A former Capitec Bank financial services representative, Palesa Molefe, has failed in her bid to overturn a debarment tied to a scheme the bank says involved 10 employees, in a ruling that reinforces how strictly the Financial Services Tribunal treats fit-and-proper breaches under South Africa's financial services legislation.
The Tribunal found that Molefe had engaged in inherently dishonest conduct by submitting transactions as debit-order switches when they did not meet the criteria to qualify as such. It dismissed her application for reconsideration, ruling that she had failed to meaningfully challenge the central allegations underpinning her debarment.
Molefe joined Capitec in August 2016 as a Client Service Champion and was later promoted, eventually being registered as a financial services representative. Capitec debarred her on 26 March 2026 after concluding that she no longer met the fit-and-proper requirements of honesty, integrity and good standing set out in financial services legislation, notifying her of the decision the following day.
The alleged scheme
According to Capitec's grounds for debarment, the misconduct took place between November 2024 and May 2025 while Molefe worked at the bank's Orange Farm branch. The bank alleged she extracted debit-order information from customers' external bank statements — using EasyPay records — and submitted it as SMS debit-order switches on 22 occasions, despite the transactions not qualifying as genuine switches. None of the 22 resulted in an actual debit from a Capitec client's account.
Capitec said the purpose was to inflate her debit-order switch numbers to meet internal targets and qualify for the bank's Team Awards incentive scheme, and alleged the conduct formed part of a coordinated, systematic strategy involving ten employees — pointing to a structural weakness in how the incentive was administered, not an isolated lapse.
Molefe was given the chance to respond and submitted written representations on 16 February 2026, but Capitec proceeded with the debarment regardless.
Molefe's challenge fails
Molefe sought reconsideration, arguing Capitec had failed to consider all relevant information, withheld key evidence, and failed to properly weigh mitigating factors. An earlier bid to have the debarment suspended was also dismissed, with the Tribunal finding she had no reasonable prospects of success.
The Tribunal noted Molefe did not dispute the substance of the 22 transactions, offering explanations rather than contesting the facts. It concluded her conduct was "inherently dishonest" and fell short of the standards expected of a financial services representative, holding that once Capitec established the fit-and-proper breach, it was statutorily obliged to debar her. The Tribunal found no fault with either Capitec's process or its substantive findings, and dismissed the reconsideration application.
Why it matters
The ruling adds to a run of Capitec debarment cases tied to incentive-linked transaction manipulation, and underscores the regulatory exposure banks face when sales-linked incentive structures are gamed at representative level — particularly where, as alleged here, the conduct isn't limited to a single employee. It also signals the Tribunal's continued reluctance to overturn debarments where applicants fail to substantively contest the underlying findings rather than the process followed.
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 challenged 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.