1. Miss Conroy was a registered Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). Your CIMA Contact ID is 1-GN41.

Transcription

1 Miss Clare Conroy of Andover, United Kingdom CIMA Disciplinary Committee Meeting held on 21 November 2017 References in this decision to Regulations are to those in the Institute s Royal Charter, Byelaws and Regulations (reprint July 2015) and references to Rules are to the Institute s Disciplinary Committee Rules 2015, in both cases unless otherwise stated. The Charges 1. Miss Conroy was a registered Associate Member of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA). Your CIMA Contact ID is 1-GN Between 10 October 2005 and 15 January 2016, she was Director of Abacus 41 Limited, a private limited company engaged in accounting and auditing activities. 3. Between 11 December 2006 and June 2015, she was engaged by Mr Nick Rogers to provide accounting services to his businesses Solitaire Jewellers and Paul Rocheres Jewellers (the businesses). These services included: a. Book-keeping (Solitaire Jewellers only); b. Year-end accounts; c. VAT returns; d. Payroll Services (PAYE/NIC); e. Self-Assessment Tax Returns; and f. Monthly Management Accounts (Solitaire Jewellers only). 4. The businesses paid for these services in good faith via standing order on a monthly basis. 5. Miss Conroy failed to issue invoices to the businesses in accordance with the engagement letter. 6. She failed to provide the businesses with year-end accounts for the following years: a. 2012; b. 2013; c She failed to submit accurate Self-Assessment Tax Returns for Nick Rogers for the years ending: a. 5 April 2012; b. 5 April 2013; and c. 5 April She failed to provide agreed services from October 2014 onwards, despite fees having been paid. In particular, she: a. Failed to provide Monthly Management Accounts to Solitaire Jewellers; b. Failed to prepare the businesses accounts for the year ending 5 April 2015; c. Failed to submit partnership and personal tax returns for Nick Rogers for the year ending 5 April d. Failed to submit the February 2015 VAT return to HMRC.

2 9. As a result of Miss Conroy s failure to submit tax returns for the year ending 5 April 2015, HMRC issued late filing penalties. 10. She failed to reply appropriately, in a timely manner or at all to correspondence on behalf of the businesses from April 2015 onwards. 11. She failed to act diligently with the return of the businesses records by: a. Not returning the business records in a timely manner as requested; b. Not returning a batch of Bank Statements for the period April 2011 to December 2014; and c. Not transferring the online accounting package over to the businesses. 12. By reason of the facts alleged above, either individually or collectively, Miss Conroy was guilty of misconduct as defined in Byelaw 1 of the Institute s Royal Charter Byelaws and Regulations (December 2006, November 2007, October 2008, October 2009, July 2010, August 2011, October 2012 and July 2015). 13. In particular, she failed to comply with the Laws of the Institute by breaching the following fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics (January 2006, November 2007, October 2010 and January 2015): a. Professional Competence and Due Care (Sections 100.4(c) and 130 Code of Ethics January 2006 and November 2007, Sections 100.5(c) and 130 Code of Ethics October 2010 and January 2015); and b. Professional Behaviour (Sections 100.4(e) and 150 Code of Ethics January 2006 and November 2007, Sections 100.5(e) and 150 Code of Ethics October 2010 and January 2015). 14. Between 3 May 2012 and June 2015 she offered and/or provided accountancy services to the businesses during which time she was not registered as a Member in Practice, and therefore did not hold a valid practicing certificate. 15. By reason of the facts alleged above, she was guilty of misconduct as defined by Byelaw 1 of the Institute s Royal Charter Byelaws and Regulations (August 2011 and October 2012). In particular, she had failed to comply with the Laws of the Institute by breaching: a. Regulation Part I.12, Member in Practice Rules 4 (i)-(iii) and 6 (i)-(vii) (2011 and 2012); and b. The fundamental principles of the Code of Ethics (2010 and 2015 versions): i. Integrity (Sections 100.5(a) and 110); and ii. Professional Behaviour (Sections (e) and 150). The Decision (1) Preliminary Matters The Panel decided the following preliminary matters: We have decided that we will proceed in the absence of the member. The member was neither present nor represented. Nothing has been heard from her throughout CIMA s investigation but the Panel has been informed that a few minutes before the

