![tumisole's tweet photo. #CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HME97u3XsAA5ycx.jpg)
![tumisole's tweet photo. #CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HME97u2WMAAhL0s.jpg)
Olivia
Online
TL
@ThandoNasri
| @ChelseaFC | @KaizerChiefs | Ferrari
World
Joined July 2015
1.7K Following
1.4K Followers
1.8K Posts
@Gretchy_Ndou Supporting Morocco ?
@TheAthleticFC Horrible losers conceding 3 goals then go cry
@FabrizioRomano Sore losers !
Hey @Leon_Schreib
Where do we report people who have acquired fraudulent Home Affairs documents??
This is a matter of national importance!! 🇿🇦🙌❤️
Martinez subbed off Vitinha 😅
@MbalulaFikile Makhala njalo
#CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿
![tumisole's tweet photo. #CountryDuty
Today, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment on the #RandManipulation judgment.
Our #CountryDuty Chief Legal Strategist @diggiebongz has been following the matter closely and has gladly done a summary on what the judgment says & what it means:
1. What Happened
On 30 June 2026, a unanimous Constitutional Court (Rogers J, nine judges concurring) brought down the curtain on nearly a decade of litigation over allegations that 18-plus global and local banks colluded between 2007 and 2013 to manipulate the USDIZAR exchange rate — South Africa's long-running "forex cartel" case.
The case began with a Competition Commission complaint initiated in April 2015, amended in August 2016, and referred to the Competition Tribunal in February 2017 alleging a single overarching conspiracy (SOC) to fix prices and divide markets in contravention of section 4(1)(b) of the Competition Act.
The judgment resolves three consolidated matters: BNP Paribas's appeal (CCT 25/24), Credit Suisse Securities's appeal (CCT 27/24), and the Commission's own appeal together with HSBC Bank plo's cross-appeal (CCT 30/24). The scorecard is mixed and bank-specific — this was never a case where "the banks won" or "the Commission won" as a block.
2. Why Most Banks Walked Free — The Pleading Problem
This was, at its core, not a trial on the facts of whether banks colluded — it was a fight over whether the Commission's papers were good enough to put each bank on trial at all. South African competition procedure allows respondents to except to (challenge the legal sufficiency of) a referral before a single day of evidence
is led.
The Commission lost most of these battles because its “superseding affidavit” — filed after an earlier 2020 CAC ruling (CAC I) required it to plead with more particularity — repeated the same broad-brush
allegations bank after bank, rather than pleading bank-specific conduct sufficient to found a cause of action under section 4(1)(b).
[ANALYSIS]
The pattern that emerges across the judgment is consistent: where the Commission could point to a named trader, a specific chatroom, or a specific platform incident tying a bank into the alleged single
overarching conspiracy, the case survived. Where the allegations amounted to guilt by association — a bank's trader appearing in the same Reuters quote pattern as other banks, without more — the case did not.
JPM Bank and SAI are the exceptions that prove the rule: their revival turned on the Constitutional Court finding the CAC had committed an identifiable legal error (as opposed to a mere factual judgment call), which is the narrow gate through which an appeal to the apex court must pass in this kind of case.
“This Court's jurisdiction is not engaged by a complaint that the CAC should have assessed the
facts differently or even that the CAC got the facts plainly wrong.”
Rogers J, on why most of the Commission's appeals failed (paraphrased from para 283 of the judgment)
READ OUR SUMMARY BELOW: 👇🏿](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HME97vFX0AAiBfF.jpg)
Ruling on the 30th, make of it what you will
The Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the Competition Commission’s appeal against major South African banks, which it had accused of colluding to manipulate the rand.
https://t.co/lMn1f8ZFe0
Panyana proudly flying on ADT Helicopter, shamelessly!
You can tell Mbatha is not playing, midfield too open and Canada looking dangerous with each attack . Come on #BafanaBafana
@RedBullZA 🇿🇦 win
@casspernyovest Oga a no speak now
@FabrizioRomano Best country in the world
Coach Hugo please don’t doubt them boys again, play them to what they know 🔥 #SouthAfric
@Adikastakes 🤣🤣 what were you saying
Makgopa 🤦🏽
If we are efficient with our chance we are at least 2 nil up #bafanabafana
@Leratokganyago 😅 summit too
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Celebritysextape
Seen from Malaysia
Maltoja 🧡🧡
Seen from Indonesia
空
𝑨𝑺𝑨🔞
Seen from Canada
แรกรูปเมีย วิจารเมีย แรกเปลี่ยนประสบการณ์
Seen from Thailand
MASTER KOLDO ⛓️ 
Seen from Spain
Hot wife4big bbc
Seen from Jordan
Joo Elgog
Seen from Thailand
طبلوش
Seen from Algeria
sh【腹パン🧸】
Seen from United States
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.8M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.2M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.8M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.8M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.3M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.2M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers