Secondary

collusion

Collusion to no avail

An applicant who was debarred after being found guilty of fraud and dishonesty appealed to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority for a reconsideration of the decision. The applicant “attacked the process of debarment” and, in his appeal, did not address the factual findings of the disciplinary hearing, but rather just restated his defence in the hearing.

It was alleged that he had submitted an application for a life cover policy which the “client” did not authorise or consent to, and that he misled Liberty by submitting a disclosure pack creating the impression that he had provided the client with advice.

In another decision of the Tribunal, reference was made to the applicant in this case. According to the Tribunal they “…were in cahoots in initiating two policies in the name of the same client”.

In addition, their “defences” were identical and their applications for reconsideration are similar. What follows is therefore a duplication of what was said in that decision. The factual findings were that:

  • the Financial Advisor initiated the policy mentioned above for the client without his knowledge or consent;
  • this was done by way of using (1) an incorrect cell phone number that does not belong to the client, (2) an incorrect residential address that does not belong to the client; and (3) forging the clients’ signatures on the relevant application documents;
  • the Financial Advisor used the clients’ personal Information fraudulently;
  • the Financial Advisor was dishonest in the disclosure letter, FNA and ROA by claiming to have done them with the client, and finding a need for a funeral plan;
  • the financial advisor colluded with his cohort by (1) submitting identical statements in their defence, and (2) using the same incorrect information to fill out the application documents for the client.

Implementing this fraudulent conduct required meticulous planning and behaviour of a deliberate mala fide nature.

Having considered the papers, the Tribunal was satisfied that the conclusion of the hearing which led to the debarment was not based on speculation but was based on reasoning, having regards to the objective facts, and that the case against the applicant was established.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

, ,

Comments are closed.
SA Corona Virus Online Portal Logo
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION