Banker’s oath jurisdiction; private actions

Defendant received money in his private bank account from a corporate client of the bank he worked for, while knowing that this money was not meant for him. Instead of rectifying the situation, defendant divided the sum and transferred the amounts to several bank accounts, one of them belonging to his then-girlfriend, who worked for the bank’s client at the time. Defendant transferred the money back to the company’s bank accounts only after repeated requests by the bank, his employer. The Disciplinary Commission judged the complaint to be outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction as it deemed the transgression not to be a breach of the Banker’s Oath. Therefore the Commission ruled that the complaint by the Prosecutor’s Office against defendant was inadmissible.

UPDATE 24 March 2017:
The Prosecutor’s Office of the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement appealed the Disciplinary Commission’s ruling at the Appeals Commission. The Appeals Commission overruled the Disciplinary Commission and ruled that the Banker’s oath was breached.

Wrongly blocking a bank account; oath breached, but no sanctions

Defendant blocked the bank account of a customer, after several attempts to contact that customer (the plaintiff in this case). Blocking the bank account was not permitted according to internal rules of the bank. Defendant did not discuss the blockade with his supervisor. It is plausible that the customer was inconvenienced by the defendant’s actions. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant did not carefully consider the interests of the customer and did not put the interests of the customer first. As a result, the Disciplinary Commission ruled that the Banker’s oath was breached, but did not impose sanctions.


Unwarranted viewing of private customer data;6 months professional disqualification

Defendant frequently viewed private financial data of a customer without cause. This was not permitted by the bank according the company’s internal rules. Defendant said that it is possible that colleagues may have used her account login data to access customer data. The Disciplinary Commission did not think this to be plausible. Through her actions, defendant breached the Banker’s oath, the Disciplinary Commission ruled, and sanctioned her with a 6 month professional disqualification, during which time she may not work in the Dutch banking sector. The Commission acknowledged that defendant had already been fired by her former employer.