CASE NO: FSP52/2026
In the matter between:
ACROYD CLAUSS DE VRIES Applicant
and
SANLAM LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent
Tribunal panel: LTC HARMS (CHAIR) & ADV SM MARITZ
Decided on Papers
Date of Decision: 18 August 2026
Summary: FAIS Act 37 of 2002, section 14 debarment. Provider failed to undertake the
required fit and proper enquiry or give reasons. Ground notified to the Authority is lack of
honesty and integrity; that ground was never put to the representative, is not established on
the record and is not defended before the Tribunal. Admitted contraventions amount at highest
to negligence and to breaches of the internal contractual relationship. Relevant considerations
not considered. FICA findings not sustainable. Debarment set aside. Remittal refused as
serving no purpose.
_________________________________________________________________________
DECISION
_________________________________________________________________________
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The applicant seeks reconsideration in terms of section 230 of the Financial Sector
Regulation Act 9 of 2017 (“the FSR Act”) of the decision of the respondent, Sanlam
Life Insurance Limited (“Sanlam”), taken on 16 March 2026, to debar him in terms of
section 14 of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37 of 2002 (“the
FAIS Act”).
2
2. The application was lodged on 8 May 2026 and is within the prescribed period. Sanlam
gave notice of opposition on 8 June 2026, and its statement of reasons and decision
record were received on 10 June 2026. The applicant filed augmented grounds on 19
June 2026, the record was indexed on 3 July 2026, and both parties filed heads of
argument in July 2026. The parties waived a formal hearing, and the matter is decided
on the record and the written submissions.
B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The applicant was contracted to Sanlam as a financial adviser under adviser code
05161045. The contract in the record is form 1010F, signed on 4 March 2022 with a
commencement date of 21 February 2022. Clause 28.1 incorporates the Information
Book for Advisers, and clause 31 records that the applicant acted as an independe nt
contractor.
4. A client, then twenty-three years old and employed as a trainer at Virgin Active in Paarl,
sought financial-planning assistance in March 2025 and wished to invest R100 000.00
which he held in cash. The applicant introduced him to a Glacier product and furnished
him with the banking details of Glacier Financial Solutions (Pty) Ltd (“Glacier”), a
member of the Sanlam group, so that the funds could be deposited directly. On the
Glacier application form the source of the funds is declared, under the heading of other
sources, as savings, gift and donations.
5. It is common cause that the applicant telephoned the Glacier call centre before the
funds were moved. The forensic report records that, on 20 March 2025, he asked
whether cash deposits were accepted and was advised to use an electronic funds
transfer or a once-off debit order. His written statement of 19 September 2025 records
instead that he was advised that the client should deposit the cash into a local bank
account and then transfer it electronically to Glacier. The client’s affidavit records that
he was standing next to the applicant during the call. No recording was obtained,
he was standing next to the applicant during the call. No recording was obtained,
although the applicant twice indicated that one should exist.
6. On 31 March 2025 seven cash deposits totalling R101 200.00 were made into the
applicant’s personal Capitec Bank account at the Paarl Main Road branch, in amounts
of R19 900.00, R20 000.00, R20 000.00, R6 700.00, R16 600.00, R11 700.00 and R6
300.00. No individual deposit exceeded R20 000.00. The applicant transferred R100
000.00 electronically to Glacier that day and incurred cash-deposit fees of R1 430.80.
3
7. On 4 April 2025 a Glacier client service consultant raised the matter with the Glacier
internal reporting officer, who on 7 April 2025 referred it to the Glacier anti -money
laundering team. The source of the funds and the relationship between client and
adviser were queried. The matter thereby came to the knowledge of the Sanlam group
on 4 April 2025. The investment was accepted with additional controls and it remains
in force.
8. On 29 April 2025 an official of Glacier client services asked the applicant by email
whether a cash threshold report had been submitted. He sought assistance internally.
A SanlamConnect support assistant said that she did not know what such a report
was. The applicant said that he did not know either and asked a para -planner at the
Cape High Performance Centre, who replied that it was the first she had heard of such
a report and that she would enquire of Glacier the following morning. The record
contains no further correspondence. The applicant did not answer the Glacier official’s
question and no cash threshold report was submitted.
9. The applicant resigned on 1 September 2025 and worked his notice period until 30
September 2025.