3 scheduled start time of the hearing she sent an to the Case Presenter. She indicated, amongst other things, that she was aware of the hearing today but felt unable to attend. Attempts were made to contact her by after that to obtain further information but there was no reply. The Presenting Officer produced evidence as to service, including a file of correspondence addressed to her. The Panel was satisfied that the Respondent had been served with the notice of hearing in accordance with the Disciplinary Committee Rules and notice of hearing containing the required information was despatched by recorded delivery post to the Registrant s address that we have for her and by to the address on the register on 16 October 2017 and that s more than 35 days. In considering whether to proceed in the absence of the member the Panel bore in mind that this discretion must be exercised with great care. In exercising the discretion fairness to the member is of prime importance but fairness to CIMA and the interests of the public must also be taken into account. The Panel noted that Ms Conroy had not engaged with CIMA s process until today. It considered her of today carefully. She said, I cannot attend due to personal reasons and please confirm the outcome of the hearing. I just want to move on. Most of the rest of the contained sensitive personal information which the Panel dealt with in private. On the basis of this the Panel concluded that Ms Conroy had chosen not to attend today for personal reasons. She had not requested an adjournment and appeared to expect that the hearing would proceed in her absence. Indeed, that may be what she hoped would happen as her concluded, Please confirm the outcome of the hearing. I just want to move on. The Panel decided that no purpose would be served by postponing this hearing. It was in the public interest that it be dealt with without undue delay. The Panel therefore determined to proceed in Ms Conroy s absence. (2) Findings of Fact The Panel found that the facts alleged in the Charges were proved on the balance of probabilities. The Panel s decision is as follows: This is our decision on the facts. The background of this case is that Mr and Mrs Rogers were the proprietors of two jewellers businesses. They alleged that they engaged Ms Conroy to provide accountancy services in 2006 and that she provided such services until June They allege that after that time Ms Conroy ceased to provide any services and became uncontactable. She had no further contact with them. When they recovered their papers from her they allegedly found deficiencies going back some years. They say that they suffered considerable inconvenience and penalties amounting to 2,700 from HMRC. Mr and Mrs Rogers submitted a formal complaint to CIMA on 31 January The Panel was provided with a bundle of documents, including witness statements from Sarah Rogers and Melanie Jagusch, with exhibits to each witness statement. The Panel accepted the witness statement of Mrs Rogers as her evidence. The Panel heard oral evidence from Ms Jagusch and questioned her. It accepted her evidence.

4 The Panel made the following findings in relation to the charge. Paragraph 1 was proved by CIMA s records. Paragraph 2 was proved by Companies House records. Paragraphs 3 to 11 inclusive, each of these allegations was proved by the evidence of Mrs Rogers and the documents she exhibited. The letter from the accountant who was engaged subsequently and the HMRC records were particularly significant. Paragraph 14: the essence of the complaint by Mr and Mrs Rogers was that Ms Conroy was not providing the services she should have done. Nevertheless, the Panel was satisfied that during the period stated Ms Conroy offered and/or provided accountancy services to them, including submitting tax returns for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 on behalf of her businesses and Mr Rogers personally. Furthermore, she was accepting regular retainer fees and so indicating that she was offering to continue to provide the accountancy services she had provided previously. The dates of practising were proved by the evidence from Mrs Rogers. The fact that Ms Conroy was not registered as a member in practice was proved by the evidence of Ms Jagusch and the records she produced and, accordingly, the Panel found this paragraph proved. (2) Misconduct Following its findings of fact, the Panel considered the issue of misconduct and found that the findings of fact arising from the Charges constitute misconduct. The Panel s decision is as follows: We have now come to a stage where we have to make our decision on misconduct. The facts having been proved, the Panel considered the matter of misconduct. CIMA s Byelaws and Regulations define misconduct as failure to comply with the laws of the Institute or conduct resulting in any conviction or adverse finding by or sanction or order or undertaking to any tribunal or court or other body or authority relevant to their membership or registration of the Institute. In relation to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the charge the Panel found that the facts set out in paragraphs 1 to 11 amounted to breaches of the provisions of the code referred to. Ms Conroy s failings fell far short of the standards required. The Panel was, therefore, satisfied that CIMA had proved misconduct in this respect. In relation to paragraph 15 of the charge the Panel found that the facts set out in paragraph 14 amounted to a breach of the member-in-practice rules and the Code of Ethics. The Panel was, therefore, satisfied that CIMA had proved misconduct in this respect as well. (3) Sanction Following its findings of misconduct, the Panel considered the issue of sanction. The Panel decided that the appropriate sanction in this case is expulsion from the Institute. The Panel s decision is as follows: Having found misconduct as alleged the Panel went on to consider the questions of mitigation and sanction. In considering what sanction if any to impose, the panel had regard to the Indicative Sanctions Guidance and to the advice of the Legal Assessor. It also had regard to the principle of proportionality and that the sanction imposed should be the least onerous suitable to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct.

