HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

Transcription

1 HEARING COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Maksudar Rahman Heard on: Thursday, 29 November 2018 Location: The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AU Committee: Mr James Kellock (Chairman) Ms Joanne Royden-Turner (Accountant) Ms Helen Kitchen (Lay) Legal Adviser: Mr Andrew Granville Stafford Persons present and capacity: Mr Benjamin Jowett (ACCA Case Presenter) Mr Christopher Bandoo (Hearings Officer) Outcome: Bundle A - Allegations (1)(a), (1)(b)(i), (1)(b)(ii), (1)(c) and A(1)(d)(i) proved. Bundle B - Allegations (1)(a), (1)(b)(i), (1)(b)(ii) and (1)(c)(i) proved. Removal from student membership No application for re-admission for five years Mr Rahman to pay costs to the ACCA of 7,750 ACCA +44 (0) info@accaglobal.com The Adelphi 1/11 John Adam Street London WC2N 6AU United Kingdom

2 INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1. The Disciplinary Committee of ACCA ( the Committee ) convened to consider two sets of allegations concerning Mr Maksudar Rahman, a student member of ACCA. The allegations have been listed to be heard together by order of a Chairman of the Committee. 2. The Committee had before it two bundles of documents (Bundle A: pages A- M and 1-89; Bundle B: pages A-L and (1-57), an additional bundle (pages 61-62) and a service bundle (pages 1-17), and a copy of a second notice of hearing, dated 29 October Mr Jowett, on behalf of ACCA, applied to amend the Schedule in the allegation relating to the Anglia Ruskin University certificates, by deleting a stray letter t. This was a minor typographical error, and the Committee was satisfied that the correction could be made without any prejudice to Mr Rahman. PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 4. Mr Rahman did not attend the hearing and was not represented. 5. The Committee considered the service bundle which contained a notice of hearing dated 29 October 2018, which related to the Anglia Ruskin allegations, a print-out showing Mr Rahman s registered address, and proof of postage. The Committee was also provided with a second notice of hearing, relating to the UCL, an allegation, which was also dated 29 October The Committee was informed that both notices of hearing had been included in the package sent to Mr Rahman. The Committee was satisfied that the notices of today s hearing were sent to Mr Rahman at his registered address in Bangladesh by DHL courier on 29 October Delivery was signed for in the name Rubel on 4 November The Committee was satisfied that the requirements of regulations 10(1) and 22(1) of the Chartered Certified Accountants Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations ( CDR ), as to service, had been complied with. 6. A copy of the notices of hearing, were also sent by on 29 October There had been no response from Mr Rahman to the notices of hearing. A further was sent to Mr Rahman on 21 November 2018, asking him if he intended to attend the hearing and offering him the chance to do so by telephone or video link. Again there had been no reply.

3 7. Having satisfied itself that service had been effected in accordance with the rules; the Committee went on consider whether to proceed in the absence of Mr Rahman. The Committee bore in mind that the discretion to do so must be exercised with the utmost care and caution. 8. Mr Rahman has not engaged at all with the ACCA investigation or disciplinary process. There is no reason to think that he would do so in the future. The Committee considered that there was no good reason to adjourn today s hearing. There is a clear public interest in determining serious allegations of this nature. Therefore the Committee decided to proceed in Mr Rahman s absence. ALLEGATIONS 9. The allegations faced by Mr Rahman were as follows. University of Central Lancashire Allegations (Bundle A) (1) Mr Maksudur Rahman who is registered with ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) as a student: (a) On 02 January 2018 and 10 January 2018, Mr Maksudur Rahman caused or permitted the submission to ACCA of one or more of the documents listed in Schedule A, which purported to be issued by University of Central Lancashire when, in fact, they had not. (b) Mr Maksudur Rahman s conduct as set out in paragraph (1a) above was: (i) Dishonest; (ii) Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. (c) Contrary to Paragraph 3(1) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014, Mr Maksudur Rahman has failed to co-operate fully with the investigation of a complaint in that he failed to respond to any or all of ACCA s correspondence as set out in Schedule B. (d) By reason of his conduct as set out in (1a) and/or (1b)(i) and 1b(ii) and/or (1c), Mr Maksudur Rahman is:

4 (i) Guilty of misconduct pursuant to Bye-law 8(a)(i); or (ii) Liable to disciplinary action pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii). Anglia Ruskin University Allegations (Bundle B) (1) Mr Maksudur Rahman who is registered with ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) as a student: (a) On 28 May 2018, Mr Maksudur Rahman caused or permitted the submission to ACCA of one or more of the documents listed in Schedule A, which purported to be issued by Anglia Ruskin University when, in fact, they had not. (b) Mr Maksudur Rahman s conduct as set out in paragraph (1a) above was: (i) (ii) Dishonest; in that in that Mr Rahman knew that one or more of the documents listed in Schedule A were false; and Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. (c) By reason of his conduct as set out in (1a) and/or (1b)(i) and 1(b)(ii), Mr Maksudur Rahman is: (i) (ii) Guilty of misconduct pursuant to Bye-law 8(a)(i); or Liable to disciplinary action pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii). ACCA S CASE 10. Mr Rahman was admitted as a student member of ACCA in February He was awarded exemptions from F1, F2 and F3 exams on 1 June His exam history is as follows: F6 exam on 07 June failed; F5 exam on 14 June failed; F6 exam on 06 December failed; F4 exam on 07 December failed; F5 exam on 13 December failed F6 exam on 06 June passed; F7 exam on 14 June failed;

5 F5 exam on 05 December failed; F9 exam on 15 June failed; F5 exam on 11 June failed; F7 exam on 07 June 2016 failed; F4 exam in September passed; F7 exam on 06 September failed; F7 exam on 06 June failed; F7 exam on 05 September failed; F5 exam on 06 September failed. 11. On 2 January 2018, ACCA received an from Mr Rahman s registered address. Mr Rahman stated in this that he had completed BA (Hon s) in Accounting and Financial Studies from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan). He requested exemptions from ACCA s F5, F7, F8 and F9 examinations. 12. Attached to the was a certificate purporting to be issued by UCLan, stating that Mr Rahman had been awarded the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and Financial Studies in April Also attached was a document headed Transcript which stated Mr Rahman had obtained a Merit in BA (Hon s) Accounting and Financial Studies from the Sharoe Green Lane North Campus of UCLan. 13. On 9 January 2018, ACCA asked Mr Rahman to resend a copy of his Transcript from UCLan. On 10 January 2018, ACCA received a response from Mr Rahman from his registered address. In that Mr Rahman again stated he wished to obtain F5, F7, F8 and F9 exemptions. He attached the same documents as previously. 14. Mr Rahman s request for exemptions was forwarded to ACCA Exemptions, and Mr Rahman was informed of this. Mr Rahman subsequently sent two chasers, on 6 February 2018 and 24 February 2018, from his registered e- mail address, asking for an update on his exemption request. 15. ACCA Exemptions arranged for the certificate and transcript to be sent to UCLan for authentication. ACCA relied on the evidence of Dr A, the Head of School at UCLan. He stated that Mr Rahman has never been a student of UCLan and the documents submitted by him were not issued by UCLan. He made the following observations: The name on the certificate does not exist on the student record system and the ID shown matches another student name

6 There is no campus Sharoe Green Lane North There is no degree classification shown on the degree certificate. The Transcript shows Merit which would be an incorrect classification for a BA (Hons) degree Hon s has an apostrophe on the Transcript which is incorrect. The UCLan logo is an old version of the logo. 16. ACCA wrote to Mr Rahman at his registered address in Bangladesh on 8 March 2018, for his comments in relation to the matter. A copy of that letter was also sent by . ACCA did not receive a response from Mr Rahman. A chaser letter was sent to Mr Rahman on 4 April 2018, by post and . Mr Rahman was warned that an additional allegation of failure to co-operate may be brought against him, if he did not respond by 25 April No response was received. 17. A final chaser letter was sent to Mr Rahman on 2 May 2018, by letter and . Mr Rahman was again warned that an additional allegation of failure to co-operate may be brought against him if he did not respond by 23 May Again no response was received. Mr Rahman was informed on 24 May 2018, by post, that a further allegation of failure to cooperate had been made against him. All the above correspondence was sent to Mr Rahman s registered postal and addresses. 18. On 17 May 2018, a new address was registered to Mr Rahman s ACCA account online. On 28 May 2018, ACCA received an from Mr Rahman s new registered address. In that Mr Rahman stated he had completed a BA Hon s (sic) in Applied Accounting at Anglia Ruskin University. He wished to obtain F5, F7, F8 and F9 exemptions. He attached documents which included a Bachelor of Arts in Applied Accounting transcript and degree certificate, purportedly issued by Anglia Ruskin University. 19. ACCA Exemptions arranged for the certificate and transcript to be sent to Anglia Ruskin University. ACCA relied on an ACCA Confirmation of False Document Form, completed and signed by Ms B, of Anglia Ruskin University. Ms B stated that Mr Rahman had never been a registered