10. Sanlam’s forensic services consulted the applicant on 18 September 2025 in the
presence of his business manager. He provided a written statement on 19 September
and answered written questions on 25 September 2025. He confirmed that he had
known of Rule 4.17 since joining Sanlam but had not obtained the prior written approval
required by the Information Book because he had forgotten the rule, and that he had
neither filed nor considered filing a suspicious transaction report. He explained that the
client’s bank would have charged higher cash -deposit fees, that the client had no
Capitec account, and that he had used his own account to reduce the client’s costs.
As to the source of the funds, he said that the client had told him the money came from
As to the source of the funds, he said that the client had told him the money came from
his parents and from savings out of his personal-training and supplement business.
11. On or about 8 May 2026 the client deposed to an affidavit confirming the following. He
approached the applicant during March 2025 to assist him in investing R100 000.00 in
cash with Glacier. The funds were his personal savings and income from his personal-
training business and the sale of supplements, and were lawfully earned. He attempted
to deposit them at his own bank on or about 30 March 2025 but could not do so
because of a difficulty with cash deposits into a third -party account. He was standing
next to the applicant when the applicant telephoned the Glacier help desk about that
4
difficulty, and the help desk advised that the funds be deposited into any account and
paid over on his behalf. It was he who then asked whether he could deposit the cash
into the applicant’s Capitec account for onward transfer, and the applicant neither
solicited nor suggested the arrangement. The applicant transferred the funds in full
and at no stage retained, misappropriated or benefited from any portion of them. The
investment was processed in full, he remains an active client, and he has no complaint.
12. By letter dated 25 February 2026, dispatched on 27 February 2026 and acknowledged
on 28 February 2026, Sanlam notified the applicant of a possible debarment. The
notice identified section 2 of the General Code of Conduct for Authorised Financial
Services Providers and Representatives, sections 28 and 29 of the Financial
Intelligence Centre Act 38 of 2001 (“FICA”), Rule 4.17 of the Business Rules for the
SanlamConnect Intermediaries: Advisers and relevant provisions of the Information
Book. It reproduced the operative forensic findings, stated that the applicant could be
found not fit and proper, warned that debarment was contemplated, invited
representations by 6 March 2026, and stated that a document setting out Sanlam’s
debarment process was attached.
13. The applicant made no representations. By letter dated 16 March 2026, Sanlam
informed him that, no representations having been received, the recommendation of
SanlamConnect Compliance had been confirmed and his debarment approved. He
acknowledged receipt on 18 March 2026. On 20 March 2026 a compliance officer
completed the prescribed debarment notification for submission to the Financial Sector
Conduct Authority. Of the available grounds, only “honesty and integrity” was selected.
The forensic report
14. The forensic report, dated 18 December 2025, records that the applicant’s portfolio
was reviewed for comparable large once -off payments and that none was found. It
was reviewed for comparable large once -off payments and that none was found. It
records the seven deposits totalling R101 200.00, and the business manager’s
concern that the source of the funds was inconsistent and undocumented, that the
transaction appeared dubious, and that the cash-reporting threshold was R59 999.00.
15. The report found that the applicant had failed to report an investment said to exceed
the R49 999.00 cash threshold, had thereby contravened the General Code and FICA,
and had breached Rule 4.17 by handling client cash without prior approval. It
recommended that debarment be considered.
5
16. Four features are material. Although section 29 of FICA is quoted and the applicant
admitted that he had not considered filing a suspicious transaction report, the report
makes no finding that the transaction was suspicious or unusual within that secti on.
Although the seven sub-threshold deposits are recorded, their pattern is not analysed.
The report does not find that the applicant is no longer fit and proper, but recommends
only that debarment be considered. It contains no finding that he acted dishonestly,
misled anyone, concealed anything, or benefited beyond the commission the
investment would ordinarily have generated.
C. THE APPLICANT’S GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION
17. The applicant’s grounds may be summarised as follows:
17.1 He denies that he contravened section 2 of the FAIS General Code of Conduct
and sections 28 and 29 of FICA.
17.2 Sanlam failed to determine whether any contravention rendered him no longer
fit and proper, and treated regulatory breaches as sufficient in themselves. He
relies on Associated Portfolio Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Basson and
Others and Financial Services Board v Barthram and Another.
17.3 Sanlam failed to consider relevant material, including his otherwise
unblemished record of service and his efforts to remedy the matter, and the
debarment is in any event disproportionate.
