
Wrong email address leaves FSP unable to pursue debarment
The Tribunal found that proceedings had not commenced before the six-month deadline, preventing it from sending the matter back for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that proceedings had not commenced before the six-month deadline, preventing it from sending the matter back for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that a serious breach of the duty to protect confidential client information can establish unfitness even where no misuse or harm is proved.

The Tribunal weighed the representative’s clean record and lack of personal gain against her deliberate falsification of a client’s investment instruction.

The regulator says its investigation into September 2022 share transactions found contraventions of the Financial Markets Act.

An FSP cannot treat debarment as an automatic consequence of a disciplinary finding, the Tribunal says, setting aside a process riddled with procedural failures.

The adviser breached Sanlam’s internal cash-handling rule, but the conduct did not establish a lack of honesty and integrity.

The debarments follow an investigation into improper payment arrangements, unlawful revenue-sharing, and procurement practices at Regiments.

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.