7 student at Anglia Ruskin University, and the documents submitted by Mr Rahman, purporting to be from the University, were not issued by it. DECISIONS ON ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 20. The Committee considered the documents before it, the submissions of Mr Jowett on behalf of ACCA and the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee bore in mind that the burden of proving an allegation rests on ACCA and the standard to be applied is proof on the balance of probabilities. The Committee considered the allegations in Bundle A and Bundle B separately. For convenience and to avoid repetition, its reasons for its findings will be dealt with together. 21. The Committee was quite satisfied, on the evidence of Dr A and Ms B respectively, that the degree documents, purporting to be issued by UCLan and Anglia Ruskin University, were false. 22. The key issue for the Committee in respect of both allegations was whether it could be satisfied, on the evidence, that Mr Rahman had caused or permitted those documents to be submitted. The Committee was satisfied that he had for the following reasons. 23. The s submitting the documents came, on each occasion, from Mr Rahman s registered address. The only person who could conceivably benefit from the submission of false documents was Mr Rahman. Further, in respect of the UCLan documents, there were follow-up s from Mr Rahman chasing a response to his exemption application. The Committee was therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Rahman had either himself submitted the false documents purportedly issued by UCLan and Anglia Ruskin University, or that he had permitted someone to do so, on his behalf. 24. Accordingly the Committee therefore found Bundle A, Allegation (1)(a) and, Bundle B Allegation (1)(a) proved. 25. There is no doubt that submitting false degree certificates to gain exemptions from professional examinations is dishonest, and would be so regarded by honest and reasonable members of the public. Acting dishonestly also amounts to a breach of the Fundamental Principle of Integrity (R(May) v CIMA). The Committee therefore found Bundle A, Allegations (1)(b) and Bundle B, Allegation (1)(b) proved in their entirety.

8 26. Mr Rahman failed to respond to the letters and s sent to him by ACCA s investigations department on 8 March, 4 April and 2 May The Committee was satisfied that under CDR 3(1), he had a duty to co-operate with that investigation. His failure amounted to a breach of this duty. The Committee therefore found Bundle A, Allegation (1)(c) proved. 27. Dishonesty in relation to professional examinations brings discredit on the student, the profession and the Association. The Committee was quite satisfied that Mr Rahman s actions in relation to both applications for exemptions amounted to misconduct. It further considered that failing to cooperate with ACCA s investigation amounted to misconduct. The Committee therefore found Bundle A, Allegations (1)(d)(i) and Bundle B, Allegation (1)(c)(i) proved. 28. Having found misconduct in relation to both Bundle A and Bundle B, it was not necessary for the Committee to consider Bundle A, Allegations (1)(d)(ii) and Bundle B, Allegation (1)(c)(ii). SANCTION AND REASONS 29. The Committee considered what sanction, if any, to impose, taking into account ACCA s Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions and the principle of proportionality. The Committee bore in mind that the purpose of sanctions was not punitive, but to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. It took into account the submissions of the parties and the advice of the Legal Adviser. 30. Having found that Mr Rahman s actions amounted to misconduct, taking no further action was clearly not appropriate. The Committee therefore considered the available sanctions in ascending order of seriousness. 31. The Committee took into account that no previous disciplinary findings had been made against Mr Rahman during his eight years as a student. There was nothing else it could take into account by way of mitigation. There was no demonstration of insight, apology or, indeed, any acceptance of wrongdoing on Mr Rahman s part. 32. Dishonesty is a serious offence for any member of a professional association. In this case, the misconduct was aggravated by the fact Mr Rahman repeated his dishonesty by submitting false documents on two separate occasions. In the Committee's view neither admonishment nor

9 reprimand would mark the gravity of this misconduct. A severe reprimand would not be appropriate and proportionate, given the deliberate nature of the conduct and the risk to the public. 33. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Rahman s misconduct was so serious that no order less than exclusion would be appropriate. Therefore, pursuant to CDR 13(4)(c), the Committee orders that Mr Rahman be removed from the student register. 34. The Committee considered that it would be appropriate to exercise its power to direct that no application for re-admission be made for a specified period. Therefore, pursuant to CDR 13(4)(c) the Committee directed that no application for re-admission as a student member may be entertained for a period of five years from the effective date of the order. COSTS AND REASONS 35. ACCA applied for costs in the sum of 8, The application was supported by a schedule providing a breakdown of the costs incurred by ACCA in connection with the hearing (additional bundle pages 58-61). Mr Jowett accepted some reduction would be appropriate to reflect the fact that the hearing had not lasted a full day. 36. The Committee was satisfied that in principle, a costs order should be made in favour of ACCA, and that the sums claimed were reasonable. It had no information about Mr Rahman s means. 37. The Committee determined that the appropriate order was that Mr Rahman pay ACCA s costs in the sum of 7,750.