Local and international banks are facing accusations of complicity in corruption, allegedly enabling criminal syndicates to funnel illicit funds without proper scrutiny or reporting of suspicious transactions.
The allegations came from the Public Service and Commercial Union of South Africa (PSCU).
The PSCU asserts that banks only close suspicious accounts and blacklist corrupt companies after profiting significantly from illicit transactions, often when it’s too late to prevent the financial damage.
PSCU secretary general Tahir Maepa stated that banks are not held sufficiently accountable for their role in facilitating corruption.
Maepa highlighted that criminal syndicates, such as those implicated in the R2 billion fraud at Gauteng’s Tembisa Hospital, could not have succeeded without bank transactions.
However, the Banking Association South Africa (BASA), which represents over 30 commercial banks operating in South Africa, said it was not aware of Maepa’s allegations as it does not have direct access to each bank’s dealings with depositors.
BASA said that although they are obligated in terms of Section 29 of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA) 38 of 2001 to report suspicious transactions, these reports are confidential and inaccessible to them.
“Following the submission of a report, the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) is required to perform the necessary analysis to confirm the suspicion and take the necessary steps thereafter, which includes referral to law enforcement.
“In the circumstances, the relevant authorities are best placed to comment regarding the investigation of reports submitted to them,” said BASA.
The South African Banking Risk Information Centre did not respond to questions sent to it on Friday.
Among FICA’s requirements was that financial institutions report on the transactions of cash above the threshold of R50,000 and terrorist property.
FIC’s Acting Director, Adv Pieter Smit, said these requirements and obligations are regularly communicated to the institutions.
Smit said the FIC expects accountable institutions, which are directly involved in transactions with their clients, to identify and report suspicious and unusual activities and transactions.
“As part of their risk management and mitigation measures, accountable institutions are required to be vigilant and sceptical regarding the source of large or unusual funds received by recently formed businesses, or recently established entities with limited operational history, that secure business through government tender processes.
“The FIC is well-positioned with its analytical systems and tools to analyse and assess the activities and transactions reported to it,” said Smit.
He said it was not envisaged that the Special Investigating Unit’s report would immediately impact and have an effect on FATF’s decision on whether South Africa is to exit the grey list.
He said FATF’s decision on whether South Africa is to exit the grey list this month will depend on the competency of supervisors and law enforcement authorities’ effectiveness in addressing suspicious illegal financial activities.
“Such issues through demonstrated management and mitigation measures may be the subject of scrutiny by the assessors in the next FATF mutual evaluation of South Africa, which is anticipated to commence in June or July 2026.”
South Africa recently exited the grey list in October 2025, after being placed on it in February 2023 by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) due to inadequate anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) systems within its financial institutions.
Maepa accused banks of deliberately neglecting their FICA obligations by ignoring large deposits without questioning the sources of funds.
He argued that banks, while purportedly concerned about reputation when closing accounts of black entrepreneurs and organisations, are actively complicit in aiding criminal syndicates.
Maepa further stated that despite FICA legally obliging banks to report suspicious transactions, billions flowed from a public hospital to a network of front companies and into luxury assets without triggering alarms, calling this “complicity, not oversight”.
He said the failure by the banks to help in the fight against corruption was not limited to South Africa, but was happening across the world.
He cited the Gupta family’s alleged looting of Eskom, Transnet, and other SOEs using both local and foreign bank accounts.
Maepa said banks profit from criminal transactions until they are exposed, of which their punishment was only fines, “but rarely face true accountability”.
“Unless South Africa tackles not only corrupt officials but also the financial enablers, the looting will never stop. The bloodstream of corruption runs through our banks.”
Maepa said the fight against corruption should be global, as the Guptas and those who looted VBS, and Tembisa used global banks, “so too did HSBC, Danske, and others abroad”.
He described the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) report on Tembisa Hospital tenders as resembling a mafia movie script in which syndicates manipulated procurement, created shell companies, and invoiced for goods that never arrived.
Maepa also commented on the alleged corruption at the Government Pension Administration Agency (GPAA), which led to the suspension of its chief financial officer, Kgaile Molebatsi, and acting chief director for client relations management, Eric Morudu.
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana also instituted an investigation into the alleged corruption activities at the GPAA, which manages pension funds for about 1.7 million government employees.
“Billions in workers’ pensions were at stake, (but) it took the vigilance of the PSCU to blow the whistle and demand urgent intervention by the Minister of Finance.
“Without that intervention, another Tembisa-scale disaster would have been written into the obituary of our state,” said Maepa.
Maepa urged Parliament to summon bank CEOs to explain their failure to detect corrupt money despite their “sophisticated systems”.
He said the SIU and the National Prosecuting Authority must be fully resourced to deal with economic crimes.
“Financial institutions must face not just fines but criminal liability for facilitating money laundering, whether by negligence or design.
“If we continue to treat corruption as the misdeeds of a few rotten officials, we will lose. The laundering of stolen public money through banks is the bloodstream of state capture,” said Maepa.
Dr Reneva Fourie, a policy analyst specialising in governance, development, and security, said criminal syndicates could not have operated without financial channels to move illicit money.
She said the banks were failing their responsibility to stop suspicious transactions
“Cash on this scale does not only travel in suitcases, (but) it moves invisibly through wire transfers, layered accounts, shell companies, and trade-based laundering schemes, often disguised as legitimate commerce.
“That such flows were not detected or were overlooked speaks to either gross negligence or deliberate complicity within the financial sector,” said Fourie.
However, economist Khulekani Mathe differed and exonerated banks from wrongdoing.
“FICA specifies the responsibility of the banks that if they suspect that there are suspicious transactions, they are required not to investigate, but to report those to the authorities, which must investigate.
“I don’t work for any of the individual banks, but I can tell you that banks do their part in terms of detecting and reporting suspicious financial transactions if they happen, and then it is up to legal authorities to investigate,” said Mathe.
