A plain guide to checking a platform's FSCA status.

A warning's date is when the FSCA acted, not when the misconduct began

The FSCA publishes a warning on the day its investigation reaches a point where the public should be told. That date records the regulator's action, not the first day a platform started taking money or using a borrowed FSP number. A firm may have been operating for months before the warning appears, and clients who deposited early have no warning to protect them. Comparing the warning date with a platform's launch date shows how long the gap was, but the warning date itself is a regulatory milestone, not a history of the entity.

A warning can also be updated without the original date changing. If the FSCA adds a new website or a new trading name to an existing warning, the page may show the same first publication date. Readers who rely on the date alone can miss that the warning has grown. The safest habit is to read the full text each time, because the date is a fixed point and the details can move.

The sequence matters when a platform claims it is 'newly licensed' or 'recently warned in error'. The FSCA's date is the moment it chose to publish, and any platform that was already active before that date was operating without the warning being visible. The register's status dates work the same way: they record the regulator's decision, not the firm's application. Treat every date as an action by the FSCA, not a fact about the platform's behaviour.

The FSCA warning list does not include every platform that is not on the OTC register

A trading platform that is not on the OTC derivative provider register has not necessarily been warned. The FSCA publishes warnings when it has enough evidence to name an entity publicly, but many platforms operate without any FSCA status at all. They may be based overseas, they may be applying for a licence, or they may have never contacted the regulator. The absence of a warning is not proof that the platform is authorised; it only means the FSCA has not published a warning about that specific name.

The warning list and the register are two separate records with different purposes. The register shows entities that have applied for or been granted authorisation as OTC derivative providers. The warning list shows entities the FSCA has publicly cautioned against, often for operating without authorisation or for impersonating a licensed firm. A platform can be absent from both lists and still be completely unauthorised to deal with South African clients.

Readers should check both records, but the order matters. First look for the platform on the OTC register using its exact legal name. If it is not there, check the warnings list for that legal name and for any trading names the platform uses. If neither record shows the platform, the FSCA has simply not published anything about it. That is not a green light; it is a gap in the regulator's public records, and the reader must decide how much weight to give that silence.

A clone firm can appear on the OTC register under the victim's name

The FSCA's warnings often describe a clone: a platform that copies the name, FSP number and sometimes the website of a real authorised firm. The clone is not on the register, but the real firm is. A reader who searches the register using the name shown on the clone's website will find the legitimate entry and may stop checking. The clone is counting on that: the register match looks perfect because the clone stole the identity of a firm that really is authorised.

The warning list is the only public record that names the clone as a separate entity. The FSCA publishes a warning when it discovers that someone is using a registered firm's details without permission. That warning will give the clone's actual website addresses and contact details, which differ from the real firm's. The register entry for the real firm remains unchanged, because the real firm has done nothing wrong. The two records have to be read together.

The practical test is contact details. The register shows the real firm's approved telephone number, email domain and physical address. The clone's website will show different details, often a foreign number or a free email service. If the details on the platform's website do not match the register exactly, the platform is not the authorised firm, no matter what name and FSP number it displays. The warning list confirms this, but the register comparison is the reader's first line of defence.

A status of 'application pending' means the FSCA has not yet decided, not that the platform is safe to use

The OTC derivative provider register includes providers whose applications are still being assessed. The status 'application pending' means the FSCA has received the application and has not yet made a decision. It does not mean the provider is authorised, and it does not mean the provider is allowed to offer OTC derivatives to South African clients. Until the status changes to 'authorised', the provider has no FSCA permission to operate in that category.

Some platforms use the pending status as a marketing tool, telling clients that their application is 'in progress' or 'awaiting approval'. The register's status is the FSCA's description of where the application stands, not the platform's promise. An application can be pending for a long time, and the FSCA can refuse it or the provider can withdraw it. A pending status is a temporary state, not a partial licence.

The register's status words are precise, and readers should treat them literally. 'Authorised' means the FSCA has granted the licence. 'Refused' means the FSCA has declined the application. 'Withdrawn' means the provider pulled the application. 'Pending' means none of those decisions has happened yet. A pending provider is not yet in the same category as an authorised one, and the FSCA's warnings have described cases where clients were onboarded during a pending period.

The FSCA's contact details are the test that separates a real entry from a copied one

The OTC derivative provider register includes the provider's approved contact details: physical address, telephone number, email domain and website. These are the details the FSCA has on file as the provider's official channels. A clone or an unauthorised platform can copy a name and an FSP number, but it cannot change the contact details on the FSCA's register. The contact details are the hardest part of the identity to fake, because they are published by the regulator.

When a platform's website shows a different email domain or a different physical address from the register, the platform is not the authorised provider. Even a small difference matters: a hyphen in the domain, a different country code on the telephone, or a shared office address. The FSCA's warnings often list the clone's actual contact details alongside the real provider's details, making the mismatch obvious. The register alone is enough to spot it.

Contact details also change when a provider updates them with the FSCA. The register shows the current approved details, not necessarily the details on an old screenshot. A platform might have changed its address and notified the FSCA, so the register would show the new address. The reader's job is to compare the platform's current website and emails with the register's current entry, not with a cached version. Any mismatch is a reason to stop and check the warnings list.