Hearing DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

Transcription

1 DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Miss Warda Jamil Heard on: Thursday, 26 April 2018 Location: The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AU Committee: Legal Adviser: Mr Ian Ridd (Chairman), Mr Michael Lamb (Lay), Mr Arif Kamal (Accountant) Mr Leighton Hughes Persons present and capacity: Miss Rachael Davies (Hearings Officer) and Mr Mohammed Ismail (Case presenter on behalf of ACCA) Observers: None Summary: Effective date of order: (i) Removal from the student register. (ii) Costs 5470 At the expiry of the Appeal period. 1. The Committee had bundles of papers paginated A-9, 1-97 and (cost schedules not before the Committee at the fact finding stage), together with a service bundle paginated ACCA was represented by Mr Ismail. Miss Jamil was neither present nor represented.

2 SERVICE AND PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 3. The Committee's attention was drawn to the service bundle which established that Miss Jamil had been given notice of the hearing in accordance with Rule 10 of the Chartered Certified Accountants' Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014 ("the Regulations") by service upon her of a formal notice dated 23 March 2018 sent to the postal address provided by her to ACCA. Moreover, Mr Ismail told the Committee that the notice was also sent to Miss Jamil by on 3 April Mr Ismail submitted that, there having been compliance with the Regulations, the Committee had the power to proceed in the absence of Miss Jamil. 4. Mr Ismail told the Committee that Miss Jamil had made no contact with ACCA in response to the notice of this hearing and that this was indicative of her recent lack of engagement with ACCA. Miss Jamil last corresponded by with ACCA on 10 October 2017, but she failed to respond to specific requests for information made by ACCA by way of a further on the same date. Subsequent attempts to contact Miss Jamil by her registered telephone number have been unsuccessful, as that number is now out of service. Mr Ismail submitted that in the circumstances it was fair and appropriate for the Committee to conclude that Miss Jamil had voluntarily absented herself from the hearing, and to exercise its discretion to proceed in her absence. 5. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Jamil had been given notice of this hearing in accordance with the Regulations. It next considered whether it was appropriate to hear the allegations faced by Miss Jamil in her absence. It bore in mind its discretion to do so, in accordance with Regulation 10(7). The Committee noted that it should approach the exercise of its discretion with the utmost care and caution. It had regard to all the information before it in order to determine the nature and circumstances of Miss Jamil's absence, and in particular, whether she had voluntarily absented herself from these proceedings and so waived the right to be present. 6. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Jamil had decided not to attend this hearing or engage with her regulator. The Committee considered that, in the

3 circumstances, an adjournment would be unlikely to secure her attendance at a future date, or serve any useful purpose. 7. The Committee had regard to the general public interest in the expeditious disposal of a hearing without unnecessary delay. It determined that Miss Jamil had voluntarily absented herself and waived her right to be present, and that in all the circumstances, it would be fair and reasonable to proceed in her absence. To do otherwise would fly in the face of the efficient despatch of these regulatory proceedings. THE ALLEGATION Allegation 1 (a) On or around 31 October 2016 Warda Jamil caused or permitted one or more of the documents set out in Schedule A to be submitted to The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) which purported to have been issued by the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of Pakistan when, in fact, they had not. (b) Warda Jamil's conduct in respect of 1(a) above was: i. Dishonest; and ii. Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. (c) By reason of her conduct in respect of 1(a) and/or 1(b) above, Warda Jamil is guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i). THE BACKGROUND AND ACCA'S CASE 8. Miss Jamil was a student member of ACCA, having been registered as a student on 3 November ACCA's case was that on or around 31 October 2016, together with her application to become a student member of the Association, Miss Jamil dishonestly submitted two documents (set out in Schedule A) which purported to show that she had obtained a qualification that in fact she did not have. She

4 did so in support of her application for student membership of ACCA and in order to be granted exemption from ACCA F1-F9 examinations. ACCA's case was that in so doing she was dishonest, in breach of ACCA's Fundamental Principle of Integrity, and guilty of misconduct. 10. Miss Jamil's applications were successful. She was registered as a student member of ACCA on 3 November 2016, and the following day she was granted exemption from ACCA's examination papers F1-F On 24 August 2017, at the request of ACCA Pakistan, the Director of Examinations at the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of Pakistan ("ICMAP") confirmed that the two examination documents that had been submitted by Miss Jamil to ACCA did not match with their records. 12. In due course, ACCA s Student Registration Team Manager confirmed that Miss Jamil would not have been granted ACCA student membership if any of the details within her application form and the accompanying documentation had been known to be incorrect or fraudulent. 13. Furthermore, Exemptions Specialist at ACCA, confirmed that Miss Jamil's examination exemptions were granted on the basis of the two documents that she had submitted to ACCA, which purported to have been issued by ICMAP and which purported to demonstrate that she had successfully passed the Final Examinations in Cost and Management Accounting of that Institute. MISS JAMIL'S CASE 14. Miss Jamil was notified of the allegations that had been made against her by a letter dated 4 September 2017 from an ACCA Investigation Officer. Miss Jamil did not respond to either that letter or a follow up letter of 21 September On the 6 October 2017, the two previous letters were sent by to Miss Jamil. She replied by way of the same day, in which she stated: "Dear concern, It is bring to your knowledge that once I have seen an advertisement on social media that we claim exemptions in ACCA of 9 papers two I have applied for that and pay all the fee for that. That's all the matter in my best knowledge. Regards."

