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: Ms Fatima Fatima Heard on: Friday, 6 April 2018 Location: ACCA s Offices, The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AU Committee: Mr Ian Ridd (Chairman), Ms Ruby Sukkersudha (Accountant) Mrs Lynne Jones (Lay Member) Legal Adviser: Mr Richard Ferry-Swainson Persons present and capacity: Mr Benjamin Jowett (ACCA Case Presenter) and Miss Rachael Davies (Hearings Officer) Observers: Summary: None Student removed from register. Student pay costs to ACCA in the sum of INTRODUCTION/SERVICE OF PAPERS 1. The Disciplinary Committee ( the Committee ) convened to consider an Allegation against Ms Fatima, who did not attend and was not represented. 2. The papers before the Committee were in a bundle lettered A to H and numbered 1 to 82, plus an additional bundle numbered 83 to 102 and a costs schedule numbered 103 to 106. There was a service bundle numbered 1 to Mr Jowett made an application to proceed in the absence of Ms Fatima. PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE

2 4. The Committee first considered whether the appropriate documents had been served in accordance with the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations ( the Regulations ). The Committee took into account the submissions made by Mr Jowett on behalf of ACCA and also took into account the advice of the Legal Adviser. 5. Included within the service bundle was the Notice of Hearing dated 6 March 2018, thereby satisfying the 28 day notice requirement, and addressed to Ms Fatima at her address as it appears in the ACCA register. Proof of postage was provided by way of Royal Mail Track and Trace, which showed that the item had arrived in Pakistan on 12 March 2018 and was being processed for delivery. The Notice included details about the time, date and venue for the hearing and also Ms Fatima s right to attend the hearing, in person or on the phone, and to be represented, if she so wished. In addition the Notice provided details about applying for an adjournment and the Committee s power to proceed in Ms Fatima s absence, if considered appropriate. The same documents were sent by on 6 March 2018 to the address provided by Ms Fatima. 6. The Committee was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Regulations. Having so determined, the Committee then considered whether to proceed in Ms Fatima s absence. The Committee bore in mind that although it had a discretion to proceed in the absence of Ms Fatima, it should exercise that discretion with the utmost care and caution, particularly as Ms Fatima was unrepresented. 7. The Committee noted that Ms Fatima faced serious allegations of dishonesty and failing to co-operate with ACCA investigations department and that there was a clear public interest in the matter being dealt with expeditiously. The Committee considered an adjournment would serve no useful purpose, because it seemed unlikely that Ms Fatima, who was not engaging with ACCA, would attend on any other occasion. The Committee noted she had not responded to any of the correspondence sent by ACCA, either during the investigation or about this hearing, and concluded that she had thereby waived her right to be present and to be represented at this hearing.

3 8. In all the circumstances, the Committee decided that it was in the interests of justice that the matter should proceed, notwithstanding the absence of Ms Fatima. ALLEGATIONS/BRIEF BACKGROUND 9. It is alleged that Ms Fatima is liable to disciplinary action on the basis of the following Allegation: Allegation 1) Ms Fatima who is registered with ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) as a student: a) On 20 March 2017, Ms Fatima caused or permitted the submission to ACCA of one or more of the documents listed in Schedule A, which purported to have been issued by Middlesex University when, in fact, they had not. b) Ms Fatima s conduct described in paragraph 1a) above was; i. Dishonest; ii. Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity, as applicable in c) Contrary to Paragraph 3(1) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014, Ms Fatima has failed to co-operate fully with the investigation of a complaint in that she failed to respond to any or all of ACCA s correspondence as set out in Schedule B; d) By reason of any or all of her conduct as described at 1(a) and/or 1(b) and/or 1(c), Ms Fatima is: a. Guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i); or b. Liable to disciplinary action pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii)

4 Schedule A 1. Transcript and certificate of credit from Middlesex University date stamped 28 April 2015; and 2. Middlesex University, Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and Finance dated 23 June 2016 Schedule B June 2017; July 2017; and August Ms Fatima submitted her initial application to join ACCA on-line, on 20 March Included with her application were two documents that purported to show that Ms Fatima had a Bachelor of Arts degree in Accounting and Finance, from Middlesex University, dated 23 June 2016, She was registered as a student member with ACCA on 22 March Ms Fatima was awarded exemptions based on the documents she had submitted or caused to be submitted to ACCA. 12. On 24 May 2017, ACCA Exemptions contacted ACCA Investigations to inform them that the documents Ms Fatima had submitted as part of her application appeared to be false/forged. 13. ACCA Exemptions referral included an from Middlesex University which stated that the documents Ms Fatima submitted to ACCA, purporting to be from Middlesex University, were forgeries. The Committee had a witness statement, provided by the Conferment and Assessment Manager of Middlesex University, detailing why she considered the documents to be false. 14. The Committee was also provided with a witness statement from the ACCA Student Registrations Team Manager. In her statement, the manager detailed the online registration process. She also confirmed that ACCA re-

