In the second round of the commission, a greater amount of detail has been investigated. Among them, the roles that the SARB played in the exchange control regulations as well as the specific actions that certain local companies took in order to expand operations offshore. These operations were structured by Deutsche Bank and therefore much of the focus has now turned towards the bank and the exact transactions involved to determine culpability.  The most recent round of testimony, revealed that the full details of the asset swap transactions structured for the likes of Sasol, M-cell and Nampak were not given to the SARB, who stated that they would not have authorised these transactions had all details been disclosed. The SARB testified that these transactions resulted in a net outflow of funds from SA, contrary to evidence from Deutsche Bank which suggested that these transactions in fact resulted in an inflow.

This said however, both Deutsche Bank and the SARB have testified that none of the dealings had any role to play in the ZAR's slump in the very latter part of last year as they all took place earlier in the year or even the previous year. The SARB also made it clear that the actions were not necessarily illegal, which brings us to the next point of discussion, being the role the SARB has played in ZAR's decline albeit indirect.  At this stage, the SARB has testified that it knew very little in the way of the details of the related transactions associated with these offshore asset swaps. If this is indeed the case, a question that begs an answer is whether the exchange control regulations can be efficiently and effectively policed in order to stop the abuse or manipulation
thereof? If not, exchange controls themselves may have had an indirect role to play in the ZAR"s demise, as was highlighted by the round-tripping allegations made in the local Finance Week magazine.

Whatever the outcome, what is becoming clear is that the SARB may have less influence over exchange controls than had initially been thought and that it has little or no influence in the dealings of any offshore banks and their activities. This all relates back to the question of exchange controls and whether they are in fact adequate enough to deal with modern day trading strategies. From an initial perspective it appears as though this is not the case and certain reforms may be required in order to prevent this taking place again. These are questions that will be tackled by the commission in its findings and if nothing else, a reform in exchange controls would still be a step forward. In the coming week, local banks will be taking the stand and testifying as to specific trades that took place within the time frame in question. Market participants are however not expecting any major findings in this regard, which is expected to leave the commission suggesting preventative measures rather than prosecuting any suspects.