Absa employee debarred for using fake documents to secure loans.
Image: Absa South Africa/ Facebook
The Financial Services Tribunal (FST) has dismissed an application by a former Absa employee who sought to overturn his debarment, ruling that he filed his challenge 18 months late and failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
Ditiro Tone was debarred in April 2024 as a registered financial services representative. The debarment prevents him from operating in the financial services industry.
He approached the tribunal in October 2025 — almost 18 months after being notified of his debarment — seeking reconsideration under the Financial Sector Regulation Act.
Under the law, such applications must be filed within 60 days unless good cause for the delay is shown. Tone did not request formal reasons for his debarment and was therefore required to act within that 60-day period.
Tone argued that he believed the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) would make the final decision regarding his debarment and formally notify him. He claimed he only discovered “through indirect means” a year later that he had in fact been debarred.
He further alleged that the FSCA failed to provide clear guidance when he attempted to challenge the decision, contributing to the prolonged delay.
However, the tribunal rejected this explanation, finding that Absa had expressly informed Tone of his debarment in April 2024. As a registered representative under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS), he ought to have known that his employer had the authority to debar him.
The panel described the delay as “inordinate” and found his explanation lacked detail and was “wholly insufficient”. It also noted that he failed to produce any evidence of his alleged engagements with the FSCA.
The tribunal ruled that the inadequate explanation alone was sufficient to dismiss the application.
The tribunal further found that, even if condonation had been granted, Tone’s reconsideration application had poor prospects of success.
It emerged during Absa’s investigation that Tone allegedly colluded with a third party, identified as “Meravan”, to facilitate credit applications that should not have been approved.
Although Tone maintained that he was not responsible for granting or extending credit, Absa found that he facilitated suspicious applications, failed to identify red flags, and, in some instances, assisted clients with letters of motivation.
WhatsApp messages uncovered during the investigation appeared to show regular communication between Tone and Meravan about the progress of various loan and credit card applications. In some messages, Meravan pressed for updates on clients, while Tone complained that the credit and fraud departments were “killing us” by not approving applications.
The investigation also revealed that once credit was granted, funds were quickly withdrawn and the accounts were later classified as bad debt and fraud, resulting in significant financial losses to the bank.
Another Absa employee reported receiving nearly 20 applications from Tone involving clients based in KwaZulu-Natal, despite Tone being stationed at the bank’s Montana branch in Pretoria. The applications were flagged as highly suspicious and referred to the fraud department, where they were ultimately declined.
The tribunal found that Tone failed to provide adequate explanations for the WhatsApp communications, his relationship with Meravan, or the suspicious applications he submitted.
In its final order, the tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of the late filing. As a result, the reconsideration application could not proceed.
IOL News