The Financial Services Tribunal has upheld the debarment of a former representative who borrowed money from a client, finding that repayment did not undo the misconduct arising from the arrangement.
The misconduct lay in the borrowing and the failure to disclose it, rather than in whether the client was ultimately repaid or remained dissatisfied, the Tribunal said in its decision dated 23 October 2026. It found that Nolusindiso Latyisi knowingly acted contrary to company policies and failed to meet the fit and proper requirements of honesty and integrity.
Latyisi applied for the reconsideration of Old Mutual Finance’s decision to debar her. She also sought condonation because her application was filed more than six months after the debarment decision.
Latyisi worked as a financial consultant at Old Mutual Finance from June 2022 until she resigned with immediate effect in January 2025.
On 2 July 2024, she assisted a client with a loan application. A loan of R100 000 was subsequently disbursed to the client. The following day, Latyisi received R4 000 from the client.
The client complained to Old Mutual Finance on 30 September 2024, stating that Latyisi had not repaid the money as she had undertaken to do. An investigation report dated 10 October 2024 noted that she had admitted borrowing the money, knew that the company’s policies and procedures prohibited the conduct, and still owed the client R2 000.
Old Mutual Finance alleged that the arrangement breached its disciplinary code, Conflict of Interest and Gifts Policy, and Maadili Charter. The decision describes the Maadili Charter as Old Mutual’s ethical code of conduct, which defines the behaviour expected of employees, board members, and business partners.
The company also alleged that Latyisi had accepted a financial benefit from the client without reporting it to her line manager.
Old Mutual Finance notified Latyisi on 14 July 2025 that it was considering debarring her. It invited her to make written representations by 4 August and gave her the option of asking for a formal hearing. She submitted no representations before the company decided to debar her on 19 August 2025.
Claim of a private arrangement rejected
In her reconsideration application, Latyisi contended that she had a legitimate agreement with the client that Old Mutual Finance had misunderstood. She also relied on the repayment of the money and the client’s purported withdrawal of the complaint.
The Tribunal found that Latyisi had not provided plausible evidence that the loan arose from a legitimate private agreement. In any event, the arrangement was discussed and effected while she was assisting the client with a loan application in her capacity as a financial consultant. The Tribunal said this displayed “reckless and poor judgment” on her part.
It also said Latyisi could not provide a plausible explanation for why the arrangement was discussed at Old Mutual Finance’s offices while she was assisting the client and the R100 000 loan was being disbursed.
The Tribunal found that Latyisi knew Old Mutual Finance’s policies and procedures prohibited financial relationships between its representatives and clients, but she nevertheless borrowed the money.
Old Mutual Finance submitted that Latyisi had attended fraud-awareness training on 19 June 2024, during which employees were expressly told that borrowing money from clients constituted serious misconduct. The company argued that her conduct shortly afterwards was deliberate and undertaken with knowledge that it was improper.
Repayment did not undo the misconduct
The Tribunal said Latyisi’s conduct and the client’s dissatisfaction had the potential to damage Old Mutual Finance’s reputation. It therefore did not matter that she eventually repaid the money.
The client’s purported withdrawal of the complaint did not alter the Tribunal’s assessment.
The withdrawal was communicated in an unsworn email sent from Latyisi’s own email address. The Tribunal said the purported client email did not dispute, and was incapable of disputing, that she had borrowed money from a client during a transaction she was handling as a representative, contrary to company policies of which she was aware.
“The misconduct lies in the borrowing and non-disclosure, not in whether the client was ultimately satisfied or repaid,” the Tribunal said.
It found that the conduct amounted to serious misconduct that impugned Latyisi’s character generally and her honesty and integrity in particular. It concluded that she did not meet the applicable fit and proper requirements and had no prospects of succeeding with her reconsideration application.
Application filed more than six months late
The Tribunal also found that Latyisi had not adequately explained the late filing of her application.
She was notified of the debarment on 19 August 2025. Because she had not requested reasons under section 229 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act, she ordinarily had 60 days to apply for reconsideration, unless the Tribunal allowed a longer period on good cause shown. Her application was due on or about 18 October 2025, but she filed it only on 23 April 2026.
Latyisi said she had lost access to her email but confirmed that her access had been restored by 19 August 2025. She received the debarment notice that day and responded to Old Mutual Finance with an explanation of the loan and the client’s purported withdrawal. She said she was uncertain about the procedure and where to submit her challenge.
The Tribunal found that the debarment notice clearly explained the process available to her. It said the period between the debarment and the filing of the reconsideration application remained unexplained.
It also considered the merits of the reconsideration application when deciding whether good cause existed to condone the delay. It found that the delay had not been plausibly explained and that the application had no prospects of success.
The refusal of condonation was determinative of the reconsideration application. The Tribunal dismissed the application and upheld the debarment.
