From CompliNEWS | Financial Service Intelligence Watch
Wiesner v First National Bank (a division of FirstRand Bank Limited) (debarment)
Financial Services Tribunal (‘FST’ or ‘the Tribunal’)
Parties: Wiesner v First National Bank (a division of FirstRand Bank Limited)
Judgment: 18 February 2025
Keywords: Debarment – fit and proper requirements – procedural fairness – integrity and confidentiality – FAIS Act compliance
Summary
The applicant, Christo Wiesner, sought reconsideration of his debarment by First National Bank (FNB) under section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017.
Background
Wiesner, previously employed as a Divisional Manager and FAIS representative at FNB’s Private Clients Division, tendered his resignation in early 2024, indicating his intention to join a competitor.
During his notice period, an internal IT security alert flagged two emails he had sent from his work email to his private Gmail account. These emails contained confidential client information, including details of high-net-worth customers, financial records, and investment proposals.
Following an internal investigation, Wiesner was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed. FNB subsequently debarred him, citing a breach of confidentiality and integrity obligations under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002 (FAIS Act).
Wiesner applied for reconsideration, arguing that the breach was a genuine error for which he had apologised and that his impeccable service record should have been considered. However, his initial application to suspend the debarment was dismissed by Judge Harms, who ruled that procedural fairness had been observed. The only remaining issue for the Tribunal was the substantive merits of the debarment.
Discussion
The Tribunal considered whether the debarment was justified under section 14 of the FAIS Act, which requires financial service providers (FSPs) to ensure that their representatives remain fit and proper. Under section 6A(2)(a) of the FAIS Act, honesty and integrity are key criteria.
The Tribunal found that
• Regardless of Wiesner’s intent, his actions constituted an unauthorised transfer of confidential information, compromising client security.
• His claim that the emails were sent in error was insufficient to negate the breach.
• Given his senior role, his actions impugned his fitness to act as a FAIS representative.
Having found that the Respondent followed all required procedural steps, and that the debarment was substantively justified, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the decision.
Order
The application for reconsideration was dismissed, confirming Wiesner’s debarment.