Unwarranted viewing of private customer data; 6 months 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.

Forgery of accountant’s statement; 1 year professional disqualification

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.

Conflict of interest; 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.

Unwarranted viewing of private customer data; 6 months professional disqualification (2)

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.

Reprimand for using company resources for own gain

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.

Banker’s oath jurisdiction; private actions

Defendant received money in his private bank account from a corporate client of the bank he worked for, while knowing that this money was not meant for him. Instead of rectifying the situation, defendant divided the sum and transferred the amounts to several bank accounts, one of them belonging to his then-girlfriend, who worked for the bank’s client at the time. Defendant transferred the money back to the company’s bank accounts only after repeated requests by the bank, his employer. The Disciplinary Commission judged the complaint to be outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction as it deemed the transgression not to be a breach of the Banker’s Oath. Therefore the Commission ruled that the complaint by the Prosecutor’s Office against defendant was inadmissible.

UPDATE 24 March 2017:
The Prosecutor’s Office of the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement appealed the Disciplinary Commission’s ruling at the Appeals Commission. The Appeals Commission overruled the Disciplinary Commission and ruled that the Banker’s oath was breached.

Reprimand for not reporting big loss

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.

Wrongly blocking a bank account; oath breached, but no sanctions

Defendant blocked the bank account of a customer, after several attempts to contact that customer (the plaintiff in this case). Blocking the bank account was not permitted according to internal rules of the bank. Defendant did not discuss the blockade with his supervisor. It is plausible that the customer was inconvenienced by the defendant’s actions. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant did not carefully consider the interests of the customer and did not put the interests of the customer first. As a result, the Disciplinary Commission ruled that the Banker’s oath was breached, but did not impose sanctions.

 

Access to credit files 3

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.

Unwarranted viewing of private customer data;6 months professional disqualification

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.