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.

Access to credit files 2; reprimand

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

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

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

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

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.

Copying signatures of multiple clients V

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.