Tribunal rules in favour of rep who found out about her debarment from the FSCA
The debarment procedure did not comply with the FAIS Act in a number of ways, the FST finds.
The SARB has forfeited to the state cash totalling R42m from Berdine Odendaal’s bank accounts, as well as her R18m property in Paarl’s Val de Vie estate.
Read moreThe debarment procedure did not comply with the FAIS Act in a number of ways, the FST finds.
The Financial Services Tribunal hears another case involving a representative who ‘completed’ proof of address letter on clients’ behalf.
The fact that the applicant did not sell any products or receive remuneration did not nullify his status as a representative.
Standard Bank debarred a branch team leader for using her own money to activate four accounts without the customers’ consent.
The jurisdictional fact required for the debarment was absent.
The Tribunal reiterates that FSPs should not issue a debarment purely on the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.
Craig Massyn submits the penalties imposed on him were disproportionately large compared to those imposed on the other directors of the Praesidium Group.
No evidence that staff were instructed to verify prospective clients’ addresses using blank letters provided by the municipality, FST finds.
Two recent decisions by the tribunal highlight misconceptions about debarment that need to be dispelled.
FNB debars consultant who issued unauthorised letters stating a company was good for up to R900 million in credit.
The former bank manager’s actions were driven by desperation, but the FAIS Act is not forgiving, the tribunal says.
Material discrepancies about a newly appointed financial planner’s employment history came to light while she was being on-boarded.
In one case, the FSP was still investigating the alleged fraud when it decided to bar the representative.
His FSPs were fined a total of R250 000 for selling two products before they were licensed.
The employer did not point to a single provision in the FAIS Act, or any other legislation, that prohibits this.
The applicant was ‘left to guess’ the factual allegations on which the intended debarment was based, tribunal says.