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 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.

TRB-2019-3946. 

A bank employee took – and did not return – a client’s wallet, which the client had left at the employee’s office. The Prosecutor’s Office sought a reprimand, but the Disciplinary Commission imposed a three month professional ban.

TRB-2018-3866. 

A bank employee copied private financial data about a client’s pension plans onto two USB memory sticks and took them home. Later, one of the sticks was lost inside the bank’s office building and found by a colleague, who reported the individual to management. Management then filed a complaint with the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that the incident constituted a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath and imposed a professonial ban of 9 months. The individual’s name was added to the names registry.

TRB-2018-3868.  

An individual was caught uploading confidential data to a personal private cloud server. His employer filed a complaint. The Disciplinary Commission ruled the trangression a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath and imposed a professional ban of 12 months. The individual’s name was added to the names registry.