
Unpaid investment advice still counts: Tribunal upholds five-year debarment
An unpaid role in an investment club has resulted in a five-year debarment after the Tribunal found that the arrangement fell outside the stokvel exemption.

An unpaid role in an investment club has resulted in a five-year debarment after the Tribunal found that the arrangement fell outside the stokvel exemption.

A financial services representative’s unpaid debts and alleged fuel-card misuse were not enough to justify debarment,

The case began with a public warning in 2024 over alleged unrealistic returns and claims that Du Plessis had misrepresented his links to Sanlam Private Wealth.

The FSCA found that about R129 000 deposited into the director’s personal bank accounts was used for personal purchases rather than invested as promised.

The Tribunal found that repayment could not undo the misconduct of borrowing from a client and failing to disclose the arrangement.

The inquiry will consider whether trades executed during April and May 2026 contravened the Financial Markets Act.

The Tribunal questioned Clientèle’s ‘free’ voucher advertising and sales script, while the insurer says its Royalty benefit is provided at no additional cost.

The FST says the factors in section 167 of the FSRA are individual in nature and must be assessed in determining the appropriate penalty for each person.

Warren Wheatley says the matter involved three trades in 50 shares worth R301 while he was testing a stockbroker platform.

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.