17.4 He admits that the funds passed through his account, that prior written approval
was not obtained and that no cash threshold report was submitted, but says
that he acted openly and in good faith at the client’s request, retained nothing,
caused no loss, and was unaware of the reporting requirement. He relies on
the absence of any finding of enrichment, dishonesty or misappropriation, on
his contact with Glacier before the transaction, and on the support staff’s own
ignorance of cash threshold reporting.
17.5 His heads add that the conduct, at its highest, discloses poor judgment and not
17.5 His heads add that the conduct, at its highest, discloses poor judgment and not
dishonesty, and that the mitigating circumstances on the record were not
considered. He seeks the setting aside of the debarment, alternatively a lesser
sanction and reinstatement.
6
D. THE RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE
18. Sanlam contends that the applicant received adequate notice and an opportunity to be
heard but made no representations. On the merits it relies on the breaches of Rule
4.17, the Information Book, the General Code and FICA. Its statement of reasons
alleges material misrepresentation and lack of honesty and integrity, but concludes
that the applicant no longer meets requirements relating to competence and
compliance.
19. Its heads of argument do not defend the ground of honesty and integrity. The section
setting out its grounds submits that the applicant’s conduct demonstrated a lack of
competence, compliance judgment, due care and appreciation of anti -money
laundering risk, and concludes that he no longer meets the fit and proper requirements
“in relation to competence and compliance ”. Nowhere is it submitted that he was
dishonest or that he lacks integrity. The heads conclude with the submission that he is
a threat to the financial services industry, for which no reasoning is offered and no
finding in the record provides support. Sanlam therefore principally answers a
procedural case not advanced by the applicant, while not confronting his central
submission that misco nduct is the factual basis for, rather than a substitute for, the
section 14 fitness enquiry.
E. THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
20. Section 14(1) of the FAIS Act requires a provider to debar a present or former
representative if, on the available facts and information, it is satisfied that the person
no longer meets the applicable fit and proper requirements or has materially
contravened the FAIS Act.
21. Before doing so, the provider must give adequate written notice of the intended
debarment and its grounds and reasons, furnish its debarment policy and procedure,
and afford a reasonable opportunity for submissions. It must thereafter notify the
person of its decision and reconsideration rights. For a former representative, the
person of its decision and reconsideration rights. For a former representative, the
process must commence within six months after cessation, and the reason must have
occurred and become known while the person was still a representative. See Guidance
Notice 1 of 2019; Naidoo v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (FSP54/2021) [2022]
ZAFST 88; Mabalane v Capitec Bank Limited (FSP17/2025) [2025] ZAFST 14. Basson
confirms that misconduct is the factual basis of the enquiry and not its conclusion: the
7
provider must determine whether the established conduct shows that the
representative no longer possesses the qualities required. Barthram emphasises that
debarment operates industry -wide and has severe consequences, requiring careful
observance of the statutory process.
22. Board Notice 194 of 2017 distinguishes honesty, integrity and good standing from
competence, continuous professional development, operational ability and financial
soundness. The category relied upon matters, because each entails a different
enquiry.
23. The phrase honesty and integrity is not defined in the FAIS Act. This Tribunal has held
that it denotes a defect of character, unsoundness of moral principle and corrupted
virtue: Schoeman v Sanlam Developing Markets (Individual Life) and Another
(FSP51/2023) [2024] ZAFST 47. The enquiry is directed at the personal qualities of
the representative and not at the gravity of the rule contravened, and the defect must
be real and enduring. It follows that carelessness and lack of fitness are not the same
thing. Negligent conduct may found disciplinary action without establishing that a fit
and proper requirement is no longer met; whether it does so depends on what the
conduct shows about the person’s ability to render financial services safely in future,
which the provider must ask and answer.
24. Section 28 of FICA requires an accountable or reporting institution to report a
transaction in which cash exceeding the prescribed amount is paid to or received from
a client. Regulation 22B prescribes a threshold of R49 999.99, and the former
requirement to aggregate a series of cash transactions was removed with effect from
14 November 2022. The duty rests on the institution and not on the individual
representative. Section 29 applies directly to natural persons who know or ought
reasonably to have known or suspected that property is the proceeds of unlawful
activities, that a transaction has no apparent lawful purpose, or that a transaction or
activities, that a transaction has no apparent lawful purpose, or that a transaction or
series of transactions was structured to avoid a reporting duty. That section is directed
at the state of mind of the person concerned.
