Press Release - FSCA warns public against individuals impersonating Bovest Wealth Management (Pty) Ltd

Bovest Admin • July 24, 2024

FSCA Press Release                                                                                                                                                                                                                  22 July 2024


FSCA warns public against individuals impersonating Bovest Wealth Management (Pty) Ltd


The Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) warns the public to be cautious when conducting financial services business with an individual or group of individuals purporting to be Bovest Wealth Management (Pty) Ltd (Bovest Wealth) (FSP 35064) and its consulting specialist, Mr Godfried Kotze (Mr Kotze).


It was brought to the attention of the FSCA that certain individuals are using Telegram groups to solicit funds from members of the public by claiming to be associated with Bovest Wealth. The individuals behind the Telegram groups use the name of “Bovest Wealth” and “Mr Kotze” to solicit investment into amongst others, forex and Bitcoin. Members of the public are promised unrealistic returns on their investment.


Bovest Wealth has informed the FSCA that it does not use Telegram to market its services and has denied any association or relationship with the individuals using its name and that of Mr Kotze.


The public is urged to act with care when investing their funds. There are many fraudsters operating scams. South Africans loses millions of rands every year to fraudsters. Illegal operations are sometimes well-disguised as legitimate operations. The public is advised to be on the lookout for the tell-tale danger signs when dealing with persons offering attractive investment opportunities. These red flags include unrealistic returns that is offered, claims that the entity or person does not require an FSCA licence, vague information about the investment product, or the company that provides the financial product claims that the investor must act urgently, and requirements to pay more money over to have their investment returned to them. 


One of the following methods may be used to confirm the status and FSP number of a service provider or a person that claims to be an authorised service provider:


1) 1) Toll-free number: 0800 110 443


2) 2) Online search for authorised financial institution by license category: https://www.fsca.co.za/Regulated%20Entities/Pages/List-Regulated-Entities-Persons.aspx


3) 3) Online search for a financial institution that is an authorised FSP in terms of the FAIS Act: https://www.fsca.co.za/Fais/Search_FSP.htm END


Enquiries:

