A series of Financial Services Tribunal decisions has reinforced that representatives who deliberately manipulate internal performance or call-outcome records – particularly where those records affect performance metrics or commission calculations – risk debarment for failing to meet the honesty and integrity requirements of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act.
The decisions arose from separate reconsideration applications brought by former representatives of digital insurance provider Pineapple Tech. They followed Pineapple’s scrutiny of the alleged manipulation of call outcomes and performance records.
Since 14 May 2026, the Tribunal has issued five Pineapple-related decisions, each dealing with an individual application while consistently upholding the debarments.
Although each case turned on its own facts, the decisions collectively provide guidance on the relationship between internal misconduct, the fit-and-proper requirements for representatives, and a financial services provider’s statutory duty to debar representatives who no longer satisfy those requirements.
The five applicants held different positions within Pineapple’s retention and collections operations. Owami Zizipho Pumeza Nontshe worked in a collections context, Mmatlou Sharon Lebepe was a junior retentions agent, Thabang Gerath Pule a senior retentions agent, Matieo Priscilla Matsole a retentions specialist, while Sibongile Mashego was a senior employee working in retentions.
The allegations
Pineapple alleged that the representatives had deliberately recorded call outcomes inaccurately in ways that distorted internal performance records.
Pineapple alleged that unsuccessful collection attempts were recorded as “retained” despite payment not having been secured, and, in some instances, where clients had not been reached at all. According to Pineapple, those classifications were reserved for successful premium collections, and their incorrect use misrepresented actual collection performance while affecting performance metrics and, in those matters, commission calculations.
Mashego’s case involved different allegations. Pineapple alleged that she answered incoming client calls but either remained silent before terminating the call or ended the conversation shortly after introducing herself before incorrectly recording the calls as “not reached”. According to Pineapple, this constituted manipulation of internal processes, performance metrics and reporting, directly influencing commission calculations.
Across the five decisions, Pineapple maintained that the conduct demonstrated dishonesty, and the representatives therefore no longer met the honesty and integrity requirements prescribed by the FAIS Act and the Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements.
Common themes in the applications
Although each reconsideration application was decided separately, the applicants advanced broadly similar explanations.
They variously argued that the alleged conduct resulted from inadequate training, operational pressure, technology failures, or systemic shortcomings within the call centre. Several contended that no financial service had been rendered, no client had suffered prejudice, or that the conduct amounted to an operational or performance issue rather than dishonesty. Others argued that debarment was a disproportionate response.
The similarity between some of the applications was noted by the Tribunal itself.
In Lebepe’s case, the Tribunal observed that the applicant’s earlier application to suspend her debarment had been dismissed because it was “a simple ‘cut and paste’” from a similar application filed by another Pineapple employee and lacked prospects of success.
The Tribunal was not persuaded by the applicants’ explanations. In each matter, it concluded that the submissions did not provide a satisfactory answer to the allegations bearing on honesty and integrity.
The Tribunal’s approach
The Tribunal consistently emphasised that authorised FSPs have a statutory obligation to ensure that their representatives satisfy the fit-and-proper requirements. Where conduct demonstrates a lack of honesty or integrity, section 14 of the FAIS Act requires the FSP to debar the representative.
The Tribunal also found in every matter that Pineapple’s debarment process complied with the procedural requirements of section 14. In the decisions where the point is expressly recorded, Pineapple provided the applicant with its debarment policy.
In all five matters, the Tribunal found that the applicants had received notice of the proposed debarment, had been given an opportunity to respond, and that the process was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
Having found no procedural defects, the Tribunal turned to the substance of each application.
The central issue throughout was whether deliberately recording inaccurate call outcomes reflected a lack of honesty and integrity.
In every case, the Tribunal concluded that it did.
It accepted Pineapple’s contention that deliberately recording inaccurate call outcomes misrepresented actual performance and distorted internal records. In several matters, the Tribunal also accepted that the conduct affected commission calculations or entitlement to commission.
Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected attempts to characterise the conduct as mere operational shortcomings or negligence.
In Mashego’ case, for example, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s assertion that she had simply been negligent “is not sustainable”.
In Pule’s case, the Tribunal rejected allegations that the debarment was motivated by spite or resulted from managerial failures or technology challenges. It concluded that the more likely explanation was that Pineapple had correctly found that the applicant’s conduct was intended to manipulate internal processes to influence commission calculations.
The decision in Matsole’s case presented a somewhat different factual emphasis. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had admitted “manipulating call ratios to protect her performance statistics”, an admission recorded in the meeting minutes and not challenged during the reconsideration proceedings. On that basis, it concluded that “debarment is the only appropriate outcome”.
Nontshe provides the fullest analysis
Although all five applications were dismissed, the first decision, handed down on 14 May in Nontshe’s case, contains the Tribunal’s most detailed reasoning.
It examines allegations relating to altered standard operating procedures, inadequate training, procedural fairness, disclosure of evidence, proportionality, and the distinction between disciplinary proceedings and debarment.
The Tribunal also considered Pineapple’s standard operating procedures and addressed the applicant’s contention that inadequate training explained the incorrect recording of calls.
Importantly, it noted that an audit of 28 collection calls had identified 22 instances in which call outcomes had allegedly been incorrectly recorded. It concluded that this reflected “a pattern of intentional misconduct for profit motives rather than an isolated incident and mistake”.
The Tribunal also referred to its earlier decision in Fahdia Osman v First National Bank, observing that although a single act of dishonesty or negligence may not necessarily demonstrate a lack of honesty and integrity, sufficiently serious misconduct may do so.
The later Pineapple decisions reached the same outcome on their respective facts but did so more briefly, applying substantially the same legal principles to the individual applications before the Tribunal.
Implications for FSPs
The Pineapple decisions are fact-specific and arise from one employer’s internal compliance processes. Nevertheless, they provide useful guidance for FSPs and compliance officers.
The decisions demonstrate that the honesty and integrity requirements under the FAIS Act are not confined to client-facing conduct. The Tribunal accepted that deliberate manipulation of internal operational records may, depending on the facts, justify debarment where it reflects dishonesty or a lack of integrity.
They also reinforce the distinction between disciplinary action and debarment.
As the Tribunal explained in Nontshe’s case, debarment is not simply an employment sanction. It is an administrative consequence flowing from an FSP’s statutory obligation to ensure that its representatives continue to satisfy the fit-and-proper requirements.
