- The tribunal ruled that using an adviser's own cellphone to provide USSD client consent amounts to dishonest conduct.
- Former Momentum Metropolitan adviser Mzukisi Sinopolo was unable to overturn his debarment after admitting that he used his own cellphone number for client enrolments.
- The tribunal found that Momentum Metropolitan Life followed a fair debarment process and gave Sinopolo several opportunities to respond.
A former Momentum Metropolitan Life financial adviser who used his own cellphone to provide electronic client consent for investment policies acted dishonestly, and his conduct was essentially the same as signing a contract on behalf of a client, according to the Financial Services Tribunal.
When dismissing Sinopolo's application to overturn his debarment, the tribunal found that using an adviser's own cellphone to generate USSD consent was not just a procedural error. Instead, it was a serious breach of the honesty and integrity required from financial advisers.
Tribunal Chair A LTC Harms and Advocate SM Maritz handed down the decision on 29 July 2026.
Client reports unauthorised deductions
The matter began when a client reported that R700 had been deducted from her bank account in both April and May 2025, without her knowledge. A Metropolitan Endowment Savings Plan had been opened in her name.
She reported the matter to the police as fraud, stating that she had not authorised the investment. She requested the cancellation of the policy and repayment of the R1 400 already deducted.
A forensic investigation by Momentum Metropolitan Life found that the electronic USSD consent had been accepted from a cellphone number linked to Sinopolo, rather than the client’s actual number. The investigation also revealed that the same cellphone number was used in several other client transactions.
In a signed statement, Sinopolo admitted to using his own cellphone number. He said he experienced difficulties sending the consent request to the client’s phone and claimed that she had agreed he could temporarily use his own number. He also identified six other clients for whom he had followed the same process.
Adviser pleaded guilty
Momentum Metropolitan Life charged Sinopolo with dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, failing to follow company instructions, and bringing the company into disrepute.
He pleaded guilty to all five charges during a disciplinary enquiry on 29 July 2025. The chairperson found that his conduct was incompatible with the honesty and integrity expected of a financial adviser and dismissed him immediately.
The insurer later started debarment proceedings, notifying Sinopolo of a hearing, providing him with the debarment policy, and inviting him to submit written representations or attend a Microsoft Teams hearing.
Although he accepted the invitation, he did not attend the hearing or submit any representations before the final debarment decision was issued on 13 April 2026.
Tribunal rejects procedural unfairness claims
At the tribunal, Sinopolo argued that he had been denied a fair hearing because he could not cross-examine the complainant, was prevented from contacting her during the forensic investigation, and was not allowed legal representation.
He also argued that using his own cellphone was nothing more than a procedural error, and that the company relied on incomplete information since the client had allegedly agreed to the arrangement.
The tribunal rejected every ground Sinopolo raised in his challenge. It found that Sinopolo had more than two months’ notice of the hearing, accepted the invitation, and was given several opportunities to submit evidence or representations.
The tribunal said, “The applicant therefore had three distinct opportunities to be heard before the decision was taken… The audi principle ensures the opportunity to be heard. It does not guarantee another opportunity if the first was missed.”
Client consent is the foundation of every policy
As the main finding in its judgment, the tribunal rejected Sinopolo’s argument that using his own cellphone was just a procedural irregularity.
The tribunal said, “USSD consent is the electronic equivalent of the client’s signature, and accepting it from one’s own handset is, in substance, signing the contract on the client’s behalf… This is not a minor error, but one that goes to the very foundation of the transaction: the consent of the person entering into the contract.”
The tribunal also noted that Sinopolo admitted to using the same process for several clients, while company records suggested the number had been used in seven other client enrolments.
Debarment stands
The tribunal found that the debarment was supported by the client’s sworn statement, banking records, credit bureau verification, system records, Sinopolo’s written admission, and his guilty plea.
Although the tribunal noted minor drafting errors in the forensic report, it ruled that these had no effect on the outcome. The evidence independently established that Sinopolo no longer met the honesty and integrity requirements under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act.
The tribunal concluded that Momentum Metropolitan Life had followed a lawful and fair debarment process, and dismissed Sinopolo’s application, leaving the debarment in place.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