25. Section 234 of the FSR Act permits the Tribunal to set a decision aside and remit the
matter for reconsideration, or to dismiss the application. It confers no general power of
substitution in a matter of this kind. Remittal is not obligatory, and is or dered where
there remains something for the decision-maker properly to decide.
8
F. ANALYSIS
Whether the debarment of a former representative was competent
26. Although no party raised the question, it is logically prior. The conduct occurred on 31
March 2025 and came to the knowledge of the Sanlam group on 4 April 2025, in both
instances while the applicant was a representative. He ceased to be a representative
on 30 September 2025, and the process commenced with the notice dispatched on 27
February 2026, within the six -month period. The debarment of the applicant as a
former representative was therefore competent.
The notice and the decision of 16 March 2026
27. The notice was substantially adequate, in that it identified the provisions and rules
relied upon, reproduced the forensic findings, stated the contemplated consequence
and invited representations by a stated date. The record does not, however, establish
that Sanlam furnished the written debarment policy and procedure which the notice
said was attached. The five business days allowed were short for a former
representative without access to Sanlam’s systems. That period is not independently
fatal, but it forms part of the picture of a process conducted without close attention to
what section 14 requires.
28. The central defect lies in the decision of 16 March 2026. It records no finding that the
applicant no longer meets a fit and proper requirement, identifies no such requirement,
gives no reasons, and does not notify him of his reconsideration rights. No r does the
record identify the statutory decision -maker or show that anyone applied his or her
mind to the section 14(1) enquiry. The section requires the provider to be satisfied, and
the record does not show that it was.
29. An official of the respondent had participated in the forensic consultation and
expressed adverse views before signing both the notice and the decision. Although no
strict separation of functions is required, the record should in those circumstances
disclose independent consideration. It does not.
disclose independent consideration. It does not.
30. The applicant’s principal ground is well founded. The forensic report found
contraventions and recommended consideration of debarment but made no fit and
proper finding, and the decision records none. A later statement of reasons cannot
9
supply an enquiry not undertaken when the decision was made. Basson requires the
provider first to establish the conduct and then to determine what it signifies for the
representative’s fitness and propriety. Only the first step appears from this record.
The ground relied upon
31. The notification to the Authority records honesty and integrity as the sole ground of
debarment, and that is the ground on which the applicant’s name stands on the central
register. The later statement of reasons alleges dishonesty and lack of integrit y, but
also refers to competence and compliance.
32. Those are different enquiries. “Compliance” is not itself a fit and proper category, while
competence under Board Notice 194 of 2017 concerns qualifications, regulatory
examinations, class of business and product training, experience and continuous
professional development, none of which is implicated here. It has never been
suggested that the applicant lacked a qualification, an examination credit or the
requisite experience.
33. The position is compounded before the Tribunal. Sanlam’s heads abandon honesty
and integrity altogether and defend the debarment on competence and compliance. A
reconsideration under section 230 is directed at the decision that was taken. A ground
which the provider no longer supports cannot sustain the decision, and a ground not
taken when the decision was made cannot be substituted for it afterwards. The
applicant accordingly stands on the register under a designation which Sanlam itself
does not defend.
34. More importantly, dishonesty was never put to the applicant. The notice alleged
contraventions of the General Code, FICA and Rule 4.17, but not dishonesty,
misrepresentation, concealment or lack of integrity, yet honesty and integrity is the sole
ground notified to the Authority. A person cannot be required to answer an allegation
which is not made and then be debarred upon it. The allegation of material
which is not made and then be debarred upon it. The allegation of material
misrepresentation is in any event unsupported, since the record identifies neither the
representation, its recipient nor its falsity. Template -type errors in the statement of
reasons and the forensic report reinforce the concern that the enquiry was not
undertaken on the facts of this case.
10
Whether lack of honesty and integrity was established
35. Because honesty and integrity is the ground on which the applicant was debarred and
reported to the Authority, it must be examined on its merits, whether or not Sanlam
persists in it. The measure is that stated in Schoeman, namely a defect of character,
unsoundness of moral principle and corrupted virtue. The debarment proceeds on a
conflation of two different things, in that administrative negligence and non-compliance
with the internal rules of the contractual relationshi p are treated as though they were
statutory dishonesty. They are not. The material before Sanlam did not establish a
defect of the kind required, and the following matters appear from its own investigation:
35.1 No allegation of theft, fraud, misappropriation, forgery, fabrication of documents
or misleading of the client is made anywhere in the record, and none was made
in argument.
