Uploading confidential data to a personal cloud outside the bank

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.

Viewing private financial data of clients without proper cause

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.

Copying a customer’s signature

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.

Professional ban of 18 months for former bank director

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.

Copying signatures of multiple clients VI

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.

Refusal to cooperate in potential fraud investigation: professional ban

A bank employee was handed a 6 months professional ban for refusing to cooperate in a potential fraud investigation. After €20.000 had gone missing, all signs pointed to one employee possibly being responsible. The employee refused to allow investigating staff access to his mobile banking app. The employee was fired by the bank and reported to the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that the refusel to cooperate constituted a serious breach of the Banker’s Oath. 

The former employee’s name has been added to the foundation’s registry, to which Dutch banks have access.

Raising credit limits on own personal accounts: professional ban

A bank employee was handed a 3 months professional ban after it was discovered that she had raised the credit limits of her own or her husband’s bank account. This is in breach of the bank’s own rules. The Disciplinary Commission ruled the behavior and the breaking of the bank’s internal rules a violation of the Banker’s Oath. The name of the person will be added to the registry of the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement, which can be accessed by all Dutch banks.

Falsifying letter: professional ban

A bank employee was handed a 6 months professional ban because the Disciplinary Commission holds him partially responsible for falsifying a letter and filing it as evidence in a civil court case. The falsified letter refers to a supposed meeting between the bank employee and a client during which matters about the client’s mortgage were supposedly discusses. Such a meeting never took place. The Disciplinary Commission found that the bank employee falsified and filed the letter for his own personal gain; to win the court case. The employee was fired and his name has been entered into the registry of the Foundation for Banking Ethics Enforcement that is accessible by Dutch banks.

Copying clients’ signatures: 2 professional bans

Professional bans were handed down to three mortgage advisors at a national bank. The cases are connected to the earlier verdicts against 61 professionals of the same bank, published on April 3, 2019. The names of the employees have been added to the foundation’s registry, to which Dutch banks have access.