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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 six 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.

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.

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 counterfeited the signatures fpr the adjusted advice, using the signatures of the clients on the original advice as examples, 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.

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.

A defendant signed an official document with a signature that resembles that of a client. This does not quality as working with integrity, is in violation of the law and rules and regulations of the defendant’s bank, and is detrimental to society’s trust in the bank. 

Copying a customer’s signature is judged by the Disciplinary Commission to be a transgression that is in serious breach of disciplinary rules. The prosecutor’s office sought a professional ban for a period of three months. Although the Disciplinary Commission agreed that the transgression is serious and merited a professional ban, there were some mitigating circumstances regarding processes at the bank. Rules and procedures were not always clear cut and defendant stated that she felt she could not address issues with superiors. 

Therefore the Disciplinary Commission 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.