The Financial Services Tribunal (FST) has set aside the debarment of a representative who copied and pasted a client’s signature onto an application form to open an investment account.
The rep (“SB”), who was employed as a planner at Standard Bank’s branch in Mthatha, admitted that he copied and pasted the signature but said he had done so with the client’s consent. He submitted to the FST an affidavit from the client to this effect.
In the affidavit, deposed in July 2023, the client stated he consulted with SB on 13 April 2023, to open an investment account. (According to SB’s own affidavit, the total investment was R300 000.)
The client stated that five days later, SB phoned him and said he had failed to sign one of the pages of the application form, which was shown to him on WhatsApp. He asked SB to paste a copy of his signature because he was no longer in Mthatha but in Gauteng.
The client went on to “confirm” that he “consented” to the copying and pasting of his signature and “had knowledge of that act”. The client said he had “no complaint” against SB.
In his representations to Standard Bank and to the Tribunal, SB maintained he had obtained the client’s permission to copy and paste and the signature, and his actions could not be regarded as dishonest.
In August, the FST granted SB’s application to suspend his debarment pending the outcome of the reconsideration application.
The bank alleges fraud and misrepresentation
Standard Bank terminated its contract with SB in May after discovering the copy-and-paste incident. The bank debarred SB the following month on the grounds that he lacked honesty, integrity, and good standing. In this regard, the bank alleged SB:
- fraudulently copied the client’s signature on to compliance documentation without the client’s knowledge and consent;
- failed to follow the correct procedures in relation to the advisory process and knowingly made changes on the client’s documentation without the client’s knowledge or consent; and
- breached of the code of ethics because SB did not act truthfully and honestly with the client by not honouring the contractual agreement and not following procedures and policies.
In its answering affidavit, Standard Bank said there was no evidence to prove that the client had been aware of SB’s conduct. Even if the client had been aware of SB’s conduct, it did not change the fact that SB “misrepresented himself and falsified documents, and his conduct remains dishonest”.
The bank averred that SB had been “trying to create an impression” that the client had signed the documents, whereas he had not.
“If the applicant’s conduct was not discovered earlier and a dispute arose at a later stage relating to the authenticity and validity of those documents, the respondent was going to be found wanting,” Standard Bank said.
‘Real and informed’ consent
The Tribunal said it was clear from the client’s affidavit that he authorised SB to copy and paste his signature. “This consent appears to be real and informed. There is nothing in the client’s affidavit to suggest that his consent was obtained through deception or misrepresentation, which could affect its validity.”
Standard Bank had not produced any evidence to contradict SB’s version, nor had it disputed the authenticity of the client’s affidavit. “It is so that this affidavit was not produced earlier. However, that does not detract from the fact that the client was aware [of] and consented to the applicant copying and pasting his (the client’s) signature,” the FST said.
There was no evidence that SB copied and pasted client’s signature with ulterior motives.
“A reading of both affidavits indicates that the motive behind copying and pasting the client’s signature was to expedite the execution of the client’s application of an investment account. There was no intention to defraud or otherwise harm the client or cause him loss. The fact that he called the client and copied and pasted the client’s signature pursuant to the client’s consent indicates that his motives were bona fide.”
The Tribunal said SB, with the benefit of hindsight, admitted that his conduct may have breached the bank’s policies.
“However, the fact that the conduct was wrong does not mean that he acted fraudulently, forged, or falsified the client’s signature. The undisputed facts before us are that the applicant acted with the knowledge, consent, and instructions from the client.”
The Tribunal concluded that the debarment was not justified.
