Unwarranted use of a customer’s credit card for personal purposes; 6 months professional disqualification

Written by

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.

Using and spending a client’s money without permission; 1,5 year professional disqualification

Written by

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.

Private expenditures with corporate credit card; reprimand

Written by

Defendant used a corporate credit card of her employer, a bank, for private expenditures. She then tried to cover up these expenditures by marking the expenditures down as corporate. She then asked her manager to declare the expenditures as legitimate, which he did not knowing that the spending was for personal purposes. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that defendant breached the Banker’s oath and sanctioned her with an official reprimand. The Commission took into account defendant’s personal situation and the fact that defendant came to an accommodation with her former employer to pay back the corporate expenditures.

Unwarranted viewing of private customer data; 6 months professional disqualification

Written by

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

Written by

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

Written by

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)

Written by

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.

Banker’s oath jurisdiction; private actions

Written by

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.

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

Written by

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.

 

Copying signatures of multiple clients IV

Written by

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.