FST upholds debarment of rep who committed fraud to buy food for her child
The former bank manager’s actions were driven by desperation, but the FAIS Act is not forgiving, the tribunal says.
The former bank manager’s actions were driven by desperation, but the FAIS Act is not forgiving, the tribunal says.
Material discrepancies about a newly appointed financial planner’s employment history came to light while she was being on-boarded.
In one case, the FSP was still investigating the alleged fraud when it decided to bar the representative.
His FSPs were fined a total of R250 000 for selling two products before they were licensed.
The employer did not point to a single provision in the FAIS Act, or any other legislation, that prohibits this.
The applicant was ‘left to guess’ the factual allegations on which the intended debarment was based, tribunal says.
That the parties entered the agreement after the notice of intention to debar had been sent was highly relevant.
She alleged the evidence of her conduct was obtained through an ‘unlawful search’ of her personal email account.
About R1 million in investors’ funds was misappropriated.
Applicant tells the tribunal she transferred the information to her private Gmail account to support her complaint to the CCMA.
The far-reaching implications of debarment were not justified in the circumstances, the FST finds.
Former Standard Bank staff contend that the FAIS Act did not apply to their debarment and conduct.
More than 600 investors lost their money – some exceeding R1 million each.
FST’s decision reveals a litany of problems with the procedure followed.
Applicant argues that non-compliance is not a contravention when the law does not provide for a penalty.
A single act of dishonesty, incompetence, mismanagement or negligence may not by itself be grounds for debarment.
This case sends a serious warning to those who allow “spotters” to work under their licence.