Foreigner assurance process integration with beneficial ownership

Beneficial ownership information by corporate vehicles registered with the CIPC, must be submitted to the Commission in terms of the amendments brought about by the General Laws (anti-Money Laundering and Combatting Terrorism Financing) Amendment Act, 22 of 2022.

The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) remains committed to customer service and the effective and efficient processing of beneficial ownership submissions and associated information.

On 1 December 2023, the CIPC launched the online Foreigner Assurance service on CIPC’s e-Services platform. The foreigner assurance process allows for foreign nationals to submit their information electronically together with a certified copy of their passport / foreign identity document to the CIPC for manual assurance or verification before they can transact with the CIPC on the various platforms.

As per Notice 64/2023 the Foreigner Assurance service will be phased into a number of services, including director amendments, new company registration and beneficial ownership filing, amongst others. We are pleased to inform our clients that the integration of the Foreigner Assurance process with the submission of Beneficial Ownership and associated information and/or documents, was released over the weekend of the 16th of February 2024. The integration process entails the BO-service validating against the Foreigner Assurance database, whether a foreign national (declared as beneficial owner) complied with the Foreigner Assurance process.

Foreign national information is only accepted and processed via the CIPC e-Services platform since BizPortal, Mobile App, and Self-Service Terminals are for South African Identity Card/Identity Document holders only.

The Foreigner Assurance Beneficial Ownership integration marks another step in the validation and verification process, to ensure correct, accurate and up to date information held on the CIPC registers.

The Step by Step Guide on the Foreigner Assurance service is available on the CIPC website.

Notice 13 of 2024

Beneficial ownership register

The FATF (Financial Action Task Force) recommendations pertaining to beneficial ownership transparency within South Africa, resulted in amendments to the Companies Act, 71 of 2008 (amongst other pieces of legislation), brought about by the General Laws (anti-money Laundering and Combatting Terrorism Financing) Amendment Act, 22 of 2022.

Subsequently, the CIPC launched its Beneficial Ownership Register on 1 April 2023, allowing for all corporate vehicles registered with the CIPC to file their beneficial ownership declarations. The complexity of the beneficial ownership concept necessitated the CIPC to allow for a platform whereby BO-filings could be reviewed and examined. It is with great pleasure that we announce the rollout of the CIPC Beneficial Ownership reviewer system, allowing for the examination and review of sample Beneficial Ownership filings, assisting and advising corporate vehicles on the correctness and accuracy of their filings.

Hand in hand with the review process is the concept of allowing for re-filing of incorrect or incomplete submissions, providing corporate South Africa with an opportunity to correct any mistakes and ensure compliance to the legislation. Beneficial ownership filings rejected/queried for whatever reason, may thus be re-filed. Filers will be notified via e-mail of any need for re-filing, once applications have been examined.

It remains the responsibility of each entity to ensure that they submit accurate, complete and verified BO information to the Commission. Providing false and inaccurate beneficial ownership information is an offence in terms of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008 (as amended) and enforcement action coupled with appropriate sanctions will apply if such is found.

The CIPC remains committed to play our part in the journey of removing South Africa from the FATF grey list, and providing an opportunity for compliant corporate vehicles to re-file where bona fide mistakes were made, assists in moving South Africa closer to realizing that goal.

Notice 12 of 2024

Erratum: Practice Notices 1- Proof of physical address of companies, and close corporations

This notice is issued in terms of Regulation 169(1) of the Companies Regulation, 2011, Section 23(3) of the Companies Act, 2008 (Act 71 of 2008) (“The Act”).

Section 23(3) of the Act states that each company or external company must continuously maintain at least one office in the Republic and register the address of its office, or its principal office if it has more than one office. As part of the CIPC’s drive to ensure the correctness and reliability of information submitted to it, the CIPC will require certified evidence of the registered address or its principal office to be submitted with the following applications as from 1 March 2024:-

  •  Registration of External Company (CoR20.1 and supporting documentation),
  •  Long Standard Form Profit Companies (Form CoR15.1B and supporting documentation),
  •  Long Standard Form Non-Profit Companies without members (Form CoR15.1D and supporting documentation),
  •  Long Standard Form Non-Profit Companies with members (Form CoR15.1E and supporting documentation),
  •  Application to Convert a Close Corporation (Form CoR16.1 and supporting documents);
    and
  • Application to Transfer Registration of Foreign Company (Form CoR17.1 and supporting documents).

Kindly refer to CIPC’s publications regarding the certification requirements on documentation and what is regarded as acceptable evidence of address.

The above will be effective from 1 March 2024.

Practice notice 1 of 2024

Acceptable proof of physical address in terms of requirements of practice note 1 of 2024

As per Practice Note 1 of 2024, the notice indicates acceptable proof of physical addresses of the list of services listed in the Practice Note. Practice Note 1 of 2024 will take effect on 1 March 2024 and non-adherence to the requirements will result in the application being rejected. If rejected, the deficiency within the application must be corrected and the entire application must be resubmitted as a single e-mail with all attachments in PDF and it must be e-mailed to companydocs@cipc.co.za.

Notice 10 of 2024

Delay in processing company and close corporation re-instatement applications (form COR 40.5) and responding to company and close corporation re-instatement and deregistration enquiries (CIPC online query management system)

Due to the final deregistration of companies and close corporation for non-compliance with Annual Returns during January 2024, high volumes of re-instatement applications (form CoR 40.5), and enquiries relating
to deregistrations, and re-instatements are experienced.

