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 Farangiz Tursunova Heard on: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 Location: ACCA Offices, The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AU Committee: Mr John Wilson (Chairman, Accountant), Mr Paul Moulder (Lay) and Mr Joseph Comyn (Lay) Legal Adviser: Mr David Marshall Persons present and capacity: Mr Ben Rich (ACCA Case Presenter) Mr Richard Lorkin (Hearings Officer) Observers: None 1. The Committee heard an allegation of misconduct against Miss Farangiz Tursunova, a student of ACCA, in relation to an examination. Mr Rich appeared for ACCA. Miss Tursunova was not present or represented. PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 2. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Tursunova had been served with the documents required by Regulation 10(7) of The Chartered Certified Accountants Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014, amended 2016 in accordance with Regulation 22. The required documents were contained in the papers before the committee. There was evidence that they were sent by post to the registered address, and by , on 12 May The Legal Adviser reminded the Committee that it was only necessary for ACCA to prove that the notice had been sent in accordance with the rules, not that it had been received; and that students were under a duty to notify any change of address.

2 3. In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to proceed, the Committee balanced the interests of the public and ACCA against the interests of the student. It noted that she had not engaged in any way with ACCA s investigation and had not given any indication that she intended to take part in the hearing today. In addition to the formal notice, a number of s had been sent to her address notifying her of this hearing. The s had not bounced, although no reply or read receipt had been received by ACCA. ACCA had also tried unsuccessfully to telephone Miss Tursunova. The Committee concluded that she was probably aware of the hearing but had decided not to engage with the process. If she was not aware of it, that was due to her failure to keep her contact details up to date. No purpose would be served by an adjournment as ACCA had already done everything reasonably possible to contact her. 4. The Committee concluded that it was in the public interest that these serious allegations should be heard without unnecessary delay. It determined to proceed with the hearing in Miss Tursunova s absence. ALLEGATIONS 5. Miss Tursunova faced the following allegations: Allegation 1(a) Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) it is alleged that Miss Farangiz Tursunova is guilty of misconduct by reason of possessing unauthorised materials, which she intended to use to gain an unfair advantage, during an F7 examination on 5 December 2012, contrary to Examination Regulation 7. Allegation 1(b) Miss Farangiz Tursunova s conduct in respect of Allegation 1(a) above is (i) Dishonest (ii) Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. Or

3 Allegation 2 Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii) it is alleged that Miss Farangiz Tursunova is liable to disciplinary action by reason of possessing unauthorised materials during an F7 examination on 5 December 2012, contrary to Examination Regulation 6. DECISION ON FACTS/ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 6. The Committee heard no oral evidence. It saw brief reports from two invigilators made on the day of the examination. They said that the exam started at 14:00. At about 16:00 they noticed Miss Tursunova acting strangely in relation to her calculator. They found that formulae were written in pencil on its lid. A note from the Examination Services Assistant stated different formulas (mathematical, economical) were written there in pencil very finely and they are seen only when the light drops on it (calculator). The calculator lid was produced. The Committee saw that it contained printed instructions for its use, which were not controversial. In addition there was faint handwriting on both sides of the calculator, apparently written with a fine-tipped pencil. The writing was not visible on casual inspection but showed up when closely examined under a bright light. 7. The only recorded response from Miss Tursunova was in an dated 14 February 2013 apparently sent to the local examination board. This included the following: I cannot understand the reason of my case being under suspicion [of] breaching the examination rules. during the exam i didnt have any other materials except calculator, pencils pen and eraser. my calculator was [only] used to calculate the numbers given it was not used for any other reasons. No other information was stored in [sic] my calculator. the backcase of my calculator includes the guidance for using it. it was [not?] intended for any other reason. 8. She also stated that she had studied in the UK for five years at two British Universities and had never breached examination rules or used unauthorised materials.

