Sharing of confidential records

Written by

TRB-2019-4299.

A bank employee shared access to confidential financial records of the bank’s customers with a private detective. In so doing, the bank employee offered the detective the possiblity to attain information important to the detective’s clients.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation. The Disciplinary Committee ruled that the defendant’s actions constituted a serious breach of the banker’s oath and called the transgressions totally unacceptable. It therefore handed the defendant a professional ban of two years.

The defendant’s name was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by all banks.

Aiding and abetting fraudulent cash-back offers

Written by

TRB-2019-4336.

A bank employee aided a friend with executing his fraudulent cash-back schemes by depositing amounts of money into the bank employee’s personal bank accounts. This was a way for the friend to settle a debt with the bank employee. The bank filed a complaint with the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement. 

The bank employee accepted a €500 settlement after he showed proper remorse for his actions and after the bank had terminated his contract. His name was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by banks.

Forwarding confidential information to private email

Written by

TRB 2019-4318.

The defendant, a privacy officer at a bank, repeatedly forwarded confidential information of customers to his private email address. This resulted in the confidential information ending up on a Google server.

By doing so, the defendant shared confidential information with a third party. This constitutes a breach of the banker’s oath. The defendant accepted a settlement and a €500 fine. His name was added to the foundation’s registery, which is accessible by banks.

Not reporting the copying of signatures; settlement

Written by

TRB 2019-3982

Defendant had knowledge of the fact that a bank’s mortgage advisers were copying signatures of customers onto documents. The defendant did not report the transgressions to a manager, nor did he raise the subject with his colleagues.

The defendant also relayed the method to at least one other mortgage adviser, allowing it to spread further in the bank. By doing this, the defendant breached the banker’s oath. He accepted a settlement offer from the Prosecutor’s Office and paid a fine of €500. His name was added to the foundation’s registry, accessible by all banks.

carelessly formulated letter – dismissal; request to reconsider denied

Written by

A bank employee sent a carelessly formulated letter to a customer who had complained about the bank on social media. The customer interpreted the letter as to inform him that the bank was terminating all services to the customer and filed a complaint with the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement. However, the Prosecution Office opined that the case had no merit, as the bank employee had already profusely apologized for the letter in writing and by telephone. 

The customer asked for an official review of the case by the chair of the Disciplinary Committee. The chair agreed with the Prosecution Office that the bank employee’s apologies were sufficient and added that starting a disciplinary case would be disproportionate.

Transferring money from customer account, falsifying statement of account: unfounded

Written by

The Disciplinary Commission ruled against a case brought forward by the Prosecution Office. A bank employee was accused of taking money out of a customer’s bank account and transferring the sum to his own bank account. Then, the employee allegedly tried covered up the act by falsifying a statement of account. The Disciplinary Commission found evidence lacking to establish a breach of the Banker’s Oath. The Prosecution Office announced an appeal.

Gambling with money from fake bank accounts: professional ban

Written by

A bank employee was handed a 30 months professional ban for creating bank accounts, attaching credit cards to them and using them to gamble online. The employee was able to hide his actions long enough to cause €850.000 in damages as he tried to cover up betting losses with engaging in more bets. The employee finally reported himself to his management. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that the employee’s actions constituted a severe breach of the Bankers Oath. The name of the (now former) bank employee has been added to the registry of the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement, which can be accessed by Dutch banks.

Refusal to cooperate in potential fraud investigation: professional ban

Written by

A bank employee was handed a 6 months professional ban for refusing to cooperate in a potential fraud investigation. After €20.000 had gone missing, all signs pointed to one employee possibly being responsible. The employee refused to allow investigating staff access to his mobile banking app. The employee was fired by the bank and reported to the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that the refusel to cooperate constituted a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath. 

The former employee’s name has been added to the foundation’s registry, to which Dutch banks have access.

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.