EFT Found Guilty of Unethical Behavior
Council Member Breakdown
The Council was made up of four individuals with varied expertise, representing academia, the nonprofit sector, and the legal field.
Case Background
This case involves a claim brought by an unnamed Supplier, John Denim and an export credit insurance company, EFT Capital LTD. The dispute centers on EFT's alleged failure to honor insurance coverage related to non-payment by a customer due to bankruptcy proceedings. A key aspect of the case is EFT's failure to respond to communications.
Complaint: John Denim, the Supplier, asserts that they held insurance coverage through EFT that was intended to cover losses in the event of customer non-payment. The Supplier contends that despite a valid claim being submitted, EFT has failed to uphold its obligations under the policy and has furthermore avoided communication.
Dispute: EFT did not present a specific dispute of the allegations or a defense in the hearing. EFT has also not responded to multiple requests from EDC for arbitration.
Deliberation Process
Without EFT present at the hearing, the Council focused on EFT's conduct from emails, claim documents, and the policy agreement. Particular notice was paid to their avoidance of communication and a formal process of arbitration. Council members' discussions and implicit findings highlighted specific principles that EFT's behavior appeared to violate.
Promise-Keeping & Trustworthiness: By failing to pay the insurance coverage on time and allegedly misleading regarding payment status, EFT failed to keep promises and acted untrustworthily.
Fairness, Respect, and Empathy: Failing to address the valid claim, coupled with the lack of communication and engagement, was deemed unfair, lacking in respect for the Supplier's position and losses, and devoid of empathy for the situation caused by the customer bankruptcy.
Accountability: EFT took no accountability for the situation, failing to engage or provide any explanation for the non-payment or non-participation.
Decision
The Council unanimously concluded that EFT Capital acted unethically by failing to uphold its obligations under the insurance policy. This was compounded by its refusal to respond to repeated communications and to participate in the arbitration process.
Ask
The underlying "ask" from John Denim is the payment of the insurance coverage amount owed under the policy due to the customer's bankruptcy, which EFT has failed to provide.
Ongoing Concerns
The Council noted concerns that the individual(s) associated with EFT might be actively avoiding formal contact while potentially soliciting new clients online, raising further ethical and potentially fraudulent concerns.
Council Recommendations
The Council provided specific recommendations to the Claimant on how to proceed given EFT's lack of cooperation:
Monitor and Document Online Behavior: Given EFT's (or associated individuals') continued online presence, monitoring and documenting their public-facing activity is recommended as potential evidence of ongoing misconduct or for locating them.
Seek Pro Bono Legal Assistance: Contacting relevant networks was suggested to find pro bono lawyers who might assist with international legal efforts. Based on the original contract and insurance policy, the insurer assented to the jurisdiction of the Supplier and arbitration there.
Conclusion
This case is about more than an unpaid insurance claim. It reflects a deeper issue in how companies do business. Too often, companies like EFT Capital fail to honor their commitments and then disappear from the conversation, leaving suppliers to carry the full weight of the fallout. Trust, respect, and accountability should be the foundation of any agreement. EFT’s refusal to respond or take responsibility undermines those values and highlights the imbalance that too often defines supplier relationships in today’s market.