Cartel, Courts, and Currency: Inside South Africa’s Longest-Running Bank Collusion Case

In this piece for the African Antitrust blog, authors Matthew Freer, Astra Christodoulou & Natasha Reib share insights from the Constitutional Court of South Africa’s June 30, 2026 judgment in a decade-long dispute concerning allegations that up to 18 local and international banks participated in a Single Overarching Conspiracy (SOC) to manipulate the USD/ZAR exchange rate between 2007 and 2013. The case concerned alleged violations of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act, which prohibits restrictive horizontal practices including price fixing, market allocation, and collusive tendering.

The authors examine the procedural battles surrounding the Commission’s referral, including whether additional respondents could be joined after the initial referral. The Constitutional Court confirmed that neither the Competition Act nor the Tribunal Rules creates an absolute bar to post-referral joinder and that the Commission need not begin an entirely new complaint whenever another respondent is identified. The Court also clarified that allegations of an SOC must contain sufficient material facts to establish a prima facie case that each respondent intentionally participated in the alleged conspiracy.

The judgment also addressed the Competition Tribunal’s jurisdiction over foreign banks. While the Commission argued that any effect within South Africa was sufficient to establish jurisdiction, the Court declined to revisit the Competition Appeal Court’s earlier interpretation requiring adequate connecting factors between foreign respondents and South Africa. The principles of res judicata and peremption prevented the Commission from reopening an issue that had already been finally decided, reinforcing the importance of legal certainty and finality in competition proceedings.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling did not determine whether the banks actually participated in the alleged SOC, but it establishes important procedural guidance for future competition cases. The authors conclude that the judgment provides a framework for how SOC allegations should be investigated and pleaded, how exceptions should be assessed, how jurisdiction over foreign firms should be established, and when additional respondents may be joined after referral…

CONTINUE READING…