Reaving a client’s wallet

Written by

TRB-2019-3946. 

A bank employee took – and did not return – a client’s wallet, which the client had left at the employee’s office. The Prosecutor’s Office sought a reprimand, but the Disciplinary Commission imposed a three month professional ban.

Raising credit limits on own personal accounts: professional ban

Written by

A bank employee was handed a 3 months professional ban after it was discovered that she had raised the credit limits of her own or her husband’s bank account. This is in breach of the bank’s own rules. The Disciplinary Commission ruled the behavior and the breaking of the bank’s internal rules a violation of the Banker’s Oath. The name of the person will be added to the registry of the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement, which can be accessed by all Dutch banks.

Falsifying letter: professional ban

Written by

A bank employee was handed a 6 months professional ban because the Disciplinary Commission holds him partially responsible for falsifying a letter and filing it as evidence in a civil court case. The falsified letter refers to a supposed meeting between the bank employee and a client during which matters about the client’s mortgage were supposedly discusses. Such a meeting never took place. The Disciplinary Commission found that the bank employee falsified and filed the letter for his own personal gain; to win the court case. The employee was fired and his name has been entered into the registry of the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement that is accessible by Dutch banks.

Copying clients’ signatures: 2 professional bans

Written by

Professional bans were handed down to three mortgage advisors at a national bank. The cases are connected to the earlier verdicts against 61 professionals of the same bank, published on April 3, 2019. The names of the employees have been added to the foundation’s registry, to which Dutch banks have access.

Drafting own salary benefits

Written by

TRB-2019-4362.

A bank employee drafted his own salary benefits document using the bank’s stationery, with the intent of having his direct employer believe these were the bank’s proposed benefits. In the document, the employee awarded himself a higher salary and raised secondary benefits. 

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation. The Prosecutor’s Office argued that the defendant should never have allowed himself to draft his own salary benefits documents and then claim they were original. The defendant accepted a settlement and a 400 euro fine. The defendant’s name was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by all banks.

Lying about diplomas, falsifying email: professional ban

Written by

A bank employee was handed a 9 month professional ban from working at a Dutch bank after it was established that he lied about diploma’s he claimed to have attained, and falsifying an email to cover up his lies. The bank discovered his transgressions, had him fired and reported him with to the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that the lying and the falsification to cover up the lie constituted a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath.

Viewing and sharing of financial records of deceased family member

Written by

TRB-2019-4290.

A bank employee, acting on behalf of his nephew, viewed the financial records of his deceased uncle and shared the data with the nephew.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation, arguing that the defendant violated the rules and regulations of the bank. Customers – or their next of kin – should be able to count on the confidentiality of financial records. The Disciplinary Committee handed the defendant a professional ban of one month. The defendant’s name was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by all banks.

Uploading confidential data to a personal cloud outside the bank; reprimand

Written by

CvB TRB-2019-3868.

A certified individual appealed a decision by the Disciplinary Commission of December 19, 2018. 

The (former) employee had uploaded confidential private financial data of a client to an online private cloud server. The Disciplinary Commission imposed a professional ban. The Appeals Commission judged – as did the Disciplinary Commission – that this constituted a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath. However, the Appeals Commission identified special circumstances and judged the professional ban disproportional. It changed the sanction to a reprimand. The name of the certified individual was added to the names registry.

Sharing of confidential information by a bank director

Written by

TRB-2019-4296.

The defendant, a commercial director of a local branch of a major bank, shared confidential financial records of a customer with a third party, an acquaintance of the defendant. The information was instrumental for the acquisition of the customer’s house, as the information provided to the third party – the buyer – showed that the bank’s customer was in mortgage arrears. This may have provided the acquiring third party with foreknowledge.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation. The Disciplinary Commission took the incident very seriously, stating that the bank director was aware of the rules and should have known better. The committee sanctioned the director to a professional ban of six weeks. The name of the defendant was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by all banks.