Rulings

  1. Uploading confidential data to a personal cloud outside the bank; reprimand

    16 April 2019
    Reprimand

    CvB TRB-2019-3868. A certified individual appealed a decision by the Disciplinary Commission of December 19, 2018. 

  2. Office computer used for private means

    19 December 2018
    Reprimand

    TRB 2018-3862. A bank employee used an internet search machine on his office computer to search for pornographic material. The employee also visited websites for private use, such as news websites about football. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that the conduct was in breach of the Banker's Oath and imposed a reprimand. The employee's name was added to the names registry.

  3. Viewing private financial records without cause

    11 December 2018
    Reprimand

    TRB-2018-3770.  A bank employee viewed financial records of clients without proper cause, the General Director found after an investigation based on a complaint. The bank employee admitted the transgressions and agreed to a settlement with reprimand. The employee's name was added to the names registry.

  4. Viewing and sharing private financiel records without proper cause

    11 December 2018
    Reprimand

    TRB-2018-3771. A bank employee viewed financial records of clients without proper cause and shared the information with a third party, the General Director found after an investigation based on a complaint. The bank employee admitted the transgressions and agreed to a settlement with reprimand. The employee's name was added to the names registry.

  5. Several conduct violations alleviated by personal circumstance

    19 November 2018
    Reprimand

    TRB-2018-3876. 

  6. Filing a false insurance claim and viewing private information without business cause

    13 November 2018
    Reprimand

    TRB-2018-3950. A certified individual filed a false insurance claim concerning car damage with an insurance company. The individual acted as the instigator, an investigation by the Prosecutor's Office revealed following a complaint. Damage to the car was caused by a colleague, who rammed a shopping cart against the car. The certified individual also viewed private information of clients without business cause. The individual agreed to a settlement and was handed a reprimand by the Prosecutor's Office. The name of the certified individual was added to the names registry.

  7. Reprimand for using company resources for own gain

    22 March 2018
    Reprimand

    A bank employee in his private time founded a company that aimed to find jobs for the long-term unemployed. With this aim, the employee used the email address of his bank for communication and drafted a declaration of intent using the bank’s stationery. The Disciplinary Commission ruled that this raised the appearance of a conflict of interest, and reprimanded the employee.

  8. Reprimand for not reporting big loss

    22 March 2018
    Reprimand

    Two bank employees were responsible for covering risks (hedging). When losses on a trading day piled up to approximately €1,3 million, they neglected to inform superiors of this fact, in violation of the company’s internal rules. The next trading day, the employees tried to repair the losses. They failed, resulting in the net loss to increase to more than €2 million. Only then did they report what happened. Both employees were subsequently fired. The Disciplinary Commission reprimanded both former employees.

  9. Access to credit files 2; reprimand

    12 January 2018
    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.

  10. Unwarranted viewing of private customer data; reprimand

    24 November 2017
    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.

Pages