---

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

 

CASE NO: FSP61/2023

 

In the matter between:

 

OUPA TSHIMANGADZO NENWELI                         APPLICANT

 

And

 

KING PRICE INSURANCE COMPANY                    RESPONDENT

 

 

Re: application for reconsideration - section 14(1) of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 37 of 2002 - debarment of applicant- does not meet or no longer comply with fit and proper person requirements - lack of basis to interfere with the decision to debar the applicant.

 

 

DECISION

 

 

1.          The applicant, Oupa Tshimangadzo Nenweli applies for reconsideration of the decision of 6 March 2023 by the respondent, King Price Insurance Company, to debar him.

 

2.          The applicant approaches the Tribunal in terms of section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act, 9 of 2017 ("the FSR Act")

 

3.          The applicant was debarred in terms of section 14 of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 37 of 2002 ("the FAIS Act").

 

4.          The parties waived their rights to a formal oral hearing by the Tribunal and agreed that the matter may be decided on the submitted documents.

 

5.          The applicant requests the Tribunal to uplift the debarment of 6 March 2023.

 

6.          Section 14(1) of the FAIS Act, read with section 8 of the Determination of Fit and Proper Requirements for the Financial Services Providers, 2017 ("the Fit and Proper Requirements.") provide the basis for the debarment.

 

7.          Section 8 of the Fit and Proper Requirements states that a representative must be a person who is (i) honest and has integrity, and (ii) of good standing.

 

8.          The notice of intention to debar the applicant, dated 17 February 2023, set out that the grounds for the application for debarment were that after a duly constituted disciplinary hearing held on 10 February 2023 the applicant was found guilty of dishonesty and subsequently debarred.

 

9.          At the hearing on 10 February 2023 the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge that in December 2022 he had sold an illegitimate insurance policy, whereby he unjustifiably inflated his commission earnings.

 

10.      The evidence was that the applicant had sold a ghost policy in December 2022 and inflated his commission by an amount to which he was not entitled.

 

11.      He provided a written admission of guilt at the hearing, setting out that he had been involved in a syndicate and named the other employees who had been involved in the scheme.

 

12.      The basis for his application for reconsideration is the following:

 

12.1       The applicant declares that he is rehabilitated and has not committed any act of dishonesty since his debarment.

12.2       His livelihood depends on being a sales consultant.

12.3       He has a family, including his parents and children, to support.

12.4       He has no other employment.

12.5       He is remorseful and swears never to be dishonest again.

 

13.      The employer stated that the applicant had been employed for a period of 11 years and the employer put a great deal of faith in him due to his long service. There can be no trust in these circumstances where an employee has pleaded guilty and has been found guilty of dishonesty.

 

14.      The question whether a person is fit and proper does not take into consideration the personal circumstances of an applicant. The reasons for this application for reconsideration are all personal reasons. The submissions by the applicant do not lay a basis for the Tribunal to set aside his debarment as there are no legal grounds for the Tribunal to set aside the debarment.

 

15.      The Tribunal therefore cannot interfere with the decision of the respondent to debar the applicant.

 

ORDER:

 

The application for reconsideration is dismissed.

 

 

Signed 30 November 2023.

 

Judge C Pretorius.

Member of the Tribunal.

---