Misery

I got an email today from someone in South Africa (I'm in South Korea)I transferred money to - quite a lot of money. The first shock was the actual cost to transfer it, over R1000.
I have just heard now that she is reluctant to put my own money into my own account, and now wants to send it back to me. Who this person is is not important, what's important is that I feel like crying with frustration.

Her point is that the FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE ACT prohibits this (her transferring money on my behalf, to my own account), and she would be breaking the law. Can you believe it? I can't. I'm trying to understand it, and this is what I've come up with:

The Act has been put into place to prevent money laundering, and possibly inline with legislation requiring access to banking data in America, more banking controls to prevent terrorism. I'd understand her reservations if my job for the past three years had been something other than teaching English. Say, if I worked in a bio-weapons lab, or had made a couple of trips to Columbia, or if I was smuggling Zipp Speed Weaponry (this I have actually considered doing!) Alas, this is simply money earned the hard way, and lost the easy way.

It's staggering how the intention to transfer R24 000 to repay a small R700 debt for the use of her cellphone, and also pay for a another phone given to me by my sister, and then stolen the next day, (ballooning to R2100 because it was still in her name and she didn't do anything about it and thus made me responsible)now simply becomes a R2000 bill for going to the effort to simply pay it. And it's still not paid!

It becomes triply troubling when the Act actually does not ostensibly prohibit the transaction (I have asked that once the debts are withdrawn off the principle, the remainding sum be moved to my own savings account, since I'd rather have my money in Rands, accumulating higher interest). The Act does merely reserve the right to check that nothing strange is happening. This burden actually falls on the bank, to provide information timeously or face fines if they do not. In terms of the private individuals involved in the transaction, they need merely furnish identities if called upon to do so, and obviously, show where the money was procured (Keep a record of the transation), if necessary. If this is done, and there are no accounts for weapons of mass destruction, then everything is fine. In any event, here is the Section that deals particularly with my problem:

Section 31 – Electronic transfers of money to or from the Republic
Money received from outside of RSA or sent to a country outside of RSA that is over a prescribed amount must be reported to the FIC. The FIC will be entitled to request prescribed particulars. Again, there are no regulations and therefore no prescribed amount in relation to this section yet.

Thus I am pretty disappointed that my contact in South Africa is obsessing over fine print when the amount in question is comparatively low (meaning it's unlikely that there will be any check or follow up), and also, even if they did follow it up it is not actually illegal, it must just be reported, if one means to be perfectly honest and law abiding, and if not, be made available at their request.
It's all patently unnecessary though, in my case, as the Section shows.

The result of painstakingly watching the exchange rate so as to maximise the transaction (I transferred just as the Won started losing ground to the Rand) and really trying to have a conscientious approach to money has completely blown up in my face. I thought I might have saved or benefitted a little (maybe R200-R500) from the improved exchange rate and I've ended up paying dearly for it.
What lesson do I learn from this? Look out for No: 1?

If I apply the letter of the law to the extent that my contact in South Africa appears to be doing, and it doesn't seem to be an informed (rather a fearful) approach, then I could apply that same thinking to my sister's phone. Although technically the account is in her name, in reality, she gave me the phone and in reality I intended to keep it and use it. Legally though (and the law does not always pay much attention, or is able to verify our true intentions) she would be liable, since it was in her name. It requires a bit of intelligence and, one hopes, conscience, to look beyond what the law says (and the law is just a guide, intended for the protection of ourselves and others) and to do what is reasonable, and what makes sense.

The above scenario does not.

For the full text in terms of the Act, refer to the link below or click on the title of this posting:

http://www.jse.co.za/informational/money_laundering/docs/
Web%20summary%20act.pdf