The wave of fraud complaints against Nedbank is now crashing into the courts, with two long‑time customers taking their grievances to the National Financial Ombudsman (NFO). Both families allege that, after their accounts were drained through the bank’s mobile app, they were met with vague “goodwill” offers and an unsettling silence on how the breaches actually happened. Their testimonies are feeding a wider debate about the robustness of South Africa’s digital banking security and whether banks are obliged to disclose the technical details of a breach when customers lose tens of thousands of rand.
Megan Hendriks, a Cape Town cybersecurity specialist who runs the popular TikTok channel “The War in Your Wi‑Fi”, says her husband Willie’s Nedbank account was emptied after a gunpoint robbery in December 2025. The thieves walked away with his unlocked phone, yet no banking apps were open at the time. Within hours, the Nedbank app processed unauthorised transfers totalling R24 900, while other apps on the same device – including Discovery Bank and Absa – remained untouched. Hendriks points to the bank’s facial‑recognition protection and presses for a clear technical explanation of how the app was accessed without a PIN or biometric match.
The second case involves Petronella and Hendrik Havenga, a couple who devoted more than four decades to Nedbank. In November 2025 they fell victim to a sophisticated social‑engineering scam that masqueraded as a Qatar Airways call, prompting them to download a malicious WhatsApp‑linked application. Nedbank later confirmed the app was malware, yet the Havengas dispute the bank’s claim that “Approve It” confirmation messages were sent and accepted from their device. They allege the fraud led to a R50 000 loss, with only R100 000 recovered after the bank’s investigation.
Both families describe a pattern of delayed investigations, limited communication and settlement offers that amount to a fraction of their losses. The Hendrikses were offered R5 976 – less than a quarter of the stolen sum – while the Havengas received a R1 300 “goodwill” payment, framed as an ex gratia gesture rather than an admission of liability. When the offers were rejected in pursuit of answers, the bank’s responses ceased, prompting the escalation to the NFO and, in the Havenga case, the prospect of legal action.
Nedbank fraud complaints: key differences and common threads
| Aspect | Hendriks Case | Havenga Case |
|---|---|---|
| Loss amount | R24 900 | R50 000 |
| Cause | Phone stolen during armed robbery; unauthorised app access | Social‑engineering scam; malware downloaded via WhatsApp |
| Bank’s explanation | Access via valid App PIN; no fraud alerts generated | “Approve It” messages sent and accepted; selfie verification used |
| Goodwill offer | R5 976 (≈24 % of loss) | R1 300 (≈2.6 % of loss) |
| Recovery | No funds recovered | R100 000 recovered, re‑credited |
| Customer response | Declined offer; demanded technical clarification | Rejected offer; demanded full investigation report |
| Current status | Matter before NFO; possible legal action | Matter before NFO; formal adjudication underway |
The table highlights that, despite differing fraud vectors, both complaints share a lack of transparent forensic data and a reliance on low‑value goodwill settlements. The bank’s stance that detailed system logs are withheld to protect detection capabilities leaves customers without the crucial insight needed to assess whether their own security practices were at fault.
Nedbank maintains that its Money app can be accessed via biometric fingerprint, facial recognition, a PIN, or the client’s Nedbank ID password. In the Hendriks case, the bank asserts the app was opened with a valid PIN, while for the Havengas it points to “Approve It” notifications and a selfie match as proof of authorisation. Both explanations have been met with skepticism, as the victims insist they never received the purported OTP or approval messages.
The NFO’s 2025 data shows a surge in digital fraud complaints across the major retail banks, with Nedbank and Standard Bank appearing repeatedly in the statistics. Under South Africa’s banking framework, the onus often falls on customers to prove they were not negligent—a heavy burden when the alleged breach involves sophisticated malware or biometric spoofing. Critics argue this creates an imbalance, especially when forensic evidence remains out of public reach.
Bank representatives emphasise that goodwill payments are “ex‑gratia gestures” made after a case‑by‑case forensic review, taking into account the victim’s vulnerability and tenure. They stress that disclosing detailed security logs could jeopardise broader fraud‑prevention efforts. Yet for customers like the Hendrikses and Havengas, the issue stretches beyond the monetary loss; it is about trust in the safety of their money and the right to understand how a supposedly secure app was compromised.
The growing chorus of dissatisfied customers signals a need for clearer communication from financial institutions. As digital banking expands, South Africans expect not only swift reimbursement but also transparent explanations that enable them to protect their own digital footprints. Whether the NFO’s adjudication will force Nedbank to unveil more of its investigative process remains to be seen, but the spotlight on these two cases is already prompting a wider industry conversation about the balance between security secrecy and consumer right‑to‑know.