35.2 The forensic report contains no finding that the applicant benefited personally,
or that he earned more than the commission the investment would ordinarily
have generated.
35.3 The whole of the client’s money reached its intended destination on the day it
was received, the investment was accepted by Glacier and it remains in force.
Neither the client nor Sanlam nor Glacier sustained any loss, and the client has
confirmed on affidavit that he has no complaint.
35.4 The transaction was not concealed. The applicant raised the practical difficulty
with Glacier before any money moved, and did so in the client’s presence.
When the reporting question was later put to him he took it to Sanlam’s own
staff, and the inves tigation itself proceeded substantially upon his own
disclosures.
35.5 The portfolio review disclosed no comparable transaction, so the conduct was
not part of a pattern.
36. Sanlam points to the varying descriptions given of the source of the funds. Those
inconsistencies are on the record and they are not immaterial. They were relied upon,
inconsistencies are on the record and they are not immaterial. They were relied upon,
however, as matters heightening the need for caution, escalation and reporting. They
were not put to the applicant as an allegation that he was himself dishonest about the
source of the money, and no finding to that effect was made when he was debarred.
The client has since confirmed on affidavit that the money was his own, earned lawfully
from his personal-training and supplement business.
11
37. A person who openly escalates a transaction to his provider, and who transfers the
whole of the client’s money to the intended destination on the day he receives it, does
not display a deceptive state of mind. On the material before it, Sanlam could not have
been satisfied that the applicant lacked honesty and integrity, and its decision does not
record that it was so satisfied. The selection of that ground on the notification to the
Authority is unsupported by any finding in the record.
Negligence and the fit and proper enquiry
38. At its highest, the conduct established against the applicant is careless. He knew of
Rule 4.17 and says that he forgot it. He did not obtain the prior written approval which
the Information Book requires. He did not submit a cash threshold report and did not
consider whether a report under section 29 of FICA was called for. Those are real
failures and they were properly the subject of investigation.
39. The circumstances in which they occurred bear on what they signify. The applicant did
not act unilaterally. He telephoned the Glacier call centre before the funds were moved
and enquired how the transaction should be handled, and when Glacier later asked
about a cash threshold report he took the question to Sanlam’s support staff, neither
of whom knew what such a report was. The query was not carried further by anyone,
and Glacier itself accepted the investment with additional controls. None of this
excuses the breaches, since the Glacier advice did not authorise the use of the
applicant’s own account and ignorance of a duty is no defence to its breach. What it
shows is that the omissions are consistent with inexperience in a procedure which
those around the applicant did not themselves understand. There is no finding that
they were deliberate or designed to avoid a reporting obligation.
40. Negligence of that character does not, without more, establish that a representative no
40. Negligence of that character does not, without more, establish that a representative no
longer meets a fit and proper requirement. It may do so in a proper case, but only if
the provider asks whether the conduct shows that the person cannot safely be
entrusted with rendering financial services in future. Sanlam did not ask that question.
Its reasons identify the contraventions and move directly to the conclusion, and the
step between the two, which Basson requires, was not taken.
12
Sections 28 and 29 of FICA
41. Sanlam places substantial reliance on the failure to submit a cash threshold report, but
three matters were not considered. First, section 28 imposes the duty on an
accountable or reporting institution, and whether the applicant was obliged to escalate
the transaction internally is a different question on which no finding was made.
Secondly, Glacier received an electronic transfer while Capitec received the cash, and
whether cash paid into a representative’s personal account is attributable to the
institution for section 28 purposes was not considered. Thirdly, the threshold is R49
999.99, and although seven deposits totalling R101 200.00 were made, none
exceeded R20 000.00; since the aggregation requirement was removed in November
2022, the report had to determine whether these were one transaction or seven, and
it did not.
42. The consequence is not merely that the reasoning is incomplete. A representative
cannot be found to lack honesty and integrity for failing to initiate an institutional
reporting mechanism which was not his to initiate, and which Sanlam’s own officials
could not explain to him when he asked them about it. Th e finding of a contravention
of section 28, which lay at the centre of the debarment, is not sustainable on this
record.