5 ceived Ms Fatima s application, which included the documents purporting to be from Middlesex University. 15. As part of the investigation process, ACCA s Investigations Officer wrote to Ms Fatima on 16 June 2017 at her registered address, asking her to comment on the documents she submitted to ACCA which purported to be from Middlesex University. Ms Fatima was asked to provide her response by 7 July No response was received. 16. An was also sent to Ms Fatima s registered address on 16 June 2017 informing her that she was under investigation and enquiring as to whether she would be willing to accept service of documents by . A response was requested by 19 June No response was received. 17. On 10 July 2017, a chaser letter was sent to Ms Fatima at her registered address. In said letter Ms Fatima was reminded of her obligation to cooperate with ACCA s investigation under Regulation 3(1) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations and that a failure to do so may render her liable to ACCA disciplinary action. Ms Fatima was requested to respond to this letter by 31 July No response was received. 18. A follow up was also sent to Ms Fatima s registered address on 10 July 2017, informing Ms Fatima that a letter had been posted to her and again requesting whether she would be willing to accept service of documents by . A response was requested from Ms Fatima by 12 July No response was received. 19. On 9 August 2017, a final follow-up letter was sent to Ms Fatima at her registered address. In this final letter, Ms Fatima was supplied with copies of all previous correspondence, and informed that if she failed to respond by 30 August 2017, a further allegation pursuant to Regulation 3(1) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations would be raised against her. No response was received. 20. On 9 August 2017 a follow-up was also sent to Ms Fatima s registered address, informing Ms Fatima that a letter had been posted to her and again requesting whether she would be willing to accept service of

6 documents by . A response was requested by 16 August No response was received. 21. The Committee noted that the postal and addresses used to contact Ms Fatima by way of the correspondence listed in Schedule B of the Allegation are consistent with the contact details on ACCA s membership register, which were provided by Ms Fatima. 22. Ms Fatima has not engaged with ACCA at any stage, nor did she attend the hearing. Consequently there were nothing from her that the Committee could consider. DECISION ON FACTS/ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 23. The Committee considered with care all the evidence presented and the submissions made by Mr Jowett. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. 24. The Committee accepted the unchallenged and cogent evidence of the Conferment and Assessment Manager of Middlesex University that both the documents referred to in Schedule A were forgeries. In the absence of any alternative explanation from Ms Fatima, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Middlesex University had not issued these documents to Ms Fatima. The Committee was also satisfied that either Ms Fatima herself, or someone on her behalf, submitted these documents to ACCA with her online application to become a student member and that she was aware of the fact that they were forgeries and were being submitted to ACCA. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1(a) proved. 25. The Committee then considered whether such behaviour was dishonest. The Committee considered what it was that Ms Fatima had done, what her intentions were and whether the ordinary decent person would find that conduct dishonest. Ms Fatima had provided false documentation to ACCA as a result of which she was admitted as a student member and was awarded exemptions from some of the exams ordinarily required to be taken by a student member in order to become a full member. The only possible intention for submitting such documentation must have been to deceive

7 ACCA into believing she had indeed obtained an accounting and finance degree at Middlesex University in order to gain the advantage of not having to take all the exams ordinarily required to be taken. Ms Fatima must have known this to be the case. The Committee was in no doubt that the ordinary decent member of the public, in full possession of the facts of the case, would find that conduct to be dishonest. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1(b)(i) proved. 26. Having found Ms Fatima s conduct to have been dishonest the Committee also found that she had breached the Fundamental Principle of Integrity because providing forged documents to deceive a regulator, and in order to gain an unfair advantage, is neither straightforward nor honest. The Committee thus found Allegation 1(b)(ii) proved. 27. The Committee was advised by the Legal Adviser that the duty to cooperate with an ACCA investigation is absolute, that is to say every relevant person is under a duty to co-operate with any investigation officer and any assessor in relation to the consideration and investigation of any complaint. A failure, or partial failure, to co-operate fully with the consideration or investigation of a complaint shall constitute a breach of the regulations and may render the relevant person liable to disciplinary action. Ms Fatima failed to respond to any of the correspondence sent to her by the Investigating Officer on the three dates specified in Schedule B. The Committee noted that the correspondence was also sent by to the address provided by Ms Fatima and there was no evidence that any of those s had not been successfully delivered. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1(c) proved. 28. Having found the facts proved in Allegation 1(a), (b) and (c), the Committee then considered whether they amounted to misconduct. The Committee was in no doubt that providing forged documents to ACCA in the dishonest way described would clearly be considered deplorable by fellow members of the profession and the public. It was behaviour which brought discredit upon Ms Fatima, the profession and ACCA. The Committee was also of the view that failing to co-operate fully, or indeed at all, with an investigation being carried out by her regulator into her alleged misconduct is a serious matter. A student member should not be able to frustrate, delay, or derail

