TRB-2018-3880. 

A bank employee viewed private financial data of a number of people, including family members, colleagues and neighbours, without proper cause. His bank filed a complaint against him. The Disciplinary Commission ruled the transgressions a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath and imposed a professional ban of 4 months. The individual’s name was added to the names registry.

A defendant signed an official document with a signature that resembles that of a client. This does not quality as working with integrity, is in violation of the law and rules and regulations of the defendant’s bank, and is detrimental to society’s trust in the bank. 

Copying a customer’s signature is judged by the Disciplinary Commission to be a transgression that is in serious breach of disciplinary rules. The prosecutor’s office sought a professional ban for a period of three months. Although the Disciplinary Commission agreed that the transgression is serious and merited a professional ban, there were some mitigating circumstances regarding processes at the bank. Rules and procedures were not always clear cut and defendant stated that she felt she could not address issues with superiors. 

Therefore the Disciplinary Commission 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.

The former director of a local bank branch arranged a separation package for himself and transferred a sum of €1,5 million to a foundation without the bank’s consent.

The defendant and the bank had negotiated a termination of his contract in 2005  by way of a settlement, but the bank never agreed to it. Since then, the defendant and the chairman of the supervisory board of the local branch had continued negotiations in order to come to an alternative agreement.

A foundation separate from the bank was set up, of which the defendant was the sole member of the board. Then a sum of €1,5 million was transferred to the foundation. The bank discovered the transaction and the money was transferred back, after which a complaint was filed against the defendant by the bank.

The Disciplinary Commission judged that the alternative agreement between defendant and the chairman of the supervisory board was materially not different from the settlement agreement the bank had declined.

It ruled the trangression a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath and  therefore sanctioned the bank’s employee a professional ban of 18 months. 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 counterfeited the signatures fpr the adjusted advice, using the signatures of the clients on the original advice as examples, 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-2019-4296.

The defendant, a commercial director of a local branch of a major bank, shared confidential financial records of a customer with a third party, an acquaintance of the defendant. The information was instrumental for the acquisition of the customer’s house, as the information provided to the third party – the buyer – showed that the bank’s customer was in mortgage arrears. This may have provided the acquiring third party with foreknowledge.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation. The Disciplinary Commission took the incident very seriously, stating that the bank director was aware of the rules and should have known better. The committee sanctioned the director to a professional ban of six weeks. The name of the defendant was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by all banks.

TRB-2019-4290.

A bank employee, acting on behalf of his nephew, viewed the financial records of his deceased uncle and shared the data with the nephew.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation, arguing that the defendant violated the rules and regulations of the bank. Customers – or their next of kin – should be able to count on the confidentiality of financial records. The Disciplinary Committee handed the defendant a professional ban of one month. The defendant’s name was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by all banks.

TRB-2019-4249.

A bank employee filed two invoices totaling €1100 in private expenses at the bank, declaring them business expenses. She also filed five forged invoices totaling €40.000 on behalf of a company with which she was involved. She then transferred the money to her own private bank account.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation. The Disciplinary Committee ruled that the transgressions constituted a serious breach of the banker’s oath and santioned a professional ban of 18 months. The defendant’s name was added to the foundation’s registry that is accessible by all banks.

 

TRB-2019-4299.

A bank employee shared access to confidential financial records of the bank’s customers with a private detective. In so doing, the bank employee offered the detective the possiblity to attain information important to the detective’s clients.

The bank filed a complaint with the foundation. The Disciplinary Committee ruled that the defendant’s actions constituted a serious breach of the banker’s oath and called the transgressions totally unacceptable. It therefore handed the defendant a professional ban of two years.

The defendant’s name was added to the foundation’s registry, which is accessible by all banks.