DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS. The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London

Transcription

1 DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Kewal Dedhia Heard on: Wednesday 23 March 2016 Location: The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London Committee: Mr Ian Ridd (Chairman) Mr Patrick Bragg (Accountant) Mr Gerard McClay (Lay) Legal Adviser: Mr Leighton Hughes Persons present and capacity: Ms Sophie Cubillo-Barsi (Committee Officer) Ms Samantha Hatt (Case presenter on behalf of ACCA) Observers: None 1. The Committee had bundles of papers numbering pages 1-73, and service bundles numbered ACCA was represented by Ms Hatt. Mr Dedhia was neither present nor represented at the hearing. SERVICE AND PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 3. The Committee's attention was drawn to the service bundle which established that Mr Dedhia had been given notice of today's hearing in accordance with rule 8 of the Chartered Certified Accountants' Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014 ("the Regulations") by service upon him

2 of a formal notice dated 18 February Ms Hatt submitted that, there having been compliance with the regulations, the Committee had the power to proceed in the absence of Mr Dedhia. She drew the Committee s attention to the service bundle which included Mr Dedhia's of 8 March 2016 to the Committee Officer in which he made it clear that he would not be attending this hearing. 4. Ms Hatt submitted that in the circumstances it was fair and appropriate for the Committee to conclude that Mr Dedhia had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, and to exercise its discretion to proceed in his absence. 5. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Dedhia had been given notice of today's hearing in accordance with the Regulations. It next considered whether it was appropriate to hear the allegations faced by Mr Dedhia in his 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 Mr Dedhia's absence, and in particular, whether he had voluntarily absented himself from today s proceedings and so waived the right to be present. 6. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Dedhia was aware of today s hearing and had decided not to attend. His of 8 March 2016 also made clear that he did not seek an adjournment. The Committee considered that, in the circumstances, an adjournment would be unlikely to secure his 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 Mr Dedhia had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to be present, and that in all the circumstances, it would be fair and reasonable to proceed in his absence. THE ALLEGATIONS Allegation 1

3 Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) it is alleged that Mr Kewal Dedhia is guilty of misconduct by reason of possessing unauthorised materials, which he intended to use to gain an unfair advantage, during an examination on 3 December 2012, contrary to Examination Regulation 7, and/or the Fundamental Principle of Integrity, as applicable in Or Allegation 2 Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii) it is alleged that Mr Kewal Dedhia is liable to disciplinary action by reason of possessing unauthorised materials during an examination on 3 December 2012, contrary to Examination Regulation ACCA had previously indicated to Mr Dedhia that at this hearing it would apply to amend the allegations so as to add a specific allegation that Mr Dedhia's conduct as set out in the body of Allegation 1(a) was dishonest. Ms Hatt did not pursue this application in light of ACCA's notice of hearing clearly indicating that the Committee would only consider the original, unamended allegations at the hearing. THE BACKGROUND AND ACCA'S CASE 9. Mr Dedhia is a student member of ACCA, having been registered as a student on 1 April ACCA's case arises from Mr Kewal Dedhia's attendance at the Alexandra exam centre on 3 December 2012 in order to sit the ACCA F5 examination. The exam commenced at 10:00am and was due to last for 3 hours, plus 15 minutes additional reading time at the start of the exam. 11. Mr Dedhia had previously attempted the F5 paper. 12. All candidates for ACCA examinations are made aware of the Examination Regulations as follows:

4 Prior to an examination, all candidates receive an attendance docket which contains the ACCA guidelines and Regulations. Before an examination commences, the Supervisor s announcements draw candidates attention to the regulations and guidelines outlined in the attendance docket. In particular, point 6 is a clear instruction to all candidates to remove all unauthorised materials from their desks. 13. At 10.25am, shortly after the commencement of the examination, one of the invigilators became suspicious that Mr Dedhia may be cheating. In due course that invigilator completed an "Examiner's Script Report" stating that the student had 2 sets of docket [sic]. I saw a continuation booklet with his name on it when I opened the continuation booklet I saw something written on it so I took it to my Supervisor. 14. The invigilator approached Mr Dedhia. She describes his demeanour as nervous and that he started talking a lot about his new and old dockets. Her view was that on Mr Dedhia's desk, under his examination docket, was extraneous material, and subsequent consideration established that it was an ACCA continuation booklet for an F5 examination containing a large amount of information written on it which was relevant to the syllabus and the examination that Mr Dedhia was sitting. ACCA's case was that this was clearly a "crib sheet" which Mr Dedhia had taken into the examination room in order to cheat. 15. Ms Hatt, on behalf of ACCA, relied on ACCA Examination Regulation 8 which provides, in essence, that once a student is found in possession of unauthorised material, there is a rebuttable presumption that the student intended to use that material to gain an unfair advantage. She invited the Committee to conclude that Mr Dedhia had not established on the balance of probabilities that he had not taken the paperwork into the examination in order to gain an unfair advantage, and that such conduct was in clear breach of ACCA's Fundamental Principle of Integrity. Her submission was that his behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct.

