Banking

Showdown for South Africa’s biggest banks accused of manipulating the rand

Staff Writer

 ·19 Aug 2025

The Constitutional Court will hear the Competition Commission’s bid to overturn a court ruling clearing major banks of wrongdoing in a decade-long rand manipulation case.

The Constitutional Court laid out a summary of the case, which it will be heard from Tuesday, 19 August, to Friday, 22 August.

It noted that a key question that will be answered in the proceedings is whether the Competition Commission has jurisdiction over the foreign banks named in the alleged conspiracy.

The commission launched a case against 28 banks since 2015, including the big local banks and many other international banks, alleging that they colluded with each other to fix the foreign exchange rate in respect of the US Dollar and the South African Rand currency pair.

The commission said that the allegations the banks face include:

• Colluding on the USD/ZAR currency pair by fixing bids, offers, bid-offer spreads, the spot exchange rate, and the exchange rate at the FIX.

• Dividing markets by allocating customers in terms of which one trader withholds or pulls their existing bid or offer from the market to allow the other trader to execute and complete their trade.

• Cartel behaviour: Buying and selling money on behalf of their clients as well as on their own behalf – either buying or selling USD with ZAR or ZAR with USD – and fixing the buying and/or selling price of these currencies and fixing the spread (profit margin);

• Traders taking turns to buy or sell currencies or giving each other opportunity to buy or sell currencies without interference from each other.

The matter went back and forth between the commission, Tribunal and Appeal Court between 2015 and 2020, with jurisdiction being a major sticking point.

In 2023, the banks were finally ordered by the Competition Tribunal to file their answering affidavits in response to the commission’s complaint.

Instead, they objected to the order and appealed it to the CAC in 2024, which upheld the appeal for a majority of the banks.

Constitutional showdown

The CAC criticised the commission’s case for being vague, full of contradictions and conflating trader conduct across different entities.

There were also gaps elsewhere, such as accused traders allegedly acting before being employed at implicated banks.

At the time, the Competition Commission argued that the banks were released from the complaint referral before they answered any of the allegations against them.

This pushed it to apply for leave to appeal with the ConCourt.

The CAC’s ruling had the effect of letting most of the respondent banks off the hook. Only four appeals were dismissed, leaving the commission with only four cases to be answered.

These were cases related to: BNP Paribas, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Credit Suisse Securities and HSBC Bank Plc. The commission wants the CAC ruling overturned so all the other banks can be implicated once more.

The banks named by the commission continue to deny wrongdoing and are asking the ConCourt to throw the case out.

In filings, big banks in South Africa like Standard Bank and FirstRand said that they had suffered reputational and financial harm because of the commission’s claims.

The commission says that none of the banks suffer prejudice by being required to answer the case.

It said that any deficiencies can be addressed in a trial, where evidence will be tested. It maintained that it has presented a prima facie case that the banks have to answer to.

Of the 28 banks initially pursued by the Competition Commission, this is their current state in the context of the investigation.