Financial Sector Conduct Authority

Email address: Communications@fsca.co.za

Telephone: 0800 203 722

Website: www.fsca.co.z

Download the original press release here
By Ruvan J Grobler July 24, 2026
Is investing offshore just for people who've given up on South Africa? I get some version of this question a lot, and the honest answer is no. It's really just about not keeping all your eggs in one rand-denominated basket. And it got a lot more relevant this year, because in April 2026 the Reserve Bank doubled the Single Discretionary Allowance from R1 million to R2 million per person, per year. That's a meaningful jump, and it's worth understanding properly before you use it. Here's how the allowance system actually works. Every South African resident over 18 gets a Single Discretionary Allowance of R2 million a year. No SARS approval, no tax clearance, you just instruct your bank and off it goes, for travel, gifts, or offshore investing. On top of that sits the Foreign Investment Allowance, up to another R10 million a year, but that one needs a SARS Approval for International Transfer first, which comes off your tax compliance status on eFiling. Between the two, that's R12 million per person, per year, without needing special Reserve Bank sign-off. A couple, or a family with adult kids, can add that up quickly. Worth knowing too, this is different from the rand-denominated offshore funds most people already hold through their local platforms. Those use asset swap or feeder structures, and your allowance never actually leaves the country. Direct offshore investing means the money physically converts to dollars, pounds or euros and sits in an account in your own name, offshore. Different animal, different mechanics. Side note: if you've got a retirement annuity, you already have some offshore exposure, Regulation 28 lets retirement funds hold up to 45% offshore. That's real diversification, but it's locked inside a retirement structure with its own rules on access and estate treatment. Using your personal allowance is a completely separate lever, money you actually hold in your own name, offshore, that you can access, restructure or leave to whoever you want without waiting for retirement age. Who actually uses this in practice? Families with kids studying or working abroad. People planning to retire partly offshore, or just wanting a foreign currency buffer for when they travel. Business owners who've built most of their wealth locally and want a real counterweight sitting outside the country. It's rarely about chasing better returns, it's about not having every asset you own exposed to the same risks at the same time. So why bother with the direct route? Two reasons come up in almost every conversation I have about this: currency, and geography. On currency, if your salary is in rand, your house is in rand and your whole portfolio is in rand, your entire financial life rises and falls with one currency. Holding some of your wealth in hard currency doesn't mean you think the rand is doomed, it just means you're not betting your whole future on one outcome either way. On geography, the JSE makes up less than 1% of total global stock market value. Some of the biggest growth stories in the world right now, in tech, in healthcare, aren't listed here at all. Investing offshore isn't a vote against South Africa, it's just access to the other 99%. Now here's a case worth knowing about, because it shows how badly this can go if someone tries to get clever with the rules instead of just following them. In Singh v South African Reserve Bank, decided by the Pretoria High Court in 2023, an attorney and businessman moved R80 million between local accounts, with about R20 million of it headed for a UK bank account. The problem wasn't the amount, it was how it moved, in R1 million chunks, each one apparently using someone else's Single Discretionary Allowance instead of his own. His bank picked it up and reported it to the Reserve Bank, who placed a blocking order on the remaining R40 million sitting in his account back home. He went to court arguing his bank had approved the transfers, so it must have been fine. The court didn't agree. A bank can't lawfully approve something that breaches exchange control in the first place, and the blocking order stood. If you genuinely need to move more than R2 million a year, that's exactly what the Foreign Investment Allowance is for. It just takes proper paperwork, not creativity.  A few practical things that catch people out: Your allowance resets every calendar year, it doesn't carry over if you don't use it. A clean SARS record matters. Outstanding returns or disputes will delay your approval, and it can take up to three weeks even when everything's in order. Financial institutions want proof of where the money actually came from, especially as the amount grows. Moving a big amount in one go means you're stuck with whatever the exchange rate happens to be that day, that's a separate risk from the compliance side, and worth thinking through. One more thing, since estate planning is where I spend most of my time. Assets held directly offshore, in your own name, usually fall under the estate administration rules of wherever they're held, not just South Africa's. That can mean your executor needs a foreign grant of probate before anything can be dealt with, on top of the local process. It doesn't mean don't do it. It just means the structure deserves as much thought as the decision to invest offshore in the first place. This is general information, not advice tailored to your situation. Ruvan J Grobler FSA® PGDip (Financial planning)
July 24, 2026
Die immigrantekwessie het die afgelope paar jaar een van die mees omstrede politieke en sosiale onderwerpe in Suid-Afrika geword. Openbare debat word dikwels aangevuur deur kommer oor werkloosheid, misdaad, druk op openbare dienste en die teenwoordigheid van ongedokumenteerde immigrante. In dieselfde asem waarsku navorsers dat 'n groot deel van die debat deur wanopvattings en emosies beïnvloed word eerder as deur feite. Kom ons kyk na die bekommernisse en die feite. Eerstens is daar opvattings oor die getal immigrante in Suid-Afrika. Volgens die jongste data het Suid-Afrika tussen ongeveer 2,4 en 2,6 miljoen buitelandsgebore inwoners. Dit verteenwoordig sowat vier persent van die totale bevolking van ongeveer 63 miljoen mense. Die grootste groepe kom uit Zimbabwe, Mosambiek, Lesotho en Malawi. Werkloosheid vorm 'n tweede bekommernis. Suid-Afrika het een van die hoogste werkloosheidskoerse ter wêreld. Baie Suid-Afrikansers ervaar dat immigrante werksgeleenthede wegneem, veral in die informele sektor, kleinhandel, konstruksie en landbou. Die oorsake van werkloosheid lê waarskynlik veel dieper en hou verband met swak ekonomiese groei, onvoldoende vaardighede, korrupsie en beperkte belegging. 'n Derde bekommernis is druk op openbare dienste. Hospitale, skole, behuisingsprojekte en munisipale dienste verkeer reeds, soos dit is, onder groot druk. Waar immigrante hierdie dienste gebruik, ontstaan die persepsie dat skaars hulpbronne verder uitgedun word. Dit is moeilik om die impak werklik te meet. 'n Vierde bekommernis hou verband met ongedokumenteerde immigrasie. Daar bestaan wydverspreide kritiek dat die staat nie sy grense doeltreffend beheer nie. Selfs mense wat positief teenoor immigrasie staan, erken dikwels dat beter administrasie en grensbeheer nodig is. 'n Vyfde bekommernis is misdaad en veiligheid. Sommige politieke groepe verbind immigrasie met misdaad. Statistiese bewyse toon egter nie dat immigrante as groep vir die meeste misdaad verantwoordelik is nie. Tog bly die persepsie sterk, veral in gemeenskappe wat reeds deur misdaad geteister word. Die debat word verder bemoeilik deur die verskil tussen wettige immigrante, vlugtelinge, asielsoekers en ongedokumenteerde persone. Hierdie groepe word dikwels in die openbare debat saamgegooi. Die immigrasievraagstuk gaan dus oor veel meer as net die persentasie immigrante. Dit raak die ekonomie, staatskapasiteit, grensbeheer en die publiek se vertroue in die regering. Die onderliggende probleme van werkloosheid, armoede en swak dienslewering bly waarskynlik die grootste drywers van die huidige spanning. 'n Volhoubare oplossing sal daarom waarskynlik beter immigrasiebestuur en sterker ekonomiese groei vereis. Geksryf deur Koos van die Waterberge vir Bovest