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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Invoice fraud

Written by

TRB-2019-4249.

A bank employee filed two invoices totaling €1100 in private expenses at the bank, declaring them business expenses. She also filed five forged invoices totaling €40.000 on behalf of a company with which she was involved. She then transferred the money to her own private bank account.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation. The Disciplinary Committee ruled that the transgressions constituted a serious breach of the banker’s oath and santioned a professional ban of 18 months. The defendant’s name was added to the foundation’s registry that is accessible by all banks.

 

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.