
Tribunal upholds debarment over R1.1m ‘protection’ payments
The applicant’s own admissions supported Sanlam’s decision, and the section 14 process does not mirror a disciplinary hearing or a trial.

The applicant’s own admissions supported Sanlam’s decision, and the section 14 process does not mirror a disciplinary hearing or a trial.

The Tribunal found both that the process was unfair and that the FSP had not established dishonesty, recklessness, or lack of fitness and propriety.

CDH says the decision highlights the risks for businesses that incorporate cover or risk-transfer arrangements into broader commercial offerings.

The Tribunal finds that the alleged misrepresentation, non-disclosure, and materiality all depended on the contractual issue the FSP declined to establish.

The decision examines why client complaints, cellphone records, and handwriting evidence failed to establish dishonesty on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal held that procedural shortcomings must be distinguished from conduct showing a representative lacks honesty and integrity.

Five related decisions involving former Pineapple reps illustrate how misconduct affecting internal operational records may engage the honesty and integrity requirements.

The source of an obligation does not determine whether disputed conduct amounts to genuine fit-and-proper misconduct.

The FSP could not prove key elements of the process, including proper notice of the proceedings, and the conduct of the hearing.

The decision turned on the adviser’s acceptance of personal benefits from a client, the lack of proper compliance disclosure, and the higher standard expected of a KI.

The Authority debars two senior officials for 30 years after finding unlawful financial practices linked to the SANDF group life insurance scheme.

Twin enforcement actions show sustained pressure on unauthorised operators and market misconduct.

Reconsidering the matter after a High Court remittal, the Tribunal finds the referral activity failed the fit and proper test.

A failure to verify a client’s income amounted at most to negligence, but the evidence did not justify debarment for dishonesty.

The Full Bench finds that the information available to the FSP was sufficient to justify initiating the statutory debarment process.

Sanlam found that the client’s signatures were forged, but its own handwriting expert came to a different conclusion.

The Tribunal upholds the debarment of an F&I consultant who altered delivery and witness details on vehicle finance documents.