
Debarment set aside after call record contradicts key allegations
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 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.

The FSCA improperly allowed cost-recovery considerations to influence the sanction and did not assess the applicant’s financial benefit separately from his client’s.

The company should have acted in June 2023 when it suspected that confidential information about a R100-million acquisition had been compromised.

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.

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 Tribunal found that evidence of tax non-residence must be assessed against the legislation, with clear reasons given when it is considered insufficient.

The Tribunal finds that commercial circumstances did not justify implementing a major transaction before shareholder approval.

The Tribunal says the Adjudicator shifted the evidentiary goalpost over three determinations and passively accepted uncorroborated allegations.

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.