KEY POINTS
- Malahlela shot 53 bombs of confidential client information from his work email to his personal email before quitting.
- He was dismissed by Nedbank for gross misconduct and the debarment proceedings commenced.
- According to FCB Dispute Resolution, the Financial Service Tribunal upheld the debarment on breach of client confidentiality and professional ethics.
Nkamogeleng Phillip Malahlela, a former Nedbank employee, has been debarred from the financial sector after he quit the bank by resigning himself 53 emails containing confidential client information.
Before he resigned in April, Malahlela was found to have transferred 895 of the attachments containing the sensitive client data to his personal email.
If they detect, the bank immediately suspended him and knew a cease and desist letter to stop him from any further misappropriation of information.
Malahlela cooperated fully during the investigation and it was confirmed there were no data shared with other parties. He was, however, found guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty and sacked immediately in a disciplinary hearing.
Debarment appeal drops at the tribunal
After his dismissal, Nedbank moved to debar him on account of lack of integrity, incompetence and dishonesty. Malahlela appealed, arguing that:
The data was not intended to be misused by him or distributed to competitors.
There had been no breach of his 16 years with the bank.
He has to support four children and those financial responsibilities also need to be considered.
Even so, the Financial Service Tribunal (FST) ruled against him. As it wasn’t about intent but whether he could be trusted with sensitive financial information.
However, the tribunal ruled that his actions breached his employment contract and there was evidence of his attempt to keep access to confidential data for personal advantage.
His breach of client confidentiality and professional ethics undermined the integrity of the financial services industry, the reasons stated.
Ultimately, Malahlela’s application for reinstatement was dismissed and the tribunal upheld Nedbank’s decision.
