with change, follow regulatory developments closely, and are willing to learn across disciplines rather than staying narrowly siloed.