8 completely an investigation into their conduct. Being a student member of ACCA brings with it a duty to co-operate, both in relation to compliance with the Regulations and into the investigation of a complaint. The Committee was in no doubt that such behaviour represented a serious falling short of professional standards and brought discredit upon Ms Fatima and also upon the profession and ACCA as regulator. It therefore decided that Ms Fatima s behaviour, both in submitting forged documents and in failing to cooperate amounted to misconduct and that Allegation 1(d(a) was proved in relation to Allegation 1(a), (b) and (c). 29. Having found Allegation 1(d)(a) proved it was not necessary for the Committee to consider Allegation 1(d)(b), which was in the alternative. SANCTION AND REASONS 30. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Committee took into account the submissions made by Mr Jowett. Ms Fatima had not attended or provided any personal mitigation for the Committee to take into account. The Committee referred to the Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions issued by ACCA and had in mind the fact that the purpose of sanctions was not to punish Ms Fatima, but to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and maintain proper standards of conduct, and that any sanction must be proportionate. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. 31. When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee carefully considered the aggravating and mitigating features in this case. 32. The Committee considered the following aggravating features: the degree of planning and sophistication in forging the relevant documents; undermining the integrity of ACCA s membership and exemptions process; conduct motivated by personal gain. 33. The Committee did not consider there to be any mitigating factors and Ms Fatima had not provided any. 34. The Committee considered all the options available from the least serious upwards and concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanc-

9 tion was removal from the student register. Providing false documents in order to gain student membership and obtain exemptions from exams ordinarily required to be taken, and thereby to gain a qualification upon which the public would rely, is very serious and fundamentally incompatible with being a student of ACCA. This blatant and deceptive, dishonest conduct was such a serious breach of bye-law 8 that no other sanction would adequately reflect the gravity of her offending behaviour. 35. The Association provides specific guidance on the approach to be taken in cases of dishonesty, which is always said to be regarded as a particularly serious matter, even when it does not result in direct harm and/or loss, or is related to matters outside the professional sphere, because it undermines trust and confidence in the profession. The courts have consistently supported the approach to exclude members from their professions where there has been a lack of probity and honesty. Only in exceptional circumstances should a finding of dishonesty result in a sanction other than striking off. The public is entitled to expect a high degree of probity from a professional who has undertaken to abide by a code of ethics. The reputation of ACCA and the accountancy profession is built upon the public being able to rely on a member to do the right thing in difficult circumstances. It is a cornerstone of the public value which an accountant brings. 36. The Committee bore in mind these factors when considering whether there was anything remarkable or exceptional in Ms Fatima s case that warranted anything other than removal from the student register. The Committee was of the view that there were no exceptional circumstances that would allow it to consider a lesser sanction. 37. The Committee also considered that a failure to remove a student from the register who had gained membership and exemptions by submitting forged documents, would seriously undermine public confidence in the profession and in ACCA as its regulator. In order to maintain public confidence and uphold proper standards in the profession it was necessary to send out a clear message that this sort of behaviour would not be tolerated. Ms Fatima s behaviour was compounded by her failure to co-operate with ACCA s investigation and whilst such a failure to co-operate might not, on its own, warrant exclusion from membership of ACCA, when considered in conjunc-

10 tion with the dishonest behaviour found proved in this case, exclusion was inevitable. 38. The Committee therefore ordered that Ms Fatima be removed from the student register. COSTS AND REASONS 39. ACCA applied for costs in the sum of 7, The Committee was provided with a schedule of costs. The Committee was satisfied that the costs claimed were appropriate and reasonable, except for the estimates for the Investigations Officer, in what was a very straightforward case, and also the time estimates for the Case Presenter and Committee Officer for today s hearing which, in the event, took half, rather than a full day. Ms Fatima did not provide any details of her means or provide any representations about the costs requested by ACCA, there was therefore no evidential basis upon which the Committee could make any reduction on that ground. 40. In light of its observations above, the Committee reduced the amount requested to reflect the actual costs more likely to have been incurred and made an order in the sum of 6,000. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 41. This order will have effect at the expiry of the appeal period, or at the conclusion of any appeal if one is made. The Committee was not persuaded that it was necessary to direct that the order have immediate effect in order to protect the public. Mr Ian Ridd Chairman 6 April 2018