Why estate agents FICA you
A mandate to sell, buy or let is an ongoing arrangement — a business relationship under the Act — so customer due diligence is triggered before the marketing starts, not at transfer. The agency’s RMCP determines the documents; the statutory core is identity established and verified, the relationship’s nature and purpose understood, and the source of the funds the client expects to use established (ss 21, 21A). Property’s attraction to launderers is exactly why the sector was brought inside the regime.
Why you FICA three times in one deal
The agency, the transferring attorney (conveyancer) and the bond attorney are three separate accountable institutions — and nothing makes one institution’s due diligence binding on another (s 21; PCC 12A). An RMCP may allow reliance on another institution’s checks, but responsibility stays with the relying institution, so in practice each verifies afresh. It is the single most-asked frustration in property transactions, and the answer is structural, not bureaucratic whim. The conveyancing-side document detail lives in FICA requirements for property transfers.
What the agency’s RMCP typically requires
For a natural-person seller or buyer: identity established and verified against a reliable independent source — with anything beyond names, date of birth and ID number being the agency’s RMCP choice. For a company or trust party: entity verification against CIPC or the Master’s records, the person acting plus authority, structure information and beneficial owners. Plus, in every case, the source-of-funds conversation — asked at the start of the process, because section 21A attaches to the relationship, not to registration day.
The agency’s own duty stack
Beyond client-facing due diligence, a property practice carries the full accountable-institution stack: FIC registration on goAML, a documented and implemented RMCP, targeted financial sanctions screening, cash threshold reports (relevant where deposits are taken in cash), suspicious transaction reports, risk and compliance returns, and staff training — the institution guide covers each. The PPRA supervises the sector’s FIC Act compliance alongside the FIC itself.
Estate-agency enforcement
Estate agencies appear constantly on the FIC’s public sanctions register — with non-functioning RMCPs and unfiled risk and compliance returns the recurring findings, and penalties that have been upheld on appeal. The sector shares with attorneys the unhappy distinction of worst RCR compliance. The broader enforcement picture — including why supervision is intensifying into the 2026–27 FATF evaluation — is in the enforcement tracker.
Frequently asked questions
Source-of-funds information for business relationships is a statutory duty (s 21A) — and property is a classic laundering channel, so agency RMCPs ask early. The question is lawful and the agent may not proceed without an answer that satisfies its RMCP.
Each accountable institution carries its own duty; nothing makes one institution’s due diligence binding on another (s 21; PCC 12A). The agency, the transferring attorney and the bond attorney each run their own process — three institutions, three files.
Where the agency concludes a lease mandate it is acting as an accountable institution, and its RMCP will require identification of the parties — typically lighter for low-value leases under the risk-based approach.