Unwarranted viewing of private customer data;6 months professional disqualification

Written by

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.

Reprimand for using company resources for own gain

Written by

A bank employee in his private time founded a company that aimed to find jobs for the long-term unemployed. With this aim, the employee used the email address of his bank for communication and drafted a declaration of intent using the bank’s stationery. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that this raised the appearance of a conflict of interest, and reprimanded the employee.

Reprimand for not reporting big loss

Written by

Two bank employees were responsible for covering risks (hedging). When losses on a trading day piled up to approximately €1,3 million, they neglected to inform superiors of this fact, in violation of the company’s internal rules. The next trading day, the employees tried to repair the losses. They failed, resulting in the net loss to increase to more than €2 million. Only then did they report what happened. Both employees were subsequently fired. The Disciplinary Commission reprimanded both former employees.

Access to credit files 3

Written by

The case relates to an earlier complaint which was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office. Complainant filed for redress, which was granted, after which the case was brought before the Disciplinary Commission. It is related to the cases ‘Access to credit files 1’ and ‘Access to credit files 2; reprimand’ as it involves the same complainant.

Complainant filed a general complaint regarding communication provided by defendant. The Disciplinary Commission found no grounds to support any breach of the Banker’s Oath and judged that defendant followed proper procedures.

Access to credit files 2; reprimand

Written by

The case relates to an earlier complaint which was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office. Complainant filed for redress, which was granted, after which the case was brought before the Disciplinary Commission. It is related to case ‘Access to credit files 1’ as it involves the same complainant.

Complainant accuses defendant of negligence in  providing complainant with information related to complainant’s repeated requests for access to papers in connection with complainant’s credit files at the bank. In all, the Disciplinary Commission found that defendant had not been pro-active enough in both searching for information within the bank and also not forthcoming enough in providing information to complainant. The Commission ruled that defendant had not made the customer’s interests central, a tenet of the Banker’s Oath. Thus, defendant breached the Disciplinary Code and was sanctioned with a reprimand.

Access to credit files 1

Written by

The case relates to an earlier complaint which was dismissed by the Prosecutor’s Office. Complainant filed for redress, which was granted, after which the case was brought before the Disciplinary Commission.

Complainant accuses defendant of willfully denying her access to papers connected to her credit files. The accusations pertain to errors in procedure made by defendant. The Disciplinary Commission has reviewed the procedure and alleged omissions therein and found that the complaints have no basis, as the defendant has followed procedure to the letter. In short, the Commission has found no wrongdoing. Therefore the Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant has not breached the Disciplinary Code of the Banker’s Oath.

Secret allotment of client reimbursements; 6 months professional disqualification

Written by

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.

Unwarranted viewing of private customer data; reprimand

Written by

Defendant viewed the private data of 10 customers for a total of 20 times without cause between November 18, 2016 and January 7, 2017. By doing this, defendant violated the Disciplinary Code of the Banker’s Oath. Because of the limited nature of the violation and because defendant understood that her actions were wrong and she showed remorse, sanctions were limited to a reprimand.

Theft at work; special circumstances

Written by

Defendant committed theft by twice taking money out of the wallet of a colleague at work. By doing this, defendant clearly violated the norms and values set for bank employees. The behavior is deemed to be in breach of integrity rules. The complaint made against defendant is therefore legitimate. Because of special circumstances – defendant was fired, defendant’s mental health and pressures arising from the disciplinary procedure – no sanctions were imposed.