Abstract
Business Email Compromise (BEC) has emerged as one of the most disruptive forms of cybercrime, causing immense financial losses across jurisdictions. In South Africa, BEC presents a particularly pressing challenge as businesses, legal practitioners, and financial institutions grapple with questions of accountability. The legal issue lies in determining who bears the loss when fraudulent instructions are acted upon, whether it is the client, the financial intermediary, or the counterparty who relied on the communication. This minor dissertation critically examines the allocation of liability in BEC cases from a South African legal perspective, while also drawing comparative insights from other jurisdictions.
The contribution of this work is two-fold. First, it provides a doctrinal analysis of South African case law, including the recent case of Intengo Imoto (Pty) Ltd t/a Northcliff Nissan v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers CC, which highlights how courts approach negligence, causation, and the duties of contracting parties in cases of electronic fraud. Second, it explores the evolving responsibilities of businesses and legal practitioners to implement preventive cybersecurity measures, contractual risk allocation, and compliance with statutory obligations under legislation such as the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA).
The article argues that the current framework leaves significant uncertainty, particularly regarding the extent of professional duties owed by legal practitioners and financial institutions. It suggests that South African jurisprudence is moving towards a shared responsibility model, but gaps remain in policy and practice. Ultimately, the study proposes recommendations for both practitioners and lawmakers to mitigate risks, improve clarity, and enhance trust in electronic commerce. By situating BEC within the broader discourse on cyber liability, this article contributes to an emerging field of law that is both practically urgent and theoretically underdeveloped.