Palesa Molefe, a former financial services representative at Capitec Bank, has lost her appeal against debarment due to dishonest conduct involving improper transaction submissions.
The Financial Services Tribunal found that she engaged in inherently dishonest conduct by submitting transactions as debit-order switches when they did not qualify as such.
Molefe, who joined Capitec in 2016 and was eventually registered as a financial services representative, was debarred by the bank in March 2026 after it found that she no longer met the fit-and-proper requirements of honesty, integrity and good standing required under financial services legislation.
The tribunal dismissed her application for reconsideration after finding that she had failed to effectively challenge the central allegations underlying her debarment.
Molefe joined Capitec as a Client Service Champion in August 2016. She was later promoted and ultimately registered as a financial services representative.
Capitec subsequently instituted disciplinary and debarment proceedings against her. In a notice of intention to debar dated February 12, 2026, the bank relied on the outcome of a disciplinary inquiry and alleged that Molefe had contravened the requirements applicable to financial services representatives.
Why Molefe was debarred?
According to Capitec’s reasons for debarment, the misconduct occurred between November 2024 and May 2025, while Molefe was working at the bank’s Orange Farm branch.
The bank alleged that Molefe extracted debit-order information from customers’ external bank statements using EasyPay bank statements and then submitted the information as SMS debit-order switches, despite the transactions not actually qualifying as such.
Capitec alleged that the conduct occurred on 22 occasions.
The bank said the transactions were also not genuine monthly debit orders and that none of the debit orders submitted by Molefe resulted in successful debits from Capitec clients’ accounts.
According to Capitec, Molefe’s purpose in submitting the transactions was to inflate the number of debit-order switches attributed to her so that she could meet internal targets and contribute towards the bank’s Team Awards incentive scheme.
The bank further alleged that the conduct formed part of a co-ordinated and systematic strategy involving 10 employees.
Capitec considered the conduct dishonest and lacking in integrity, stating that it was inconsistent with its procedures governing debit-order switches.
The bank’s formal grounds for debarment included non-compliance with the fit-and-proper requirements of a financial service provider.
Molefe was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. She submitted written representations to Capitec on 16 February 2026, but the bank considered her submissions and proceeded with the debarment.
Capitec formally debarred her on 26 March 2026 and informed her of the decision the following day.
Molefe challenges the debarment
Molefe approached the tribunal seeking reconsideration of the decision.
She argued, among other things, that Capitec had failed to consider all relevant information and prevailing practices. She also complained that key evidence had not been disclosed and argued that the bank had failed to establish dishonesty or facts sufficient to justify her debarment.
She further raised allegations of procedural unfairness and policy breaches, arguing that mitigating factors had not been properly considered.
Before bringing the reconsideration application, Molefe had also sought to have her debarment suspended. That application was dismissed after the tribunal found that she had no reasonable prospects of success in the main application.
The tribunal’s earlier ruling noted that Molefe did not dispute the substance of Capitec’s allegation concerning the 22 transactions, although she offered explanations for what the bank regarded as dishonest conduct.
Tribunal finds conduct was inherently dishonest
In considering the reconsideration application, the tribunal said applications of this nature amount to a complete rehearing, subject to certain limitations, and that further evidence can be admitted where relevant.
However, it found that the additional material Molefe sought to introduce did not address Capitec’s central finding.
The tribunal said the conduct relied upon by the bank appeared to be common cause or, at the very least, had not been effectively challenged by Molefe.
It concluded that her “uncontroverted conduct was inherently dishonest” and clearly fell short of the standards expected of a financial services representative.
The tribunal held that once Capitec established that Molefe no longer met the fit-and-proper requirements or had materially contravened the FAIS Act, the bank was statutorily obliged to debar her.
It also found no fault with either the procedure followed by Capitec or the bank’s substantive findings.
The tribunal therefore dismissed Molefe’s application for reconsideration.
