Value of illegal booze market continues to grow, but not as fast as the legal sector
Image: Nicola Mawson
Fake booze volumes are growing faster than what smugglers are bringing into the country, although the value of sales in the illicit market are not gaining pace as fast as the legal one, with the cost of legal alcohol having been pushed up by price increases.
This is according to the latest research from Euromonitor International in conjunction with the Drinks Federation of South Africa (DF-SA). It found that the market for illicit alcohol accounts for a fifth of total alcohol sales in South Africa.
'The drivers of illicit alcohol have changed over the last four years, with counterfeiting growing at the expense of smuggling. Since 2017, the market share for counterfeiting alone has grown from 24% to 31%. Its category value has almost doubled from R4.9 billion in 2017 to R9.8bn 2024,' their report said.
In the report, they attributed this to the fact that demand has tapered off since the end of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown that saw sales of alcohol and cigarettes banned, leading to people turning to buying these items from providers who sourced them from over the border.
Smuggling has dropped from one in three purchases to one in every five, the research found. 'However, counterfeit and illicit brands have grown substantially since the pandemic, becoming the largest illicit category by volume in 2024,' it said.
Richard Rivett-Carnac, South African Breweries CEO and chairman of DF-SA said that the sale of illegal booze is 'not just a public health concern, but a direct threat to fiscal revenues and formal businesses that contribute significantly to the economy and job creation'.
The legal alcohol sector supports around one in 31 jobs and generates over R100bn in tax revenue annually, said Rivett-Carnac. 'When illicit traders avoid tax, undercut the market, and exploit vulnerable consumers, we all lose, he said.
Illegal booze cost the economy R16.5 billion last year, up from R11.3bn four years previously, when South Africa was in lockdown. The bulk of this amount came from illegal sales of spirits.
When Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana presented Budget 3.0 in May, he was faced with a revenue hole of R75bn.
The report stated that enforcement continues to be a challenge as both the South African Revenue Service and the South African Police Service 'have reported capacity and resource constraints, especially the illicit trade task team which deals with all illicit goods, not only alcohol'.
However, it said that trade sources indicate that the greater involvement by industry in identifying culprits and working together with law enforcement agencies has resulted in positive outcomes.
IOL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
SA's Debt Crisis: A Crippling Embrace of the World Bank
(From left) President of World Bank, Mr Ajay Banga, Brazil President Lula da Silva, India Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Cyril Ramaphosa and US President Joe Biden on the margins of the G20 Leaders' Summit held at the Bharat Mandapam International Exhibition Convention Centre in New Delhi, India on September 9, 2023. Image: GCIS Zamikhaya Maseti On June 24, 2025, the National Treasury released an official statement: 'South Africa and the World Bank sign USD 1.5 billion loan agreement to support infrastructure modernisation and development.' According to Treasury, the loan will 'unlock key infrastructure bottlenecks,' particularly in the energy and freight transport sectors. The financing terms are said to be generous: a 16-year maturity, a three-year grace period, and an interest rate benchmarked at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) + 1.49%. In simple Development Finance terms, this interest margin suggests that the loan carries relatively favourable conditions compared to commercial borrowing. The World Bank technocrats would have us believe that this Development Policy Loan (DPL) is both progressive and developmental. But behind this clinical language of policy and project finance lies a deeper crisis, a State slowly surrendering its developmental autonomy in exchange for liquidity. In 2022, South Africa was granted a US$750 million COVID-19 relief loan, drawn from the same DPL mechanism. It was intended to stabilise the health system and support social protection. But that loan was scavenged shamelessly and systematically by the compradorial bourgeoisie and economic vultures. They tore through it like hyenas around a carcass. Who can forget, during the great looting spree, how overnight, car guards, taxi owners, tavern tycoons, traditional leaders, and healers became registered 'suppliers' of the Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs)? Most of the PPEs were of dubious quality, grossly overpriced, and delivered late, if at all, while the dying masses gasped for breath in overcrowded, under-equipped COVID-19 wards. Those who survived the pandemic awoke in a country where the crisis had been monetised, and the hospital became a feeding trough for a corrupt elite dressed in designer ethics. Yes, another World Bank loan. Another embrace of the very institution that generations of African Political Economists from Walter Rodney to Samir Amin warned us would never be a partner in liberation. The intellectual bloodlines of our radical thinkers have long declared: the Bretton Woods institutions are not development partners; they are enforcers of dependency. Walter Rodney, in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, did not write in polite ambiguity. He was precise and surgical. Underdevelopment, he argued, was not a historical accident nor a technical gap, but a deliberate act imposed through imperial finance, colonial infrastructure, and economic coercion. Today, that analysis breathes again. South Africa, a constitutional democracy, a supposed developmental State, is now borrowing from the very institution that has for decades rehearsed economic suffocation across the continent: Ghana, Zambia, Kenya. We are told this loan will modernise transport corridors, reform Eskom, and support a 'green economy transition.' But herein