- The tribunal says the case turned on the fairness of the debarment process, not the fraud allegations.
- Sanlam could not prove the email address used for the hearing notice belonged to Onalenna Desiree Maroro.
- The insurer’s debarment process collapsed after Maroro was denied the opportunity to be heard.
The Financial Services Tribunal has overturned the debarment of former Sanlam sales adviser Onalenna Desiree Maroro after finding that the insurer sent important notices to the wrong email address. This error denied Maroro the chance for a fair hearing.
The tribunal found that Sanlam did not comply with the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act. The insurer failed to make sure Maroro received proper written notice of the proposed debarment, the hearing invitation, and the supporting documents before the committee proceeded without her.
Investigation began with fraud allegations
Maroro started working as a Sanlam sales adviser in February 2020 and resigned during an investigation into claims that she had fraudulently submitted three life insurance policy applications in a client’s name.
Maroro resigned from Sanlam on 20 November 2025 while the investigation was still underway. She later joined another employer, where she said the debarment was brought to her attention after it had already been recorded by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority.
The investigation was launched after a client complained that three life insurance policies had been taken out in his name without his permission, and that the premiums were being deducted from his salary by stop order.
Sanlam alleged that the applications had forged signatures, were submitted without the client’s consent, and resulted in Maroro earning upfront commission. A forensic investigation followed, and a handwriting expert concluded that the signatures on the applications did not match the client’s official signatures.
Sanlam then began the process of debarring Maroro. However, the tribunal made it clear that it was not deciding on whether the allegations were true. As the matter could be resolved on procedural grounds, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to determine the substance of the fraud allegations.
Tribunal finds notice was never properly given
The outcome of the case hinged entirely on whether Maroro had been given a fair hearing. Evidence showed that on 19 November 2025, Sanlam’s forensic investigator communicated with Maroro using a particular Gmail address. Four months later, the company’s compliance administrator sent the debarment notice, the hearing invitation, and the outcome letter to a completely different email address.
Sanlam could not explain why the email address had changed, nor could it produce any employment records showing that the second address was Maroro’s official or last known contact detail.
The tribunal also pointed out inconsistencies in Sanlam’s own records. The insurer’s written submissions mentioned a hearing scheduled for 30 April 2026, but the outcome letter said the hearing was held on 4 May 2026. Sanlam did not explain this discrepancy.
Maroro did not attend the hearing because she never received the notices, but the debarment committee went ahead without her. She told the tribunal she only learned about the debarment after it was recorded on the Financial Sector Conduct Authority’s central register and pointed out to her by a later employer.
“The evidence establishes that she did not receive the notice and was unaware of the proceedings. The respondent therefore failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the FAIS Act,” the tribunal ruled.
No opportunity for a second attempt
Sanlam admitted that its correspondence may not have reached Maroro and asked the tribunal for permission to correct the mistake by holding a fresh debarment hearing.
The tribunal refused, holding that debarment proceedings against a former representative must start within six months of the person’s resignation. Although Sanlam sent the notice within that time, the process was never properly started because Maroro never actually received the notice.
As the statutory deadline had now passed, the tribunal ruled that the case could not be sent back to Sanlam for a new debarment process. As a result, it set aside the debarment but did not make any finding on the fraud allegations themselves.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
