Former EOH Holdings director Anushka Bogdanov says she will challenge the dismissal of her application for reconsideration of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange’s decision to sanction her for misrepresenting her qualifications.
In July 2025, the JSE imposed a public censure, a R500 000 fine and a 10-year disqualification from serving as a director or officer of a JSE-listed company. The exchange said the sanctions followed findings about Bogdanov’s claimed academic qualifications and the way those qualifications had been reflected in company and regulatory disclosures.
The Financial Services Tribunal (FST), in a ruling delivered on 1 June 2026, said it could find no reason to interfere with the JSE’s decision. Bogdanov, however, said the FST’s decision failed to address issues raised in her application and contained inaccuracies.
The JSE’s case
According to a JSE SENS announcement on 25 July 2025, Bogdanov was appointed as an independent non-executive director of EOH Holdings on 20 June 2019. The JSE said she chaired the social and ethics committee, served on the governance and risk committee and the nomination and remuneration committee, and became lead independent non-executive director in February 2020.
Both the JSE and the Tribunal record that she resigned from EOH with effect from 28 July 2020.
The JSE said that, when Bogdanov was appointed, the CV provided to EOH stated she held a PhD in International Finance from London Business School (LBS) in 2007/08. It also said that, in a Schedule 13 director’s declaration submitted to the JSE, she confirmed that she possessed a PhD in International Financial Management and Mathematics. According to the exchange, EOH repeated those claims in public disclosures, including SENS announcements and annual reports, and referred to her as “Doctor”.
On that basis, it found Bogdanov had breached General Principles (v) and (vii) of the Listings Requirements, which concern the care required in information disseminated to the market and the promotion of investor confidence in disclosure and corporate governance.
The forged certificate
The Tribunal said the dispute concerned not only the PhD claim in Bogdanov’s CV and Schedule 13 declaration, but also a certificate later produced in support of that claim.
According to the ruling, no certificate was submitted when she joined EOH, but one was submitted on 9 March 2020. The Tribunal said EOH’s internal investigation later found that certificate to be forged, citing differences in the logo, spelling errors, the use of a vice-chancellor title that LBS did not have, and reference to a doctorate that the institution did not offer.
The Tribunal also records that the certificate featured in a second process beyond EOH. In March 2020, during the Prudential Authority’s vetting of Bogdanov for a proposed appointment to the African Bank board, a dossier signed off by her was submitted containing her CV and a copy of the LBS certificate. The ruling says a whistleblower came forward, and LBS confirmed on 25 March 2020 that the certificate was forged and recommended legal action.
EOH’s investigations unit later reached the same conclusion. The Tribunal records that Integrated Risk Management Solutions confirmed on 23 July 2020 that the certificate was fraudulent.
The Tribunal also noted evidence about Bogdanov’s earlier employment at the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA), where she said DBSA had funded her PhD studies. The decision says she did not produce evidence showing, among other things, application for the degree, admission to the programme, registration details, supervisors, thesis approval, financing records, proof that the thesis had been accepted subject to viva voce, or details of the viva panel.
In its 2025 SENS, the JSE said it began engaging with Bogdanov about the qualification in November 2020, and the process was prolonged by repeated requests from her for more time because of personal circumstances.
In its decision, the Tribunal recorded that the exchange had interacted with her for about three years in an effort to establish the facts relating to the claimed PhD, her Schedule 13 declaration and the applicable Listings Requirements.
Both the JSE and the Tribunal record a concession by Bogdanov during that process. The JSE said that, in late 2024, she confirmed and admitted that she did not have a PhD from LBS. The Tribunal stated that, through her legal representative on 23 October 2024, she conceded that the LBS PhD had never been awarded to her, while alleging that an unnamed individual had forged the certificate without her knowledge or consent.
Bogdanov’s reconsideration case
After the JSE’s 2025 SENS, TechCentral and Moneyweb reported that Bogdanov described the exchange’s account as containing “factual inaccuracies” and “misrepresentation”. Those reports also said she maintained that she had submitted supporting documentation from accredited institutions, including her doctoral research, to the JSE in good faith and with transparency, and she had sought legal advice.
In her reconsideration application, Bogdanov raised both procedural and substantive grounds.
The Tribunal records that she argued that she genuinely believed she had attained the degree after her viva voce examination.
It also records that she argued the sanction was disproportionate, that her health had not been properly considered, that the Listings Requirements had not been applied consistently, and she had not engaged in deliberate misrepresentation.
The ruling further records that Bogdanov challenged the SENS notification, disputed aspects of the JSE’s investigation, and denied that the false information in the CV and certificate reflected intentional wrongdoing on her part.