4 9. It was notable that Miss Tursunova said nothing about the allegation that there were handwritten notes on the calculator. The Committee considered that she must have known the nature of the allegation against her, and yet she did not deny it. The Committee recognised that English was not her first language and that it was possible that she intended to deny that there were handwritten notes on the calculator. The Committee therefore considered ACCA s evidence carefully. 10. The Committee had no reason to doubt the statements of the two invigilators. It could not conceive of any reason why they would both make false statements about finding writing on the calculator lid. The Committee had no reason to doubt that the lid that was produced to them was the lid taken from Miss Tursunova by the invigilators. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Tursunova was in possession of this calculator lid, with notes written on it, during the examination. 11. Examination Regulation 6 stated that You are not allowed to possess any unauthorised materials while the exam is in progress (whether at your desk or otherwise). Examination Regulation 5 defined unauthorised materials as books, notes or other materials except those authorised by the registrar. While the calculator itself would have been authorised, the Committee was satisfied that hand written notes would be unauthorised materials, regardless of the medium on which they were written. 12. The Committee saw a brief report about the writing on the calculator lid dated 19 January This stated that the material on it was relevant both to the syllabus and to the particular examination paper. The comments stated: Notes relate to accounting ratio formulae which were examined in question 3. The note [sic] are very difficult to read and would have been of very limited assistance, if at all. This is a weak candidate beyond the help of the notes on the calculator. 13. On the basis of the evidence outlined above, the Committee was satisfied that Miss Tursunova was in possession of unauthorised materials, and that they were relevant to the syllabus being examined. Examination Regulation 8 states that in these circumstances it will be assumed that the student intended to use them to gain an unfair advantage in the exam, unless the student proves the contrary. In her Miss Tursunova made a general

5 denial of any intention to cheat but she did not give any explanation of how the handwritten notes came to be on the calculator lid. There was no evidence from which the Committee could conclude that she did not intend to gain an unfair advantage. On the contrary, the way that the notes were written in faint pencil so they were not obvious suggests concealment and therefore an intention to cheat. 14. The Committee considered that Miss Tursunova s conduct would be regarded as dishonest by any member of the public or accountancy student. It also considered that Miss Tursunova would have known that it was dishonest. Her made it clear that she recognised the importance of complying with examination rules. The Committee was satisfied that the facts amounted to misconduct. 15. The Committee found Allegation 1 proved in its entirety. Accordingly, it did not go on to consider Allegation 2. SANCTION(S) AND REASONS 16. The Committee carefully considered what sanction, if any, to impose having regard to ACCA s Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions (April 2016). 17. Having found that Miss Tursunova acted dishonestly, the Committee was satisfied that it was necessary to impose a sanction. 18. The Committee first considered whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Committee was told that Miss Tursunova was of previous good character. There were no aggravating factors. 19. The Committee first considered the sanctions of admonishment and reprimand. However, it concluded that the misconduct in this case was far too serious to be marked by such sanctions. The guidance for reprimand states that it would usually be applied in situations where the conduct is of a minor nature. The dishonesty in this case cannot be regarded as minor. 20. The Committee next considered the sanction of severe reprimand. The Guidance states that for this sanction to be appropriate it would be expected that there there would be sufficient evidence of an individual s understanding and genuine insight into the conduct found proved. The Committee had no information about Miss Tursunova s attitude to her misconduct. With regard

6 to the specific factors mentioned in the guidance, the misconduct was intentional, indirect harm could be caused by cheating, no insight had been demonstrated, there were no expressions of regret or apology, there was no information about rehabilitation, there were no testimonials, Miss Tursunova did not cooperate with the investigation. The only factor that was satisfied was previous good character. The Committee concluded that this sanction was not adequate. 21. The Committee regarded Miss Tursunova s actions as very serious. One of the foundations of a profession is the integrity of the system by which members enter that profession. Cheating in examinations is a direct attack on the profession and its values. The Committee concluded that the minimum sanction necessary to mark the seriousness of their misconduct was removal from the student register. COSTS AND REASONS 22. Mr Rich applied for costs totalling 2, The Committee was satisfied that ACCA was justified in bringing these proceedings and entitled to its costs in principle. It was satisfied that the figure for costs was reasonable. The Committee had no information as to Miss Tursunova s means. The Committee decided to award costs as claimed. 23. The Committee ordered that Miss Tursunova: a) Be removed from the student register; b) Pay 2, to ACCA as costs. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 24. The orders in this case shall take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period referred to in the Appeal Regulations. John Wilson Chairman 15 June 2016