5 16. Mr Dedhia's first account for the presence of the unauthorised material on his desk was his contemporaneous account to the invigilator, that he "had it for rough work." 17. Mr Dedhia's second account, on 3 December 2012 (at page 53 of the hearing bundle) was to the effect that he had brought the booklet home from the last time that he had sat the examination, that he had kept it to help with last minute revision, and that it he had taken it into the examination room with the present examination docket by mistake. 18. On 12 February 2013, Mr Dedhia ed ACCA explaining that he had been rushing to the exam and didn t realise that pages of sheets on which I had practised writing answers were stick at back of my old docket (sic). Mr Dedhia asserted that the incident was not at all intentional. 17. Mr Dedhia asserted the same in his to Professional Conduct on 28 November 2013 when describing the incident again, stating that the materials had been practice answers that were at the back of his old docket and that he was aware that unauthorised materials are not permitted in an exam. 19. In an to ACCA on 8 March 2016 Mr Dedhia admitted possessing unauthorised material in the examination but denied that he had it intentionally or with a view to cheating. DECISION ON ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 19. There is no issue that Mr Dedhia was in possession of unauthorised material in the examination room on 3 December He has never contended otherwise. 20. The Committee bore in mind that ACCA has brought this allegation and the burden remains fundamentally upon ACCA to prove its case. However, on the particular facts of this case, the persuasive burden shifts to Mr Dedhia to establish on the balance of probabilities that he did not intend the use the unauthorised material to gain an unfair advantage in the examination.

6 21. The Committee carefully considered the accounts that Mr Dedhia had previously given for the presence of the unauthorised material in the examination room in December It found those accounts to be inconsistent and implausible and it rejected Mr Dedhia's assertion of innocent explanations. 22. The Committee considered that Mr Dedhia could not have failed to notice the substantial unauthorised document that he had taken into the examination room. It had regard to Mr Dedhia's demeanour when approached by the invigilator and found that the reason he was flustered and attempting to cover something up at the time was that he knew full well that he was in possession of unauthorised material for the purposes of cheating or attempting to cheat in the examination. 23. Having found Mr Dedhia to have deliberately taken unauthorised material into the examination, the Committee was in no doubt that his conduct in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. He had been neither straightforward nor honest. 24. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Dedhia's behaviour was morally culpable, and discreditable to Mr Dedhia, ACCA and the Accountancy Profession. The Committee considered cheating in professional examinations to be a grave departure from the high standards expected of an ACCA student and conduct that brought ACCA and the profession into disrepute. 25. Accordingly, the Committee was in no doubt that Mr Dedhia's 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. 26. Accordingly, the Committee found the Allegation proved in its entirety. Allegation 2 has been pleaded as an alternative and so the Committee did not need to consider it. SANCTION AND REASONS

7 27. The Committee had regard to ACCA's Guidance For Disciplinary Sanctions. It had at the forefront of its considerations the public interest, which includes 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 purpose of sanctions is not to be punitive, although a sanction may have a punitive effect. 28. Mr Dedhia has not provided any references or testimonials. However, the Committee considered that the following mitigating factors are present: the absence of any previous disciplinary findings amounts to some mitigation for Mr Dedhia The inevitable stress and worry that these proceeding will have had upon Mr Dedhia, particularly in light of the time for which they have been hanging over him Mr Dedhia's expressions of regret and remorse 29. The Committee considered that a clear aggravating feature of the very serious misconduct itself deliberate, calculated, well planned and artful attempt to cheat in a professional examination 30. 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 Mr Dedhia and would undermine confidence in ACCA as a regulator. 31. 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. 32. The Committee first considered whether the appropriate sanction would be the Admonishment of Mr Dedhia. The misconduct arose from a deliberate attempt to cheat in an ACCA professional examination with the aim of personal advancement and 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.

8 33. 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. 34. The Committee considered that Mr Dedhia's misconduct was a fundamental departure from the standards expected of a student member of ACCA. His dishonest behaviour was a grave breach of both Bye-Law 8 and the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. The Committee was satisfied that dishonesty is fundamentally incompatible with being a student member of ACCA and that no sanction short of removal from the student register was appropriate in his case. The Committee considered that a failure to remove a dishonest student from the register would fail properly to declare proper standards of professional behaviour and would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession and in ACCA as its regulator. Accordingly the Committee ordered that Mr Dedhia be removed from the student register. COSTS 35. ACCA claimed costs in the sum of Mr Dedhia had not provided any details of his financial circumstances to the Committee. The Committee decided that it was appropriate to award costs but that the sum claimed was somewhat excessive. Taking all matters into account the Committee considered the fair and reasonable sum for Mr Dedhia to pay ACCA by way of costs was EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 36. This order shall take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period unless Mr Dedhia 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.i

9 Mr Ian Ridd Chairman 23 March 2016