The Financial Services Tribunal (FST) has upheld the debarment of an adviser who used previously signed forms to effect unauthorised transactions and received client funds into her personal account.
Accredinet Financial Solutions (Pty) Ltd debarred Danielle Ellyn du Plessis in August last year on the grounds that she failed to meet the fit and proper requirements, specifically lacking the character traits of honesty and integrity. The decision stemmed from three primary allegations:
- Du Plessis was accused of using previously signed forms to effect transactions on behalf of her client, Mellisa Khan, without obtaining explicit consent for those transactions.
- She allegedly received R300 000 of Khan’s funds into her personal account, violating her agreement with Accredinet, which prohibits brokers from collecting cash premiums from clients unless specifically authorised in writing by Accredinet.
- Du Plessis was accused of misappropriating at least a portion of the R300 000 for her own benefit, contrary to Khan’s wishes.
The allegations originated from a complaint lodged by Khan, who was also Du Plessis’s cousin. Khan alleged Du Plessis had withdrawn funds from her investments without consent, using a fraudulent electronic signature, and accessed her bank account for personal financial gain. She further claimed that Du Plessis advised her to transfer R300 000 from a Stanlib investment to a Sanlam Glacier investment, which Sanlam confirmed did not exist.
The FST’s decision quoted from the transcripts of the conversations between Accredinet’s management and Du Plessis during the FSP’s investigation into the alleged misconduct.
On 5 August 2024, Christine Edwards, a key individual, contacted Du Plessis twice to address the allegations. During the first call, Du Plessis confirmed there was no Sanlam Glacier investment but undertook to provide documentation about the transfer from Stanlib.
In a later call, when no documents were provided, Edwards urged Du Plessis to be transparent, warning that a lack of honesty and integrity could lead to debarment.
Du Plessis admitted to borrowing R300 000 from Khan and stated she needed to repay it. She claimed Khan initially agreed to reinvest the funds but lacked written records, relying instead on informal conversations.
Du Plessis acknowledged her “stupid mistake” and expressed concern about tarnishing Accredinet’s reputation.
On 6 August 2024, a Teams meeting was convened, presided over by Lizel Rourke, another key individual. Rourke emphasised the need for Du Plessis to provide her full account to address Khan’s complaint.
Du Plessis explained that in May 2024, Khan received funds from a Stanlib investment, and in November 2024, Khan lent her R12 000 at her request, because she was in dire financial straits.
Du Plessis’s financial situation did not improve and she a needed to buy a car.
According to Du Plessis, Khan said she could take what she needed of the R300 000 and invest the rest in Sanlam Glacier, but she took all of it. Khan demanded repayment within two weeks, which Du Plessis could not do. Du Plessis confirmed she no longer possessed the funds and had attempted unsuccessfully to contact Khan to arrange repayment.
Du Plessis admitted to using a standard form signed by Khan, filling in amounts as needed for withdrawals, because Khan lived in Cape Town and Accredinet is in Pretoria. Rourke highlighted that using forms without explicit client signatures violated consent requirements, a serious breach of the FAIS Act’s fit and proper standards of honesty and integrity.
Du Plessis stated that some instructions were given via phone calls or WhatsApp messages and agreed to provide screenshots.
Grounds for contesting the debarment
Du Plessis sought reconsideration of her debarment on 25 February 2025, more than three months after the 60-day deadline from 12 October 2024, as stipulated in section 230(2)(b) of the Financial Sector Regulation Act. She requested condonation for the delay, claiming she had adequately explained it and demonstrated reasonable prospects of success.
Her grounds for contesting the debarment included:
- Du Plessis argued she was ambushed, receiving the Notice of Intention to Debar on 8 August 2024 and having less than one business day to prepare for the 12 August 2024 hearing, which lasted less than 10 minutes. She claimed the rushed process prejudiced her ability to defend herself.
- She contended that Khan’s complaint was not made under oath and was therefore hearsay, implying it lacked validity.
- Du Plessis argued that her actions were justified because of verbal consent from Khan, her cousin, to withdraw the R300 000, use her signature on forms, and apply the funds with or without consent, citing their familial relationship.
- Her counsel argued that the Notice of Intention to Debar lacked sufficient particularity to enable her to make an informed decision or mount an appropriate defence.
Regarding the delay in filing he reconsideration application, Du Plessis explained that she contacted her initial attorney, Manitha Naran, on 23 August 2024, consulting her on 28 August 2024. Naran later informed her she lacked capacity, prompting Du Plessis to secure an alternative legal representative on 12 September 2024. This representative addressed the R300 000 as a loan but did not advance the debarment issue, leading Du Plessis to return to Naran in mid-November 2024.
On 14 November 2024, Naran agreed to assist, and on 14 January 2025, sent a letter to Accredinet requesting documents and alleging procedural unfairness, although not addressing the merits.
Tribunal’s findings and rejection of grounds
The Tribunal issued its decision on 21 July 2025, dismissing both the condonation and reconsideration applications. The Tribunal’s reasoning addressed each of du Plessis’ grounds.
The FST rejected the claim of being ambushed, noting that Khan confronted Du Plessis about the R300 000 three weeks prior to the debarment, and the issues were discussed extensively on 5, 6, and 8 August 2024. Du Plessis was repeatedly warned of potential debarment unless she provided evidence, which she failed to do. The Tribunal commended Accredinet’s key individuals for their patience and objectivity, emphasising that the essence of the investigation, not the hearing’s duration, was critical.
The Tribunal dismissed the hearsay argument, stating that Du Plessis admitted the core allegations in Khan’s complaint multiple times, including using the R300 000. Section 14 of the FAIS Act does not require complaints to be under oath, and admitted allegations do not require further proof.
The Tribunal rejected the familial defence, citing sections 2 and 3(1)(d) of the General Code of Conduct, which require financial services to be rendered honestly, fairly, and in the client’s interests. Du Plessis violated these by using Khan’s signature without consent and failing to disclose the dissipation of the R300 000, which Khan discovered independently.
The Tribunal found the Notice of Intention to Debar comprehensive, covering relevant FAIS Act sections, the complaint’s details, dates, charges, Du Plessis’s responses, and her rights. It deemed the notice sufficient, rejecting the claim of inadequate particularity.
The Tribunal found Du Plessis’ explanation for the delay in filing her application “extremely weak, flimsy, and tenuous”, citing her passive attitude and reliance on her legal representatives. The unexplained period from 14 January to 25 February 2025 suggested a lack of initiative, and her failure to provide evidence weakened her prospects of success.
The Tribunal concluded that Accredinet and Rourke complied with section 14 of the FAIS Act, and the debarment was justified.