The Tribunal also set out the explanation Bogdanov advanced for why she believed she held the degree. According to the ruling, she said she completed her thesis in April 2008 and defended it in July 2008 before a panel of three examiners at LBS. She said questions were raised during the viva, but that she believed a PhD had nonetheless been awarded to her.
The Tribunal also recorded that Bogdanov relied on traumatic personal circumstances arising from events she said took place in London after the viva. According to the ruling, she said that after returning to her apartment, she found her husband “in the act with two members of LBS faculty”, returned to South Africa in a state of shock, and later divorced.
Regarding the certificate, the Tribunal records that Bogdanov said an executive assistant or secretary was responsible for compiling a dossier in which the qualification and supporting document appeared.
It also records her position that the certificate had been prepared for another purpose and was included in the material without her knowledge or consent. That formed part of her broader contention that the inaccurate information was not the product of deliberate misrepresentation by her.
Bogdanov also sought to compare her case with that of Thabi Leoka, another former director of JSE-listed companies who was sanctioned by the JSE in a separate qualifications-related matter in 2024. The Tribunal records that Bogdanov argued her 10-year disqualification was inappropriate when compared with the five-year disqualification imposed on Leoka.
Why the Tribunal rejected Bogdanov’s application
The Tribunal rejected Bogdanov’s application. It said there was no persuasive evidence that she had applied for, been admitted to, completed, defended, and been awarded the PhD she claimed.
The Tribunal also rejected the explanation that all relevant LBS records had been deleted. It said that proposition was not plausible, particularly because Bogdanov would have been expected to have records of her own.
The ruling adds that, if she had truly been registered for and completed the degree, one would have expected evidence relating to the application, registration, thesis proposal, communications with supervisors, and the final examination process.
The Tribunal further rejected Bogdanov’s viva-based explanation. The ruling says her claim that a PhD had been awarded despite unresolved questions from the examiners was implausible. It also said that, even on her own version, she would have known when she left the examination room that there were matters still to be addressed.
The Tribunal also rejected the explanation built around the events Bogdanov said took place after the viva. It said there was “no logical excuse” for failing to follow up with her supervisors regarding the required supplementation or for failing to address the traumatic incident directly with LBS. The ruling stated: “This, in all likelihood, is not true in the absence of contrary evidence.”
The Tribunal also noted that Bogdanov had continued to refer to herself as “Doctor” on social media since 2008. It found that this was not truthful if, as it concluded, no PhD had ever been conferred.
The Tribunal also rejected Bogdanov’s explanation that a secretary or assistant was responsible for the inaccurate material. It noted that the Schedule 13 declaration expressly required her to confirm that, to the best of her knowledge and belief, and having taken all reasonable care, the answers in it were true.
The Tribunal found that the inclusion of the PhD in the CV submitted to EOH was “intentional and fraudulent”, and the forged certificate and related documents were “deliberate, fraudulent, and intentional”.
It also held that the record did not support the suggestion that the forged documents had been created and used without her knowledge, saying the forgeries were either committed by her or with her knowledge and consent. The ruling goes further, stating that the conduct appeared to constitute elements of criminal conduct.
On the procedural question, the Tribunal found no irregularity in the JSE’s handling of the matter. It said the exchange had engaged with Bogdanov over an extended period and had afforded her opportunities to respond.
The Tribunal also rejected the comparison with Leoka. It said each matter had to be considered on its own facts, and the record before it did not justify treating the two cases as equivalent.
The Tribunal was not persuaded that the JSE had failed to properly take Bogdanov’s health into account. Instead, it found the forged certificate and her prolonged failure to respond to the exchange’s queries to be aggravating factors. It added that she was “healthy enough to conduct a business, serve all kinds of functions, study for another doctorate, but too ill to answer simple requests”.
The ruling also referred to a later claim by Bogdanov that she had obtained a Doctor of Business Administration from the University of Northampton. The Tribunal said her attorneys provided information about that qualification after the hearing, but without proof of conferment. It added that, in its view, this illustrated the kind of evidential material she ought to have produced in relation to the claimed LBS PhD when dealing with EOH and the JSE.
Decision will be challenged
In her statement on 2 June, Bogdanov said the Tribunal’s decision did not address issues raised in her application and various facts presented in the hearings and submissions to the JSE and the FST.
“Besides, the decision also contains various inaccuracies, including but not limited to personal and professional details, e.g. my marital status and academic designation as a Doctor, my role as a board member of the JSE fully owned subsidiary Nautilus, despite these being matters of record. These inaccuracies raise further concerns regarding the consideration afforded to the broader facts and submissions presented before the Tribunal. The decision will be challenged,” Bogdanov said.
