Access to credit files 2; reprimand

The case relates to an earlier complaint which was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office. Complainant filed for redress, which was granted, after which the case was brought before the Disciplinary Commission. It is related to case ‘Access to credit files 1’ as it involves the same complainant.

Complainant accuses defendant of negligence in  providing complainant with information related to complainant’s repeated requests for access to papers in connection with complainant’s credit files at the bank. In all, the Disciplinary Commission found that defendant had not been pro-active enough in both searching for information within the bank and also not forthcoming enough in providing information to complainant. The Commission ruled that defendant had not made the customer’s interests central, a tenet of the Banker’s Oath. Thus, defendant breached the Disciplinary Code and was sanctioned with a reprimand.

Access to credit files 1

The case relates to an earlier complaint which was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office. Complainant filed for redress, which was granted, after which the case was brought before the Disciplinary Commission.

Complainant accuses defendant of willfully denying her access to papers connected to her credit files. The accusations pertain to errors in procedure made by defendant. The Disciplinary Commission has reviewed the procedure and alleged omissions therein and found that the complaints have no basis, as the defendant has followed procedure to the letter. In short, the Commission has found no wrongdoing. Therefore the Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant has not breached the Disciplinary Code of the Banker’s Oath.

Reprimand for using company resources for own gain

A bank employee in his private time founded a company that aimed to find jobs for the long-term unemployed. With this aim, the employee used the email address of his bank for communication and drafted a declaration of intent using the bank’s stationery. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that this raised the appearance of a conflict of interest, and reprimanded the employee.

Reprimand for not reporting big loss

Two bank employees were responsible for covering risks (hedging). When losses on a trading day piled up to approximately €1,3 million, they neglected to inform superiors of this fact, in violation of the company’s internal rules. The next trading day, the employees tried to repair the losses. They failed, resulting in the net loss to increase to more than €2 million. Only then did they report what happened. Both employees were subsequently fired. The Disciplinary Commission reprimanded both former employees.

Access to credit files 3

The case relates to an earlier complaint which was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office. Complainant filed for redress, which was granted, after which the case was brought before the Disciplinary Commission. It is related to the cases ‘Access to credit files 1’ and ‘Access to credit files 2; reprimand’ as it involves the same complainant.

Complainant filed a general complaint regarding communication provided by defendant. The Disciplinary Commission found no grounds to support any breach of the Banker’s Oath and judged that defendant followed proper procedures.

Several conduct violations alleviated by personal circumstance

TRB-2018-3876. 

A certified individual agreed to a settlement with reprimand after the General Director’s investigation following several complaints showed that the individual violated proper conduct rules. The individual made hotel reservations for private use in the employer’s name without the employer’s consent, that the individual falsified emails from colleagues, that she used her company’s email address for private matters and that she shared confidential information with a third party. The investigation, including testimony, showed that severe personal circumstances drove the certified individual to commit the violations. She agreed to a settlement, including a reprimand. The individual’s name was added to the names registry.

Filing a false insurance claim and viewing private information without business cause

TRB-2018-3950.

A certified individual filed a false insurance claim concerning car damage with an insurance company. The individual acted as the instigator, an investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office revealed following a complaint. Damage to the car was caused by a colleague, who rammed a shopping cart against the car. The certified individual also viewed private information of clients without business cause. The individual agreed to a settlement and was handed a reprimand by the Prosecutor’s Office. The name of the certified individual was added to the names registry.

Copying a customer’s signature

A defendant signed an official document with a signature that resembles that of a client. This does not quality as working with integrity, is in violation of the law and rules and regulations of the defendant’s bank, and is detrimental to society’s trust in the bank. 

Copying a customer’s signature is judged by the Disciplinary Commission to be a transgression that is in serious breach of disciplinary rules. The prosecutor’s office sought a professional ban for a period of three months. Although the Disciplinary Commission agreed that the transgression is serious and merited a professional ban, there were some mitigating circumstances regarding processes at the bank. Rules and procedures were not always clear cut and defendant stated that she felt she could not address issues with superiors. 

Therefore the Disciplinary Commission therefore sanctioned the bank’s employee a professional ban of four weeks. The name of the employee will be added to the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement’s registry, viewable only to banks associated with the foundation, once the verdict has become irrevocable.

Professional ban of 18 months for former bank director

The former director of a local bank branch arranged a separation package for himself and transferred a sum of €1,5 million to a foundation without the bank’s consent.

The defendant and the bank had negotiated a termination of his contract in 2005  by way of a settlement, but the bank never agreed to it. Since then, the defendant and the chairman of the supervisory board of the local branch had continued negotiations in order to come to an alternative agreement.

A foundation separate from the bank was set up, of which the defendant was the sole member of the board. Then a sum of €1,5 million was transferred to the foundation. The bank discovered the transaction and the money was transferred back, after which a complaint was filed against the defendant by the bank.

The Disciplinary Commission judged that the alternative agreement between defendant and the chairman of the supervisory board was materially not different from the settlement agreement the bank had declined.

It ruled the trangression a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath and  therefore sanctioned the bank’s employee a professional ban of 18 months. The name of the employee will be added to the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement’s registry, viewable only to banks associated with the foundation, once the verdict has become irrevocable.

Copying signatures of multiple clients VI

This ruling is part of a set of 10 against an equal number of defendants working for one and the same department at the same bank.

A bank employee sent a number of clients a mortgage advice. As is obligatory, the clients signed for agreement with the advice. It is standing procedure that the mortgage advice provided by the bank’s employee is then reviewed by an internal reviewing board.

The board found issues with the advice and ordered the bank employee to send the clients an adjusted advice, for which the clients were also obligated to sign.

However, the bank’s employee instead copied the signatures from the original advice onto the adjusted advice without informing the clients. The Committee argued that the malpractice was in part a result of the bank’s managerial policies. The Committee took into account that complaints of the bank’s employees about the policies were not heeded by the bank. The Committee believes that the bank employee did not intentionally impair the clients.

Nevertheless, the Disciplinary Committee argued the practice to be a serious brach of the rules of conduct associated with the Banker’s oath, and that such a breach cannot go unpunished. The prosecutor’s office sought a reprimand, but the Disciplinary Committee ruled that a temporary professional ban was the appropriate measure.

It therefore sanctioned the bank’s employee a professional ban of four weeks. The name of the employee will be added to the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement’s registry, viewable only to banks associated with the foundation, once the verdict has become irrevocable.