Access to credit files 1 Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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.
Access to credit files 2; reprimand Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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 3 Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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.
Reprimand for not reporting big loss Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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.
Reprimand for using company resources for own gain Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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.
Copying signatures of multiple clients V Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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.
Copying a client’s signature I Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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 client a mortgage advice. As is usual, the client signed for agreement with the advice. As is practice, the mortgage advice provided by the bank’s employee was then reviewed by an internal reviewing board. The board found issues with the advice and ordered the bank employee to send the client an adjusted advice, for which the client was also obligated to sign. However, the bank’s employee instead copied the client’s signature from the original advice onto the adjusted advice without informing the client. 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 client. 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 two 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.
Copying signatures of multiple clients I Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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.
Copying a client’s signature II Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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 client a mortgage advice. As is obligatory, the client 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 client an adjusted advice, for which the client was also obligated to sign. However, the bank’s employee instead copied the client’s signature from the original advice onto the adjusted advice without informing the client. 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 client. 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 two 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.
Copying signatures of multiple clients II Posted on September 16, 2020 at 6:23 am.Written by StuurluiDevelopment 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 two 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.