lies the enduring warning of African Political Economy scholars of the 1960s and 70s: World Bank conditionalities were never neutral technocratic tools. They were ideological weapons designed to discipline post-colonial states and re-inscribe Western hegemony in economic terms. In the first decade of economic development and independence (1960–1970), newly independent nations like Ghana and Tanzania pursued bold paths of import substitution, state-led industrialisation, and social welfare. The World Bank responded by pressuring them to liberalise trade, dismantle subsidies, and invite foreign capital. When they resisted, funding was frozen. Sovereignty was punished. In the second decade of economic development and independence (1970–1980), as oil shocks and collapsing commodity prices crippled African economies, the World Bank returned not with solidarity, but with Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs): austerity masquerading as reform. Zambia was forced to privatise its mines, slash public spending, and devalue its currency. These were not technical corrections. They were ideological assaults driven by a neoliberal agenda to open Africa's veins to global capital. Development was delayed. Poverty was institutionalised. Today, South Africa, which still boasts of its economic sophistication, appears to have forgotten these lessons. Our gross government debt has now ballooned to R5.2 trillion, more than 74% of GDP, with R385 billion spent annually just to service that debt. This is not fiscal management, this is economic haemorrhaging. And we have yet to account for the hidden costs of this new loan: procurement dependency, policy capture, and technocratic drift. At the centre of this crisis lies the crumbling foundation of our public health system. For decades, it leaned heavily on foreign aid, especially from USAID, which supported HIV, TB, and maternal health programmes. But now, under Donald Trump's second term with its evangelical, nationalist, anti-globalist turn, USAID funding has been pulled. The consequences are immediate and brutal: clinics without ARVs, retrenched health workers, and rural hospitals collapsing. The system is already disintegrating. And into these vacuum steps, the World Bank not with a health rescue package, but with a spreadsheet of infrastructure loans and governance reforms. So, we must ask, again: what exactly is this new loan for? What does a 'green transition' mean when rural clinics can't even keep the lights on? Will Eskom's restructured grid serve the poor, or simply power private extraction? Why has there been no public debate, no parliamentary interrogation, no provincial consultation? Is South Africa bankrupt? Not yet, in the narrow technical sense. But ideologically, we are bankrupt of imagination. Development has been outsourced to multilateral lenders with no stake in our sovereignty. The borrowing continues, but each loan chips away at our autonomy, our dignity, our democratic will. We must re-read Walter Rodney. Revisit Samir Amin. Reclaim the dreams of Kwame Nkrumah, Samora Machel, Steve Biko, and Robert Sobukwe. Maybe we must begin to learn from Captain Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso, who is sending the imperialists packing.
The Herald
20 hours ago
- The Herald
From cash to code: SA's payments shift
SA is at a pivotal point in the evolution of its payments landscape. We pioneered real-time clearing in 2006, have a strong, regulated banking system and a growing fintech ecosystem tackling local and global transaction challenges. Yet, we've fallen behind. The SA Reserve Bank estimates that 55% of transactions still use cash, most likely excluding the informal economy. This is due to poverty, low-value transactions, mistrust in the system, lack of convenience and affordability issues. There is progress: the launch of PayShap, enabling real-time, low-value interbank payments, aims to reduce cash reliance and improve convenience. In this issue of Payments, we explore how this shift is reshaping the digital payments space for businesses and consumers. We also examine ways to reduce friction in the ecosystem, the role of Bitcoin in financial inclusion and the ESG impact of payments innovation. Looking continentwide, the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System is tackling the long-standing issues of high costs and currency complexities in cross-border trade, vital for economic resilience. Other developments include innovations in offline payments to address limited internet access, improvements in contactless experiences, faster payments for gig workers and earned wage access systems supporting lower-income earners and promoting financial literacy. Customer experience is central, especially with the rise of super apps, hugely successful in Asia and gaining traction here. Much of this progress is driven by fintechs. We profile three standout players in this issue, proof that while challenges remain, meaningful progress is being made.
The Herald
20 hours ago
- The Herald
Malema asks Ramaphosa about Mashatile's 'interference' in lotto deal
Appearing before the trade, industry, and competition portfolio committee last week, Tau defended the awarding of the licence, saying he was not aware of the allegations. 'He was evasive in response to direct questions from MPs, exhibited a lack of appreciation for the glaring conflicts of interest and demonstrated ignorance of the role of Mashatile and those associated with him in the awarding of this tender,' Malema said. In the letter, Malema posed a series of questions to Ramaphosa, questioning his knowledge about Mashatile's alleged interference. Other parties, including the DA, have demanded an independent investigation into the awarding of the lottery licence. The EFF is considering pursuing legal action to compel the disclosure of the appointment process. 'The EFF believes that the national lottery must serve the developmental interests of the people of SA — not the political elite. The level of political entanglement in this deal, compounded by Tau's refusal to be held accountable, undermines the legitimacy of this award and sets a dangerous precedent for future public procurement.' TimesLIVE
