Within South Africa’s evolving financial regulatory landscape, global financial institutions play an increasingly critical role in shaping anti-economic crime strategies and fostering financial stability. This paper undertakes a multi-dimensional analysis of the coordinated and individual contributions of the Institute of International Finance (IIF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) in mitigating economic crime. While the discussion draws on global policy frameworks and innovation models, it remains rooted in the South African context , examining national legal instruments, regulatory sandboxes, and fintech developments. Case studies from South Africa and peer jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Nigeria, and Singapore offer comparative insight into sandbox mechanisms. Ultimately, the paper evaluates how international institutions influence domestic frameworks and provides South Africa-focused recommendations for regulatory enhancement.
Globally, juvenile offender diversion and rehabilitation, as opposed to retribution, are the norm. It is rooted within restorative justice approaches, which strive to ensure their responsibility and accountability for crimes committed. In 1997, the South African Law Reform Commission highlighted that a restorative justice approach was of great importance to restore legitimacy to the criminal justice system and to assist in the fight against crime. Three years later it was proposed that, in addition to traditional punitive measures, restorative justice measures should be considered in all criminal cases. Yet, little progress ensued outside the child justice system. In this paper we argue that the gap existing between the child and adult justice systems could not be justified and should be narrowed, and that the taking of responsibility, via a diversion option, should also be encouraged amongst adult offenders. The benefits and challenges of such practice for both offenders and victims are explored, whereafter national and selected international (e.g. Victoria and Queensland in Australia) procedural avenues towards adult offender accountability are investigated. It is proposed that adult diversion should be actively promoted and that legislation in this regard be considered. Extending legislated diversion mechanisms to adult offenders will not only broaden the use of restorative justice principles within the South African criminal justice landscape, but will, when offenders participate, contribute to their dignity and well-being and thereby underscores a core constitutional value. Finally, by showing accountability, they will demonstrate respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. This aspect of restorative justice targeting adult diversion will serve to strengthen existing focus on rehabilitation during incarceration and Throughcare programming on release into the community.
This case discussion examines the significance and application of the distinction between rights disputes and interests disputes in labour law, using the recent ruling in SACCAWU v Phala (JA136/23) [2024] ZALAC 62 (27 November 2024) (Woolworths case) as a focal point. The study traces how this fundamental dichotomy has shaped labour relations development from the Industrial Court era to the current Labour Relations Act framework. It demonstrates how the Woolworths case exemplifies this distinction’s continuing utility and growing complexity. The case originated from Woolworths’ strategic shift from full-time to flexi-time employment, leading to disputed retrenchments and ultimately a Constitutional Court ruling of unfair dismissal. The subsequent Labour Appeal Court judgment mainly illuminates how modern workplace disputes often resist simple categorisation as either rights or interests disputes. The analysis reveals that while the Labour Relations Act does not explicitly codify the distinction, it effectively operationalises it through its regulatory framework and dispute-resolution mechanisms. The research concludes that this distinction remains valuable for determining appropriate dispute resolution methods but requires increasingly nuanced application in contemporary contexts. It furthermore recommends more explicit legislative guidance with a view on addressing hybrid disputes and suggests developing specialised mechanisms for cases that contain elements of both rights and interests disputes.
Technology pervades every aspect of modern-day life, and the legal landscape is no exception. A prime example is the issue of electronic wills. Being excluded from the ambit of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002, e-wills are currently a grey area in South Africa, with no laws governing them. Until this changes, a proper understanding of section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 – the so-called condonation provision – offers a way to accommodate electronic wills. Yet section 2(3) faces certain challenges relating to its interpretation and application, particularly as it pertains to electronic documents. This contribution presents an overview of MacDonald, Van der Merwe and Dryden three instances where the South African courts were called upon to adjudicate matters involving the condonation of electronic documents. Unfortunately, these judgments did little in the way of providing clarity, and Dryden, in particular, dashed all hope of certainty surrounding the condonation of electronic documents. In search of solutions, the paper examines Faber’s proposed act-based model as well as the current approach in Australia. The act-based model is suggested as a way to crystallise what our courts should be focusing on in adjudicating condonation applications, namely the act of testation, which comprises the written manifestation of the testator’s dispositive intention along with animus testandi. The two-part intention requirement in Australian law offers solid substantiation for this. Another lesson to be drawn from the Australian approach is the need for a broad statutory definition of “document” that includes various electronic forms, such as computer files, messages on mobile phones, and emails. This flexibility would better meet society’s evolving needs in a digital era and would help our courts establish the scope of application of the condonation provision. If South African law wishes to keep pace with international e-will trends, it will have to adapt and make more adequate provision forelectronic wills.
The rapid adoption of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) has revolutionised the digital art and collectibles markets. NFTs present novel opportunities for creators and investors alike. However, with such opportunities also comes the risk of money laundering through NFTs. The South African digital art market has not been spared from the rising phenomenon of NFTs. This rising phenomenon has brought with it questions regarding whether the South African anti-money laundering (AML) regime can adequately counter the challenge of money laundering through NFTs. This is particularly so if one considers that, generally, the AML regulatory framework for NFTs is still nascent, not only in South Africa, but also globally. Thus, this contribution comparatively examines the AML regulation of NFTs in South Africa to establish the adequacy and efficacy of the country’s AML regime. The paper concludes that while NFTs are still new, they can be dealt with under the blanket regulation for crypto assets and in specific use cases, AML regulations may be applied to them.
