ZIMBABWEAN WOMAN FIRED OVER ROMANCE SCAM DEPOSIT BY STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
R100 000 romance scam deposit cost her job
By Fanuel Viriri
A Zimbabwean forensic investigator employed by Standard Chartered Bank South Africa was fired by the bank after her business account was used by romance scammers. The woman Mercy Zihove then turned to the Johannesburg Labour Court and lost her bid to overturn her dismissal after the Labour Court upheld her dismissal.
In a judgment, Acting Judge Galaletsang Connie Phakedi of the Labour Court in Johannesburg dismissed a review application brought by Mercy Zihove. She had asked the court to set aside a Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) award that found her dismissal was fair.
The matter began in January 2023 when Nedbank alerted Standard Bank that an elderly client, Ms E.D. Strydom, appeared to be a victim of a romance scam. She had transferred R300,000 to several accounts. One of those accounts belonged to “Mike Angies Workshop”, a panel-beating business owned by Zihove.
On 4 January 2023, R100,000 was paid into that account. On the same day, Zihove transferred R80,000 to a Standard Bank account and a further R10,000 to a First National Bank account, both belonging to Elite Ambitions.
Zihove was employed by the bank as a senior forensic investigator in the Group Forensic Services unit and was a certified fraud examiner with more than 10 years’ experience. She reported to Mr Mabuti Radebe, who in turn reported to Mr Ajay Rampersadh, the Head of Group Forensic Services.
During internal investigations, Zihove told bank investigator Mr McCrudden that the money was for a vehicle purchase arranged by her workshop manager, Mr Kuda Govo, on behalf of his brother’s friend “Marvin” who lived in Dubai. She said she did not verify the source of the funds because she trusted Mr Govo.
Mr McCrudden testified that he found it strange the money was moved so quickly, and that Zihove, given her role, should have flagged the transaction. Mr Govo’s version during the investigation was inconsistent, and he later conceded that had questions been asked earlier they might have realised it was a scam.
Mr Rampersadh also testified that there was no evidence Zihove was complicit in the fraud, but her failure to exercise due diligence exposed the bank to reputational risk and potential financial loss.
On 13 March 2023, Zihove was charged with misconduct for allowing her business account to receive proceeds of crime and for transferring the funds without due diligence. A disciplinary hearing was held on 22 March 2023 before independent chairperson Mr Pieter Smith. After hearing evidence, Mr Smith found Zihove not guilty.
That outcome was not communicated to her. Instead, Mr Rampersadh escalated the matter to senior managers in People and Culture. The Group Head of Employee Relations, Mr Lukhele, disagreed with the finding and asked the panel administrator, Mr D Bierman, to review it. Mr Smith was then instructed to change his verdict to guilty and to impose a sanction. He did, and Zihove was dismissed on 14 April 2023.
Zihove referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. The Commissioner found two things. First, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the bank’s disciplinary code did not allow management to overturn the chairperson’s decision, and Zihove was not given a chance to make representations before the outcome was changed. Second, the dismissal was substantively fair because, as a senior fraud examiner, Zihove had a fiduciary duty to act in the bank’s best interests and had been grossly negligent. The Commissioner awarded her three months’ salary as compensation.
Unhappy with the award, Zihove took the matter on review to the Labour Court. She argued that the bank’s interference made the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair, and relied on the Constitutional Court decision in SA Revenue Service v CCMA & Others.
Judge Phakedi found that the CCMA’s decision fell within the band of reasonableness. He accepted that the bank acted outside its policy when it instructed the chairperson to change the verdict, and that compensation was therefore appropriate. However, he said arbitration proceedings are a hearing de novo, and the Commissioner was entitled to look at all the evidence afresh.
Considering Zihove’s senior position and her concession that she owed the bank a duty of care, a reasonable decision-maker could conclude that dismissal was justified.
The court noted that while the bank was not authorised to influence the chairperson in the manner it did, the Commissioner had already addressed that with compensation, and the court would not interfere with that award.
The review application was dismissed with no order as to costs.