43. Section 29 was also relied upon, and the applicant admitted that he had neither filed
nor considered filing a suspicious transaction report. That section requires knowledge
or suspicion, and absent that state of mind the duty does not arise. Nothing on this
record establishes it. The applicant raised the difficulty with Glacier before any money
moved and did so in the client’s presence, he transferred the full amount on the day it
reached his account, and he answered Glacier’s later query by seeking help from
Sanlam’s own staff. That is not consistent with an attempt to conceal a transaction
from the very institution to which a report would have been made.
from the very institution to which a report would have been made.
44. The pattern of the deposits requires mention. Seven amounts, none exceeding R20
000.00, were paid in on a single day at a single branch, and viewed in isolation such a
pattern may suggest structuring. On this record it does not. The deposits were made
by the client, who had been unable to place the money through his own bank the
previous day, and the whole amount was paid over to Glacier immediately and openly.
What the record discloses is a clumsy and non -compliant means of overcoming a
banking obstacle, and not a device to defeat a reporting obligation or to disguise the
13
origin of the money. There is no mala fides and no intention to deceive. Sanlam made
no finding under section 29, and the Tribunal is unable to see on what basis one could
have been made.
Rule 4.17, the General Code and the internal contractual relationship
45. The Rule 4.17 breach is established and admitted. The applicant received R101
200.00 of client money into his personal account, transferred R100 000.00 to Glacier,
and obtained no prior approval despite knowing the rule. That conduct also engages
section 2 of the General Code. The client’s consent, the absence of loss and the
applicant’s lack of benefit do not negate the breach, although they bear on its
significance. Sanlam’s own emails show that its support staff did not know what a cash
threshold report was, which does not excuse a breach but is relevant to whether the
omission demonstrates dishonesty or lack of integrity. It does not.
46. The applicant’s use of his own account and his failure to obtain prior written approval
were breaches of his contract with Sanlam and of the internal rules incorporated into
it, and were properly the subject of Sanlam’s own disciplinary and contractual
processes. Debarment is not a substitute for those processes. It is a protective
measure directed at whether a person is fit to render financial services to the public,
and it may not be used to dispose of what is in substance an internal contractual or
disciplinary complaint. An error of judgment, including an oversight in a reporting
procedure, does not of itself translate into personal dishonesty or into a lack of the
qualities which the fit and proper requirements protect.
The available facts and information
47. Although the applicant made no representations when invited to do so, section 14(1)
requires Sanlam to be satisfied on all the facts and information available to it. In
addition to the matters already listed, its own file showed that the applicant had served
addition to the matters already listed, its own file showed that the applicant had served
under contract since February 2022 without any previous finding of misconduct, that
he acted at a client’s request and derived no benefit beyond the ordinary commission,
that he made enquiries of Glacier before the funds were moved, and that he had
ceased to be a representative five months before the notice was issued, so that no
question of continuing risk within Sanlam’s business arose. The failure to deliver
representations does not relieve the provider of the obligation to conduct the section
14
14(1) enquiry on the material it does have. Most of that material came from Sanlam’s
own investigation, and the reasons disclose no engagement with any of it.
The authorities relied upon by the respondent
48. Maunga v Ample Insurance Brokers (Pty) Ltd (FSP94/2025) confirms that a provider
may decide a matter where no representations are made, but it does not relieve the
provider of the duty to identify the ground, consider its own material and give reasons.
Mashego v Pineapple Tech (Pty) Ltd (FSP30/2026), Ntonjeni v Metropolitan Life Ltd
and Another (FSP38/2025) and Mbalati v Sanlam Developing Markets Limited
(FSP60/2025) do not assist Sanlam. In each the provider identified the honesty and
integrity requirement and reasoned to a conclusion on it, and in each the conduct was
calculated to mislead the provider, the client or the system, whether by manipulating
internal processes, by recording incorrect client information to override system
safeguards, or by breaching conflict-of-interest and financial crime combating policies.
That element is absent here. Sanlam invokes decisions turning on honesty and
integrity while declining to prove that the applicant was dishonest.
Proportionality
49. Debarment is protective and not punitive. Proportionality is accordingly not a free -
standing ground of reconsideration, and the Tribunal cannot substitute a lesser
sanction for the decision of the provider. The protective character of the measure
nevertheless shapes the enquiry. The question is not whether the applicant deserves
a penalty commensurate with the breaches he admits, but whether he can safely be
entrusted with rendering financial services in future. The submission that he is a threat
to the financial services industry states the conclusion of that enquiry rather than
undertaking it, and no finding supports it. The industry- wide effect of a debarment,
emphasised in Barthram, underscores the need for care.
