FWC upholds deceptive loan executive’s dismissal

A loan specialist’s unfair dismissal application has been rejected by the Fair Work Commission after he was terminated by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for failing to disclose an unaccredited broker referral and digital communications.

The Workplace Relations Tribunal has found that CBA was justified in terminating the senior home lending executive for serious misconduct and policy breaches, after uncovering communications with an unverified referrer known as “Hugo”, who allegedly pushed through shadow referrals.

Under CBA’s Referral Source Program, only accredited professionals can refer a client to the bank for a commission.

The respondent claimed that its whistleblowing program, SpeakUp, received an anonymous report about five employees, including the loan executive. While an initial investigation did not find any evidence of wrongdoing, a broader audit was undertaken due to the seriousness of the complaint and potential overlap at his previous employment at St George Bank.

CBA’s investigation identified that several customers had made payments to Zonghui Feng (Hugo), at the same time that their loans were processed, as had two accredited referral partners – JS Sonic and Regis Lawyers.

According to the bank, Hugo funnelled home loan applicants through these accredited referral partners and collected payouts as a form of commission. The bank’s investigation uncovered six payments reaching more than $80,000 total from JS Sonic, more than $60,000 from Regis Lawyers, and direct payments from customers totalling more than $48,000.

Deputy president Gerard Boyce said: “Hugo appeared to be receiving payments that were potentially connected to home loan approvals resulting from customers referred to the applicant by JS Sonic.”

“This was a red flag for the respondent in that it appeared that Hugo (as a non-approved third party providing mortgage broking services to customers)” was referring those customers to the respondent through JS Sonic, and getting kick-back payments akin to referral source commission payments for such referrals.

It was further alleged that a group chat was created on social media platform WeChat including Shun Wang, Hugo, and a representative of JS Sonic, also breaching broker policy.

As such, the respondent brought four allegations against the employee, two of which were accepted by the applicant during proceedings – that he failed to verify customer income, and sharing loan updates with the referrer and Hugo in the group chat.

Wang contested the third allegation: that he intentionally misled investigators regarding his relationship with Hugo.

The applicant was advised on 13 May 2025 that a meeting would be held the next day in relation to the applicant referrals. The employee was informed they may bring a support person, advised they may wish to obtain legal advice and also told that disciplinary action could be taken.

This meeting saw the bank lay out the central allegations to Wang; namely, that he approved loan applications without verifying borrowers’ earnings, categorising many as self-employed despite these individuals also being otherwise employed, and his relationship with the uncredited intermediary.

The bank purported that many of the loans approved in 2024 were for individuals who were concurrently self-employed and otherwise employed, and that the applicant allegedly failed to detail jobs and PAYG income in loan documents

Wang denied knowing Hugo, but conceded there was a contact called Hugo after the bank notified him they would be examining his phone. He also admitted that he was “lazy” in his verification of customer income.

With regard to the applicant’s argument that he thought the meeting was non-serious or inconsequential, did not understand the contents, or did not understand the questions, Boyce said there was “no basis whatsoever on the evidence before me that this affected his answers.

A second meeting was held on 27 May.

Despite claiming he had no knowledge of the so-called Hugo in the first meeting, and that any communication with a contact with the name of Hugo was not relevant to his dealings, the bank’s audit found textual evidence of communication between the two, as well as emails with mortgage documents between Hugo and customers.

When advised of the finding, Wang allegedly said he had “nothing to say because I don’t even know that, yeah”.

Wang also admitted to having deleted some WeChat records, but maintained he had not received a direct referral from Hugo. With regard to the PAYG income finding, Wang characterised the omissions as a mistake.

The employee was emailed a letter on 11 June 2025 detailing the four allegations and seeking a response by 18 June.

On 18 June, the employee wrote: “Based on the information are provide (sic) to me, no further explanations or information can be given. We can move forward to (sic) next step.”

“Please advise when can (sic) I take my work phone back?”

State manager mobile banking NSW/ ACT Ronald Rubera informed the employee on 11 July that all four allegations had been substantiated, and that he had the chance to respond to a show cause letter by 15 July to explain why his employment should not be terminated.

The applicant’s response can be surmised: the self-employed customer’s income is not sustainable in the future, explaining the income omission, a customer was planning to resign, also explaining the omission; there was no misleading statement regarding his relationship with Hugo as the name was initially unfamiliar, and later realised he only shared loan updates with Hugo, with no referrals; and finally, that he was not aware it was not permitted to share loan status with a third party.

The employee added: “I would like to emphasise that I had no intention of breaching CBA policy or engaging in any misconduct.”

“I am eager to return to work and continue supporting our customers to the best of my ability.”

With SpeakUp clarifying that some of the applicant’s response was new information, and in consideration of all material, Rubera dismissed the applicant on 29 July.

On receipt of the unfair dismissal application, the central issue for Boyce to determine was whether there was a valid reason for dismissal related to the conduct, and whether the dismissal was disproportionately harsh.

On making the determination, Boyce found that there was no mistake or misunderstanding regarding communication with Hugo, and that Wang intentionally misled investigators. In this way, Wang’s evidence was determined to be wholly unreliable and “not only unbridled nonsense, but a complete fabrication”.

The applicant was further accused of seeking to “intentionally mislead the commission”.

Further, the commission noted that the seniority of the applicant’s position, length of service and regular training dismissed any doubts over the employee’s knowledge of the relevant policies.

Boyce said: “I find that the allegations sustained against the Applicant justify his dismissal and his removal from the Respondent’s workplace. There are no procedural deficiencies (at all) in the lead up to the Applicant’s dismissal. The consequences that flow from the Applicant’s conduct are all on him.”

It was therefore determined that the Applicant’s dismissal was neither harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and the application dismissed.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.