by Moonstone Information Refinery
The Financial Services Tribunal (FST) has upheld the debarment of a representative who falsely claimed that a client signed application documentation via an in-person link.
Joash Daniels Nadasen’s association with Sanlam Life Insurance did not last long. He signed an independent contractor agreement with the FSP in February last year and resigned in July. He was contracted to market and promote Sanlam’s financial products.
One of Nadasen’s clients lodged a complaint, alleging he never saw the application documents for a product signed through Sanlam’s e-sign process. The client claimed Nadasen asked him to provide a one-time PIN to finalise the application.
This prompted a forensic investigation, which found that Nadasen had misled Sanlam by stating the documentation was signed in-person, despite evidence to the contrary. The investigation concluded that Nadasen “demonstrated dishonest behaviour when he indicated that the application documentation was signed via an in-person signing link knowing the client was not in his presence”. This conduct violated section 2 of the General Code of Conduct, which mandates honesty and integrity.
The forensic report didn’t stop there – it recommended debarment proceedings. Although two other irregularities surfaced during the probe, they could not be substantiated because the clients could not be unreached.
Nadasen resigned in July, before the investigation concluded, but Sanlam pressed forward, issuing a notice indicating possible debarment in October. This notice cited breaches of both the FAIS legislation and Sanlam’s Code of Ethics, questioning Nadasen’s fitness to serve as a financial representative. Despite Nadasen’s further representations, Sanlam issued a notice of debarment in November.
Seeking to overturn this, Nadasen filed for reconsideration with the Tribunal, arguing the decision rested on a “misunderstanding”. He said the client was his brother-in-law, alleging the complaint stemmed from personal animosity and was fabricated.
Nadasen insisted the client completed the signing process in his presence at his wife’s parents’ home. However, Sanlam countered this with an email from the client to the investigator, attaching WhatsApp messages where Nadasen wrote, “Howsit bru please give me the otp you received from Sanlam on your watsapp.”
The Tribunal said the FAIS Act provides a strict framework for maintaining integrity in the financial sector. Section 14(1)(a) empowers providers such as Sanlam to debar representatives who fail to meet the “fit and proper” requirements or materially violate the Act. These requirements, detailed in section 13(2)(a), demand competence and adherence to standards of honesty and integrity – qualities explicitly highlighted in section 6A(2)(a). The law leaves no ambiguity: a representative must embody these traits, or they cannot serve, as reinforced by section 13(1)(b)(iA). Procedurally, section 14(3)(a) ensures fairness, requiring written notice of intent, access to debarment policies, and a chance to respond before action is taken, while section 14(3)(c) mandates prompt notification of the outcome and appeal rights.
The Tribunal said Nadasen’s submission that the debarment stemmed from a “misunderstanding” was without merit. It pointed to inconsistencies, particularly between Nadasen’s narrative and the WhatsApp message to the client. This evidence undermined Nadasen’s assertion of an in-person signing, exposing a breach of integrity that contravened the FAIS legislation.
“Clearly, the applicant has not been consistent in his version of events,” the FST said.
Once Sanlam confirmed the facts, debarment wasn’t optional – it was required.
The Tribunal also confirmed that Sanlam followed the procedural steps demanded by the FAIS Act.