Secondary

Ombud

Appeal Board finds against ex-Compliance Practitioner

A respondent’s appeal against a FAIS Ombud determination was recently dismissed by the Appeal Board.

The Appeal Board decision states that, in the original determination, the Ombud found that the appellant, “… in his capacity as representative, director and key individual, was non-compliant with the Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for Authorised Financial Services Providers. That was the case in that he no longer met the character qualities of honesty and integrity. Thus, he was debarred for a period of 5 years from acting as an FSP. He was also debarred from applying for a licence to act as an FSP for a period of 5 (five) years from the effective date of debarment.”

The appellant’s “…approval to act as a compliance officer in terms of section 17(2) of the FAIS Act was also withdrawn…”

The Appeal Board decision states that, “…based on his submissions that, because there exists disputes of fact in the information relied upon by the Registrar when she made her decisions, and because the Registrar had failed to put in place a procedure to resolve the dispute, her decision must be set aside. Further, he submits, for the Registrar to make a decision on the basis of disputed facts is wrong and contrary to the principle of probabilities and is therefore unsustainable. For that reason too the appeal must fail and the Registrar must be ordered to pay the costs.”

“As an alternative, he submits, the Appeal Panel must remit the matter to the Registrar, directing her appropriately, to find a mechanism to resolve the dispute of facts. In particular, he submits that an oral hearing be conducted so that he may be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.”

The Appeal Board rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal.

Click here to read the full decision.

Comments are closed.