
Tribunal sets aside OUTsurance debarment over evidentiary gaps
The insurer did not provide supporting documents or call recordings that could resolve the material disputes of fact.

The insurer did not provide supporting documents or call recordings that could resolve the material disputes of fact.

Despite a guilty plea at a disciplinary hearing, a rep’s debarment was set aside after the Tribunal found the FSP had not followed the prescribed process.

The former Sanlam Life representative claimed his brother only assisted him in an administrative or logistical capacity.

The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s contractual and supervision agreements meant she was a ‘representative’, placing her within the FAIS framework and its mandatory debarment provisions.

The planner said his employee performed administrative tasks and denied that the engagements constituted ‘advice’ under the FAIS Act.

The Tribunal says that even informal communications qualify as regulated advice if they involve financial recommendations.

The Tribunal confirms Assupol’s decision to debar a representative after forensic evidence showed he advised on life policies while unauthorised.

The evidence accumulated by Momentum supported its finding that the agent lacked honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal said allegations of not following sales scripts may breach internal policy but do not in themselves demonstrate dishonesty or a lack of integrity.

Pierre Erasmus said the sanctions were disproportionate, and his dealings with clients were friendships, not formal business relationships.

The client initially swore to non-consent, but in a second affidavit he said drugs clouded his memory, insisting he was present when the policies were initiated.

The FST found that repeated creation of phantom quotes and unauthorised ITC checks breached honesty and integrity standards.

Polygraph testing alone cannot establish dishonest conduct; where the circumstantial evidence is weak or contradictory, debarment is a disproportionate sanction.

In exchange for their admissions, they sought to substitute their debarments with an undertaking to repay R470m in client losses.

Despite claims of verbal consent from her client, the FST found the adviser’s informal arrangements did not satisfy the requirements for written, explicit authorisation.

The Tribunal agrees with the FSCA that the entity’s key individual did not ‘come clean’ about her past misconduct.

The FSP’s allegations that the representative violated the terms of the settlement and service agreements did constitute a material breach of the FAIS Act.