5 16. On 9 October 2017 [the Investigations Officer] sent a further to Mr Jamil requesting further information, namely: "a) [On] which social media site did you see the advertisement? b) Can you set out exactly what the advertisement said? c) Can you locate the advertisement and send a screenshot? d) Can you provide a name of the person(s) who you paid the exemption fee to? e) Can you provide a copy of the receipt for the payment? f) can you provide any s to/from the individual/company you paid for the exemptions?" 17. Miss Jamil responded on 10 October 2017 by an which stated "I have seen advertisement on Facebook. No, I think he deactivated his account and I paid the fee using bit coin so I have no record." 18. There has been no further correspondence from Miss Jamil. THE COMMITTEE'S DECISON ON THE ALLEGATIONS 19. The Committee bore in mind that ACCA had brought these allegations and the burden remained upon ACCA to prove its case. Miss Jamil did not have to prove anything. The standard of proof was on the balance of probabilities but the Committee was mindful that it had to look for cogent evidence when considering an allegation of dishonesty. The Committee did not treat Miss Jamil's absence from the hearing and, accordingly, her failure to give evidence, as any support for ACCA's case. The fact of her absence did, of course, mean that there was no oral evidence from her which was capable of contradicting, undermining, or explaining the evidence presented by ACCA, however the burden remained upon ACCA to prove its case to the required standard. 20. The Committee carefully considered the evidence adduced by ACCA, noting that it had never been the subject of challenge by Miss Jamil. It found the evidence presented a clear and compelling case that supported the factual basis of the allegation. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Jamil caused the two documents in Schedule A to be submitted to ACCA in or around 31 October The Committee considered the documents spoke for themselves to their

6 falsity, by way of example the Final Examination Certificate referred to Miss Jamil as "he [was examined in the following subjects]..." Moreover, the Committee considered that Miss Jamil's correspondence appeared to suggest that she acknowledged having secured her examination exemptions in, at least, a highly unconventional on-line route and by making a payment by Bitcoin. The Committee was satisfied that the documents were plainly bogus. 21. Having found the facts giving rise to the allegation proved, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Jamil had been acting dishonestly. Its finding was that she had knowingly submitted false documents to ACCA to secure exemption from professional examinations. The Committee was in no doubt that an ordinary and decent person would consider that, to do so, was dishonest. Furthermore, the Committee was in no doubt that she had acted in clear breach of ACCA's Fundamental Principle of Integrity, in that she was being neither straightforward nor honest, nor adhering to the basic ethical standards of one s own profession. 22. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Jamil's dishonest behaviour was morally culpable, and discreditable to her, ACCA and the Accountancy Profession. The Committee considered her conduct to be a significant departure from the high standards expected of an ACCA student and conduct that brought ACCA and the profession into disrepute. 23. Accordingly, the Committee was in no doubt that the behaviour found proved amounted to misconduct. To characterise it as other than misconduct would fail to uphold proper professional standards and would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory function of ACCA. 24. Accordingly, the Committee found the Allegation proved in its entirety. SANCTION AND REASONS 25. The Committee had regard to ACCA's Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions. It had at the forefront of its consideration the public interest, which included not only the protection of members of the public, but also the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and in ACCA, and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of conduct and behaviour. The Committee recognised that the

7 purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, although a sanction may have a punitive effect. 26. Miss Jamil had not provided any references or testimonials, or indeed anything by way of mitigation at all. The Committee noted the absence of any previous disciplinary findings, but considered this amounted to little mitigation given that she had only been a student member for nine months prior to the discovery of her dishonesty, and that her student membership had been based on dishonest representations. 27. The Committee considered what Miss Jamil had done amounted to very serious misconduct involving, as it did, her deceiving her regulator into giving her exemptions from professional examinations to which she was not entitled by a sustained and well orchestrated plan. 28. The Committee first considered taking no further action in this case. It was in no doubt that to do so would fail properly to mark the misconduct of Miss Jamil and would undermine confidence in ACCA as a Regulator. 29. Having decided that it was necessary to impose a sanction in this case, it considered the question of sanction in ascending order, starting with the least restrictive. 30. The Committee first considered whether the appropriate sanction would be the Admonishment of Miss Jamil. The misconduct arose from a deliberate attempt to deceive ACCA and to obtain exemptions from sitting important professional examinations with the aim of personal advancement. The Committee determined that an Admonishment would not adequately reflect the nature of the misconduct in this case and would undermine public confidence in the regulatory process. 31. For the same reason the Committee determined that neither a Reprimand nor a Severe Reprimand was appropriate by way of sanction and that to impose either of these sanctions would not publicly mark the nature and seriousness of the misconduct in this case, nor would it suitably declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.

8 32. The Committee considered that Miss Jamil's misconduct was a serious departure from the standards expected of a student member of ACCA. The Committee was satisfied that dishonesty was fundamentally incompatible with being a student member of ACCA, and that no sanction short of removal from the student register was appropriate in her case. The Committee considered that a failure to remove a dishonest student from the Register would fail properly to uphold proper standards of professional behaviour and would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession and in ACCA as a Regulator. Accordingly the Committee ordered that Miss Jamil be removed from the student register. COSTS 33. ACCA claimed costs in the sum of The Committee reduced this figure in order to reflect that this hearing had taken less time than initially anticipated. The reduction made by the Committee was 820. Miss Jamil had not provided any details of her financial circumstances to the Committee. The Committee decided that it was appropriate to award costs and that the sum claimed was both fair and reflected work reasonably undertaken. It considered there was no evidential basis for reducing the sum claimed. Accordingly, Miss Jamil was ordered to pay to ACCA by way of costs. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 34. This order shall take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period unless Miss Jamil gives notice of appeal prior to the expiry of that period, in which case it shall become effective (if at all) as described in the Appeal Regulations. Mr Ian Ridd Chairman 26 April 2018