- A Sanlam adviser allowed R101 200 in client cash to pass through his personal bank account before transferring R100 000 to Glacier.
- The tribunal found that his conduct amounted to negligence and breaches of internal rules, but not dishonesty or lack of integrity.
- Sanlam’s debarment decision was set aside, with the tribunal finding no basis to remit the matter for another enquiry.
A Sanlam financial adviser who used his personal bank account to help a client invest R100 000 has had his debarment set aside after the Financial Services Tribunal found that his conduct did not establish dishonesty or a lack of integrity.
The decision, handed down on 18 August 2026 by tribunal chair Judge LTC Harms and Advocate SM Maritz, found that Sanlam Life Insurance Limited failed to conduct the required fit and proper enquiry before debarring Acroyd Clauss de Vries.
Client’s cash passed through adviser’s account
De Vries was contracted to Sanlam as a financial adviser from February 2022. In March 2025, a 23-year-old client approached him to invest R100 000 in cash. De Vries contacted the Glacier call centre before the transaction because the client was having difficulty depositing the money, with the client present during the call.
On 31 March 2025, seven cash deposits totalling R101 200 were made into De Vries’s personal Capitec account, with none exceeding R20 000. He transferred R100 000 to Glacier that same day. The client later confirmed that the money was lawfully earned from his savings, personal-training business and sale of supplements, and that he had no complaint against De Vries.
Sanlam found rule breaches
Sanlam’s investigation found that De Vries had breached Rule 4.17 by handling client cash without prior written approval. De Vries admitted that he knew the rule but had forgotten about it and had neither submitted nor considered submitting a suspicious transaction report.
When Glacier later asked whether a cash threshold report had been submitted, De Vries sought help from Sanlam staff. A support assistant said she did not know what such a report was, while a para-planner also said it was the first time she had heard of one. No report was ultimately submitted.
Tribunal says Sanlam failed to conduct the right enquiry
The tribunal found that Sanlam’s 16 March 2026 debarment decision did not establish that De Vries no longer met a fit and proper requirement. The decision identified no relevant fit and proper requirement, gave no reasons and did not show that the statutory enquiry had actually been undertaken.
“The section requires the provider to be satisfied, and the record does not show that it was,” the tribunal said. The panel stressed that establishing misconduct was only the first step and that Sanlam still had to determine what the conduct showed about De Vries’s fitness and propriety.
The tribunal relied on an earlier case, Associated Portfolio Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Basson and Others, which it said established that misconduct is the factual basis for a debarment enquiry, not the conclusion.
In other words, Sanlam had to do more than establish that De Vries breached its rules. It also had to determine whether his conduct meant that he no longer met the fit and proper requirements for providing financial services.
Dishonesty was never put to De Vries
Sanlam reported honesty and integrity as the sole ground for De Vries’s debarment to the Financial Sector Conduct Authority. However, the tribunal found no evidence that he had stolen or misappropriated money, misled the client, concealed the transaction or personally benefited beyond his ordinary commission.
More importantly, dishonesty was never put to De Vries during the debarment process. “A person cannot be required to answer an allegation which is not made and then be debarred upon it,” the tribunal held.
Sanlam also abandoned the honesty and integrity ground in its argument before the tribunal, instead relying on competence and compliance. The tribunal found that a ground abandoned by Sanlam could not sustain the original decision.
Conduct was negligent, not dishonest
The tribunal accepted that De Vries’s conduct was careless and that he breached Sanlam’s internal rules, but found that the evidence did not establish the character defect required for dishonesty or lack of integrity. “At its highest, the conduct established against the applicant is careless,” it said.
De Vries had contacted Glacier before moving the money, raised the transaction openly and later sought assistance from Sanlam staff when questioned about reporting. The tribunal found no evidence that the conduct was deliberate or designed to evade a reporting obligation. “Negligence of that character does not, without more, establish that a representative no longer meets a fit and proper requirement,” the tribunal held.
FICA findings also failed
The tribunal also found that Sanlam’s reliance on Sections 28 and 29 of FICA was unsustainable. Section 28 places the cash reporting duty on the accountable or reporting institution, and the tribunal said Sanlam had not established that De Vries was personally responsible for initiating the report.
It also noted that the seven deposits were all below the R49 999.99 threshold and that the former requirement to aggregate cash transactions had been removed in 2022. The forensic investigation had not properly determined whether the deposits constituted one transaction or seven separate transactions for reporting purposes. “The finding of a contravention of section 28, which lay at the centre of the debarment, is not sustainable on this record,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal also rejected the Section 29 finding because that provision requires knowledge or suspicion of unlawful proceeds, a transaction without an apparent lawful purpose or an attempt to structure transactions to avoid reporting. It found no such state of mind and described the deposits as “a clumsy and non-compliant means of overcoming a banking obstacle”, rather than an attempt to defeat reporting requirements.
Debarment could not replace internal discipline
The tribunal found that De Vries’s breaches could be addressed through Sanlam’s contractual or disciplinary processes. “Debarment is not a substitute for those processes,” it said, stressing that debarment is a protective measure rather than a replacement for internal disciplinary action.
The panel noted that the transaction was isolated, Sanlam’s review found no similar transactions, the client suffered no loss, and the investment remained in force. It found no basis for concluding that De Vries was no longer fit and proper to provide financial services.
Debarment set aside
The tribunal refused to remit the matter to Sanlam, finding that the record was complete and that another enquiry could not change the essential findings. It set aside Sanlam’s 16 March 2026 debarment decision and ordered the company to inform the Financial Sector Conduct Authority so that the central register could be corrected.
The decision does not prevent Sanlam from pursuing contractual or disciplinary remedies arising from De Vries’s admitted internal rule breaches.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
