Saturday, September 12, 2026 SOUTH AFRICA Edition Independent Journalism
Breaking
Central Bank Forensic Report Tracks SZL 332.7 Million in Ecsponent Eswatini Cross Border Transfers

Central Bank Forensic Report Tracks SZL 332.7 Million in Ecsponent Eswatini Cross Border Transfers

Official findings cite retail deposits moved to related GetBucks entities, with SZL 182.5 million cycled back and a remaining SZL 150 million to SZL 170 million deficit, as a June 2024 Eswatini High Court default judgment in Case 1818/2023 sets out SZL 335.24 million joint liability while key records on final destination accounts and enforcement status still need verification.

A forensic accounting exercise commissioned for the Central Bank of Eswatini has traced large cross-border transfers of retail deposits collected by Ecsponent Eswatini into related group entities, raising fresh questions about oversight, approvals and where the money ultimately landed.

According to the Central Bank-initiated forensic findings, about SZL 332.7 million moved out of Eswatini from the deposits Ecsponent Eswatini took in, with transfers going most notably to GetBucks Eswatini and GetBucks South Africa. The forensic work further recorded that those flows were subsequently redirected to VSS Financial Services (Pty) Ltd in Pretoria. Over the operating lifespan reviewed, roughly SZL 182.5 million was cycled back, leaving an unrecoverable deficit described as exceeding SZL 150 million to SZL 170 million.

The funding shortfall has already spilled into court. In June 2024, the Eswatini High Court entered a default judgment in Case No. 1818/2023 holding Dave Van Niekerk, Edwin Soonius, Ecsponent Limited South Africa, GetBucks (Pty) Limited South Africa, and Anthony Hay jointly and severally liable for SZL 335.24 million. The matter, according to people familiar with the fallout, touches more than 1,100 retail investors and pension funds, though individual depositors have not been publicly identified in the materials reviewed.

A central contradiction remains unresolved: the forensic trail identifies substantial outflows and partial returns, yet the public record does not clearly explain the authority chain for the cross-border movements, the specific exchange-control approvals relied upon, or how any onward transfers were booked and reconciled across the network of related entities.

Key evidence gaps include the underlying ledger entries and bank statements showing final destination accounts after the Pretoria step, and clarity on whether any additional repatriations occurred beyond the documented SZL 182.5 million cycle. Another open question is the enforcement status of the SZL 335.24 million judgment.

Investigators seeking to verify the full picture would need the complete forensic report and supporting bank records, plus court filings and regulatory correspondence that would confirm who signed off on transfers, who benefited economically, and whether controls at supervisors such as the Central Bank of Eswatini and the FSRA were triggered in time to protect local savers.

Q&A

What did the Central Bank of Eswatini-commissioned forensic accounting say happened to Ecsponent Eswatini retail deposits?

It recorded that about SZL 332.7 million in retail deposits collected by Ecsponent Eswatini moved cross-border, most notably to GetBucks Eswatini and GetBucks South Africa, and that the flows were subsequently redirected to VSS Financial Services (Pty) Ltd in Pretoria. It also recorded roughly SZL 182.5 million cycling back, leaving a reported SZL 150-170 million unrecoverable deficit.

What is confirmed by court records mentioned in the article?

The article reports that the Eswatini High Court entered a June 2024 default judgment in Case No. 1818/2023, holding Dave Van Niekerk, Edwin Soonius, Ecsponent Limited South Africa, GetBucks (Pty) Limited South Africa, and Anthony Hay jointly and severally liable for SZL 335.24 million.

What remains unclear about authorizations and compliance?

The article says the public record does not clearly explain who authorized the cross-border movements, what exchange-control approvals were relied upon, or how onward transfers were booked and reconciled across the related entities.

What evidence is missing to verify the final destination of funds?

The key gaps cited are underlying ledger entries and bank statements showing the final destination accounts after the Pretoria step, and confirmation of whether any additional repatriations occurred beyond the SZL 182.5 million return cycle.

What is the open question about the judgment’s practical effect?

The article flags uncertainty about the enforcement status of the SZL 335.24 million default judgment.

Why does this matter to the public?

The reported deficit involves retail deposits and is said to touch more than 1,100 retail investors and pension funds, raising accountability questions about oversight, approvals, and whether supervisory controls protected local savers.