South Africa Advances Forex Rigging Trial Against JPMorgan, HSBC and Four Others

SOUTH AFRICA’S HIGHEST COURT CLEARS PATH FOR FOREX MANIPULATION TRIAL AGAINST SIX GLOBAL BANKS

Six global banks, including JPMorgan Chase and HSBC, now face substantive trial proceedings in South Africa’s long-running foreign exchange rigging case after the Constitutional Court issued a ruling Tuesday that narrows but preserves the Competition Commission’s core allegations. Justice Owen Rogers authored the decision, which rejected much of the Commission’s appeal while keeping the case alive for tribunal proceedings that could result in significant financial penalties.

Additional reference context is available at https://www.africanlawbusiness.com/news/major-south-africa-forex-rigging-case-moves-forward/.

The six institutions facing full proceedings are Investec, the Anglo-South African banking group; BNP Paribas; JPMorgan Chase and Co; JPMorgan Chase Bank NA; Standard Americas Incorporated; and HSBC Bank. The matter now returns to South Africa’s Competition Tribunal for the next phase of litigation.

The financial stakes are real. The Commission alleges that traders at multiple banks coordinated to manipulate the exchange rate between the US dollar and the South African rand across a seven-year window spanning 2007 to 2013. If the tribunal finds violations, the banks involved face penalties calibrated to the severity of the conduct and the harm caused to South African financial markets and currency traders during that period.

By contrast, the many other institutions originally named in the complaint have been dismissed from the action. Among the major African financial players now excluded are FirstRand and the Standard Bank of South Africa, both significant regional operators that had faced allegations in the original complaint. Their exit from the case represents a material reduction in the Commission’s original scope.

The case has consumed more than a decade of regulatory and judicial process. The Commission initiated the complaint in 2015, referred it to the Competition Tribunal in 2017, and the matter has since cycled through two rounds of proceedings at both the Tribunal and the Competition Appeal Court. Each stage has trimmed the defendant list, leaving the remaining six banks to answer the substantive allegations.

A Competition Commission spokesperson said the regulator was still analyzing the Constitutional Court’s judgment and would issue a comprehensive response at a later date, without specifying timing or outlining next strategic moves.

Meanwhile, the forex case is not the Commission’s only active enforcement front. Last month the regulator referred a separate complaint against Adcock Ingram Critical Care to the Competition Tribunal, alleging excessive pricing in the renal dialysis market. That referral signals continued regulatory pressure on market conduct across multiple sectors of the South African economy.

Whether the six remaining banks can further narrow the case at tribunal level, or whether the Commission’s evidence of trader collusion proves sufficient to sustain penalties, is the question the next phase of proceedings will have to answer.