Rulings

  1. Copying a client's signature I

    23 August 2018
    Professional ban

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Access to credit files 3

    12 January 2018

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. Access to credit files 1

    12 January 2018

    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.

  7. Secret allotment of client reimbursements; 6 months professional disqualification

    24 November 2017
    Professional ban

    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.

  8. Unwarranted viewing of private customer data IV; 3 months professional disqualification

    24 November 2017
    Professional ban

    Defendant frequently viewed the private data of 17 customers without cause between January and April of 2017. A total of 2892 viewings were counted. By doing this, defendant violated the Disciplinary Code of the Banker’s Oath. The Disciplinary Commission imposed a 3 month professional disqualification.

  9. 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.

  10. Theft at work; special circumstances

    24 November 2017

    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.

Pages