Conclusion on the reconsideration
emphasised in Barthram, underscores the need for care.
Conclusion on the reconsideration
50. The decision cannot stand. The section 14(1) enquiry was not undertaken; the decision
contains no fit and proper finding and no reasons; the ground notified to the Authority
was never put to the applicant, is unsupported by any finding in the record and is not
defended before the Tribunal; the ground now advanced in argument is not a fit and
proper requirement and is not engaged on the material; the findings under sections 28
15
and 29 of FICA are not sustainable; the conduct established amounts at highest to
negligence and to breaches of the internal contractual relationship; relevant material
in Sanlam’s own possession was left out of account; and the applicant was not notified
of his reconsideration rights. The application accordingly succeeds and the decision
falls to be set aside.
G. WHY THE MATTER IS NOT REMITTED
51. Section 234(1)(a) of the FSR Act permits the Tribunal to set a decision aside and to
remit the matter for reconsideration by the decision -maker. Remittal is not obligatory.
It is ordered where the decision -maker has still to apply its mind to something which
the record leaves open, and where nothing remains to be decided it serves no purpose
and should not be ordered.
52. This is such a case. The record is fully ventilated: it contains the applicant’s contract
and the incorporated rules, the bank statements, the internal and Glacier
correspondence, the forensic report, the applicant’s written statement and answers to
written questions, the client’s affidavit, the notice, the decision and the notification to
the Authority. Neither party sought to lead further evidence and both waived a hearing.
53. On that record the material facts are not in dispute. The incident was isolated and
once-off, as Sanlam’s own portfolio review confirms. The client made no complaint and
has confirmed on affidavit that the money was his own, lawfully earned, and that the
arrangement was his own suggestion. The whole amount reached Glacier on the day
it was received, the investment remains in force, nothing was concealed, and no
person or institution sustained any loss. There is accordingly no foundation for a finding
that the applicant no longer meets a fit and proper requirement. The ground notified to
the Authority is not established, and the ground advanced in argument is not a fit and
proper requirement at all.
proper requirement at all.
54. The findings under FICA, which lie at the centre of the debarment, could fare no better
on a reconsideration. The duty to submit a cash threshold report under section 28 rests
upon the accountable institution and not upon the individual representative. The
applicant could not discharge a duty which was not his to discharge, and he cannot be
held to lack honesty and integrity for failing to initiate an institutional reporting
mechanism which Sanlam’s own officials, when he approached them about it, admitted
16
they did not understand. That is a matter of law upon facts which are common cause,
and a further enquiry could not alter it.
55. Section 29 stands no better. It requires knowledge or suspicion, and the
uncontroverted facts disclose an absence of mala fides and of any intention to deceive
or to circumvent the law. The applicant raised the difficulty with Glacier openly and in
the client’s presence, transferred the whole of the R100 000.00 on the day it reached
his account, and took Glacier’s later query to Sanlam’s own officials. The client’s multi-
part deposit was a clumsy and non-compliant means of overcoming an obstacle at his
own bank, devoid of the clandestine purpose at which section 29 is directed. A
representative who openly escalates a transaction to his provider is not concealing it
from that provider. The record on these questions is complete and a reconsideration
could not produce a different answer.
56. What remains is a breach of Sanlam’s internal rules and a lack of care, and neither
supports a debarment. To remit would afford Sanlam a further opportunity to sustain a
ground which the record cannot sustain, while the applicant remained on the central
register, and excluded from his profession, for as long as that exercise took. That is
not a purpose for which the power of remittal exists. It is unnecessary to consider
whether a remittal would have been affected by the expiry of the six -month period in
section 14(5) of the FAIS Act.
57. The setting aside of the decision disposes of the debarment. Sanlam is required to
inform the Authority accordingly so that the register may be corrected. Nothing in this
decision affects such contractual or disciplinary remedies as Sanlam may have had in
respect of the admitted breaches of its internal rules.
H. ORDER
58. The following order is made:
58.1 The application for reconsideration succeeds.
58.2 The decision of the respondent of 16 March 2026 to debar the applicant in
58.2 The decision of the respondent of 16 March 2026 to debar the applicant in
terms of section 14 of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37
of 2002 is set aside.
SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS 18
TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.