Due to these high volumes CIPC will not be able to adhere to the below service standards: –

  • Company and Close Corporation re-instatement applications (service standard is 3 working days from date of tracking);
  • Company and Close Corporation Deregistration Enquiries (service standard is 5 working days from logging the enquiry); and
  • Company and Close Corporation Re-instatement Enquiries (service standard is 5 working days from logging the enquiry).

CIPC understands that your business is important to you and that you would like to re-instate your
business as quickly as possible, but you are advised that a delay will be experienced. Kindly expect the
following delays: –

  • Company and Close Corporation re-instatement applications (10 working days from date of tracking);
  • Company and Close Corporation Deregistration Enquiries (service standard is 10 working days from logging the enquiry); and
  • Company and Close Corporation Re-instatement Enquiries (service standard is 10 working days from logging the enquiry).

We apologise for the inconvenience caused and are attending to these matters as quickly as possible

Notice 9 of 2024

Ruling by the high court regarding a claim of confidentiality in terms of S212 of the companies ACT, ACT 71 OF 2008 as amended G.U.D Holdings high court review ruling, case no 26738/2022.

Background

The Gauteng High Court in the matter between CIPC, the Companies Tribunal and G.U.D Holdings (Pty) Ltd ruled in favour of CIPC. It was a review application lodged by CIPC for review of a decision taken by the Companies Tribunal relating to the Commissions response to G.U.D’s claim of confidentiality. G.U.D had originally submitted its application on 14 September 2021 in which it claimed confidentiality of the entire contents of their annual financial statements for the financial year ending 30 June 2020. The Commission rejected the claim, and they filed an application for the review of the Commission’s decision to the Companies Tribunal. The Companies Tribunal upheld the review and granted the entity (G.U.D Holdings) the claim of confidentiality. It is against this background that the Commission then took the matter for review in the High Court as it was not in agreement with how the Companies Tribunal arrived at its decision of granting G.U.D the claim of confidentiality.

Substantive Legal Issues determined
This matter involved differing interpretations of various provisions of the Companies Act, which will not be dealt with in detail in this document. The main section, which informed this application, was the role and power of CIPC in terms of section 187 (4) (c) with regard to making information kept in its registers publicly available. The other part related to whether a company can withhold information to the Commission on which it is expected to pronounce on, when making an application in terms of section 212 of the Act. The entity in its application, redacted information relating to disclosure of directors remuneration. In terms of s30(4) –(6), the inclusion of this information in the annual financial statements is mandatory for entities which are required to have their annual financial statements audited in terms of the Companies Act. The entity met the criteria and ought to have included this information so that the Commission could apply its mind in making any ruling before it. The entity claimed confidentiality of the entire set of their annual financial statements which should include details on directors’ remuneration which is a mandatory disclosure applicable to the entity. The Companies Tribunal as the reviewer of the CIPC’s decision was however given the said information. The entity seemed to have pronounced on the confidentiality of this information while they were making an application to the Commission as it was redacted. This formed one of the grounds for the review application in that the decision maker should be provided with the information in order to enable him to execute his role.

The ruling also touched on the issue of privacy in terms of the Constitution and confidentiality. It emphasized that the terms are different and should be dealt with in that way. The Court also touched on the application of Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and the exceptions applicable when a public body is processing personal information in fulfillment of its powers, duties and functions in terms of the law.

Key points determined on review by the High Court:
That the Companies Tribunal made an error in law by making a decision on information, which was not given to the CIPC as the main decider of the fact. The court agreed with the CIPC and of the view that GUD did not comply with peremptory provisions of section 30(4)-(6) of the Act. The court was critical of GUD electing to redact parts of its AFS on its own, for purposes of claiming confidentiality. Material facts were absent when the decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Court also held that the Companies Tribunal erred by placing reverse onus on the Commission with regard to proving that the submitted information is not confidential. The onus was always on the applicant to prove that the information which related to the application they are making is confidential.

That the Companies Tribunal made an error in law by failing to differentiate between privacy and confidentiality of the information contained in the financial statements of GUD. That the quoted legislation supports the culture of openness and transparency and that disclosure of this information would not infringe upon those laws that the applicant is relying on, viz. (Constitution, Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) (Para [j] on page 33).

The Court also held that, overwhelming factors favouring transparency, openness, democracy in our legal and constitutional dispensation outweighed the issue of privacy and confidentiality in this matter, (Para F [14] under conclusion.

The court is not convinced that the Tribunal gave the issue of corporate transparency and governance sufficient importance given the importance and prominence it is given in S7 and Part C of the Act, PIAA, the Constitution. The court found that the Tribunal overemphasized the privacy rights at the expense of transparency.

Conclusion
The Companies Act 2008, Act 71 of 2008 as amended advocates for high levels of transparency and high standards of corporate governance. Companies during their existence interfaces with various stakeholders, especially labour, which means legal entities who exist in the threshold where they have a public interest element, there is a higher expectation for corporate disclosure. The ruling aligns with the efforts of the CIPC as a regulator to ensure transparency amongst corporates.

Ruling by the high court regarding a claim of confidentiality in terms of S212 of the companies ACT, ACT 71 OF 2008 as amended G.U.D Holdings high court review ruling, case no 26738/2022.

Court Judgment