5 With regard to mitigation, the Panel carefully considered Ms Conroy s of today. This contained sensitive personal information which the Panel dealt with in private and I don t propose to read out in public the text of her communication to CIMA. The Panel accepted that Ms Conroy had experienced severe personal difficulties at the relevant time and that this may well have been the background to, or reason for, her misconduct. The Panel also accepted that those failings were out of character. She had provided a good service to Mr and Mrs Rogers for a substantial period before the events which gave rise to their complaints. The Case Presenter told the Panel that no other complaints had been received about her. Ms Conroy made a generalised acceptance of culpability and expressed remorse. However, she did not comment in detail on the matters in issue in this hearing. She did not provide detailed information as to how they had come about, whether the reasons for her misconduct still existed, what, if any, steps she had taken to overcome them, whether she was currently working either as an accountant or otherwise, or what her intentions were for the future. The Panel noted that Ms Conroy referred to personal and professional references either side of the period in question. However, no such reference were provided to the Panel. Ms Conroy did not provide enough information to the Panel for it to be satisfied that that her misconduct was caused by factors that had since been addressed. It has to proceed on the basis that there was a risk of repetition. With regard to aggravating factors, Ms Conroy s failures with regard to the service provided to Mr and Mrs Rogers were serious and occurred over a prolonged period. They resulted in financial loss and considerable inconvenience to Mr and Mrs Rogers. For example they were subject to penalties imposed by HMRC totaling 2,700. They also paid substantial sums to Ms Conroy for services that she did not perform. Practising when not registered to do so undermines the system of professional regulation. The Panel considered the available sanctions in increasing order of seriousness. The Panel is satisfied that the sanctions of admonishment and reprimand were not sufficient to mark the seriousness of the misconduct in this case. The Guidance indicates that they are appropriate where the conduct is of a minor nature and there is no continuing risk to the public. The sanction of severe reprimand might have been sufficient if it had been clear that there was no risk of repetition, but as I have already stated the Panel cannot proceed on that basis at this hearing. The Panel carefully considered whether it could devise a framework of conditions to protect the public while allowing Ms Conroy to remain on the register. It invited submissions on the practicalities of such a course. The Committee concluded that it would not be practicable in view of Ms Conroy s lack of engagement with CIMA, the Panel could not be satisfied that conditions would be workable or would be complied with. Furthermore, the Panel was told that there was no mechanism whereby conditions could be monitored or reviewed. The Panel next considered suspension. If the misconduct in this case was the result of a temporary crisis in Ms Conroy s life a period of suspension might have been the appropriate response. However, such an order would have to be reviewed by the Disciplinary Committee before allowing her to resume membership. The Legal Assessor advised that the Panel did not have the power to order a period of suspension subject to a review. The Panel did not consider that a fine was an appropriate response in this case, particularly in view of the personal mitigation.

6 (4) Costs With some reluctance, the Panel was driven to the conclusion that the minimum sanction it could impose to ensure that the public was protected was that Ms Conroy be expelled from membership of the Institute. The Panel then considered the issue of costs and ordered you to pay a contribution to CIMA s costs in the sum of 9,225. We have given very careful consideration to the question of costs. We conclude that the case was properly brought, that the Institute is entitled to its costs in this matter and, having regard to the schedule of costs prepared by solicitors acting on behalf of the Institute, we think the sum claimed is reasonable and we, therefore, award costs in the sum of 9,225.