Debarment – Page 9 – Moonstone Information Refinery

What’s on the FIA’s agenda? Interview with FIA CEO Lizelle van der Merwe

The applicant was ‘left to guess’ the factual allegations on which the intended debarment was based, tribunal says.

That the parties entered the agreement after the notice of intention to debar had been sent was highly relevant.

She alleged the evidence of her conduct was obtained through an ‘unlawful search’ of her personal email account.

About R1 million in investors’ funds was misappropriated.

Applicant tells the tribunal she transferred the information to her private Gmail account to support her complaint to the CCMA.

The far-reaching implications of debarment were not justified in the circumstances, the FST finds.

Former Standard Bank staff contend that the FAIS Act did not apply to their debarment and conduct.

More than 600 investors lost their money – some exceeding R1 million each.

FST’s decision reveals a litany of problems with the procedure followed.

Applicant argues that non-compliance is not a contravention when the law does not provide for a penalty.

A single act of dishonesty, incompetence, mismanagement or negligence may not by itself be grounds for debarment.

This case sends a serious warning to those who allow “spotters” to work under their licence.

Tribunal draws attention to the effect of selling the franchise house business on the financial adviser agreement.

And how the Financial Services Tribunal assesses whether the fine was appropriate.

It also clarifies the relationship between the courts’ findings and the reconsideration application.

Ignoring emailed notices of an intention to debar doesn’t make them go away.

Debarment is an extremely important aspect of your obligations and rights under the FAIS Act and the Financial Sector Regulation Act.