Defendant frequently viewed private financial data of a customer without cause. This was not permitted by the bank according the company’s internal rules. Defendant said that it is possible that colleagues may have used her account login data to access customer data. The Disciplinary Commission did not think this to be plausible. Through her actions, defendant breached the Banker’s oath, the Disciplinary Commission ruled, and sanctioned her with a 6 month professional disqualification, during which time she may not work in the Dutch banking sector. The Commission acknowledged that defendant had already been fired by her former employer.

Defendant processed failed PIN machine transactions by clients. In this capacity, defendant was mandates to reimburse clients for amounts lost and allot financial compensation. Defendant transferred allotments meant for customers to herself and her partner, for a total of €3,000. By doing so, defendant secretly gave people’s money to a third party, while knowing this was not allowed. The Disciplinary Commission deems it unlikely that defendant’s actions stemmed from her obsessive-compulsive disorder, as defendant testified in her own defense. Defendant operated in gross violation of ethical rules and the Disciplinary Code of the Banker’s Oath. The Disciplinary Commission imposed a 6 months professional disqualification.

Defendant frequently viewed the private data of 17 customers without cause between January and April of 2017. A total of 2892 viewings were counted. By doing this, defendant violated the Disciplinary Code of the Banker’s Oath. The Disciplinary Commission imposed a 3 month professional disqualification.

Defendant was asked by his employer to cancel a customer’s bank account. Instead, defendant requested a credit card to the name of the customer. Defendant then withdrew €3200 from the credit card for himself. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant’s actions constituted a clear breach of the Banker’s oath and sanctioned a 6 month professional disqualification. The Commission did take into a account that defendant understood that his actions were wrong and that he had reached an accommodation with his former employer to pay back the money.

Defendant had a close relationship with an elderly client who suffers from mild dementia. Defendant asked for money from the client, which he then spent in a casino. After that, he took money from defendant’s account without asking, for a total sum of €4750, which he also spent on gambling. After an alarm was raised about the money withdrawals, defendant tried to cover up his transgressions. The Disciplinary Commission ruled defendant’s actions to constitute a serious breach of the Bankers’ oath and sanctioned a 1,5 year professional disqualification.

Defendant frequently viewed private financial data of his parents-in-law without cause, gleaning information which then tempted the defendant to send his in-laws an anonymous postcard. Defendant also viewed private data of other customers and of his partner. All his actions were in violation of his employer’s internal rules, a bank, and also of the Bankers’ oath, the Disciplinary Commission ruled. The Commission sanctioned defendant with a personal disqualification of 6 months.

Defendant worked as an intermediary for a bank. As part of the employment agreement, defendant was obliged to present an official accountant’s statement to the bank every three months. Because defendant could not present one, he decided to hand over a forgery. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant breached the Bankers’ oath. Because defendant did not show any remorse over his actions, the Commission handed down a 1 year professional disqualification.

Defendant has been ruled guilty of a conflict of interest by the Disciplinary Commission. Defendant was employed as a financial advisor by a bank, in which position he advised a client of the bank. However, defendant privately took out a loan from the bank’s client to buy himself a house. Defendant used the bank’s systems to transfer the necessary funds from the client’s account to the account of the selling party. When the transaction was flagged by the bank and refused, defendant tried to cover up his actions. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that the employee’s actions were in violation of internal rules of the bank and a breach of the Banker’s oath. As a result, the Commission sanctioned the – now former – bank employee to a 1 year professional disqualification.

In its preliminary findings, the Disciplinary Commission also stated that any internal investigative reports from the bank and presented to the Commission should not be anonymized.

Defendant frequently viewed private financial data of customers without cause. Closer inspection by her employer later revealed these customers to be people in her own immediate surroundings. Defendant also shared private information gleaned from the bank accounts with her partner, while she should have treated this information as strictly confidential. Defendant not only clearly breached internal rules of her (now former) employer, she also violated the Bankers’ oath, the Disciplinary Commission ruled. The Commission handed down a 6 month professional disqualification.

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.