DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

Transcription

1 DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Azeem Ahmed Heard on: Wednesday, 6 September 2017 Location: The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AU Committee: Mr John Crawley (Chairman), Mr William Hay (Accountant), Mrs Lynne Jones (Lay) Legal Adviser: Mr Leighton Hughes Persons present and capacity: Mr Azeem Ahmed (Student), Mr Andrew Cowan (Representative on behalf of Mr Ahmed), Miss Rachael Davies (Hearings Officer), Mr Mohammed Ismail (ACCA Case Presenter) OUTCOME: (i) Removal from the student register. No future application for re-admission to the student register may be made before the expiry of 2 years from the effective date of this order and must be referred to the Admissions and Licensing Committee. (ii) Costs 1000 EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER: Immediate

2 1. The Disciplinary Committee ("the Committee") had before it a substantive bundle paginated A-H and 1-96, additional bundles comprising pages , 119, and THE ALLEGATION Allegation 1 (a) On 26 February 2016, Azeem Ahmed was convicted of Conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice at the Crown Court at Oxford, which is discreditable to the Association or the accountancy profession; (b) By reason of his conduct at 1(a) above, Mr Azeem Ahmed is liable to disciplinary action pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(ix). DECISION ON ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 2. At the outset of the hearing Mr Ahmed admitted each allegation and the Committee found each allegation proved by reason of those admissions. PROCEEDING IN PRIVATE SESSION 3. The Committee noted that included in the hearing bundle was sensitive information relating to Mr Ahmed's family circumstances. The Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to hold such parts of the hearing as relate to such sensitive information in private. BACKGROUND 4. Mr Ahmed is a student member of ACCA, having been registered as a student on 9 September On 26 February 2016 Mr Ahmed appeared before the Crown Court at Oxford and was convicted upon his own confession of one offence of

3 Conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. On 14 June 2014 he was sentenced to a term of 9 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, fined 1500, ordered to perform 250 hours of unpaid work and made the subject of a curfew order for three months. 6. The circumstances giving rise to Mr Ahmed's conviction are a matter of public record, but is briefly summarised below: 7. On 15 November 2012 Mr Ahmed committed a motoring offence when he drove through a red traffic signal. When he subsequently received a Notice of Intended Prosecution he initially completed the form accurately, with his own details. However, with the assistance of a man who in due course was to become his co-defendant in the Crown Court, Mr Ahmed subsequently submitted the form containing the false details of a third man. On this occasion the matter was not prosecuted. 8. However, when on two further occasions, in June and July 2013, Mr Ahmed committed speeding offences, he then did precisely the same again. Mr Ahmed was again assisted by his co-defendant in making false declarations, and on both occasions an innocent man was then convicted in his absence of Mr Ahmed's motoring offences and received fines and penalty points. 9. When Mr Ahmed was interviewed by the Police on 29 May 2014 he denied completing any of the forms with false details, and suggested that his mother must have been responsible for the completion. On 9 July 2014 he was interviewed for a second time, during which he again denied the offences. In a third police interview on 13 April 2015 Mr Ahmed answered "no comment" to each question that was put to him by the investigating officers. 10. On 26 February 2016 Mr Ahmed pleaded guilty to the offence of Conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. He was sentenced on 14 June On 31 October 2016 Mr Ahmed notified ACCA of his conviction.

4 SANCTION AND REASONS 12. Mr Cowan, on behalf of Mr Ahmed, first addressed the Committee in relation to the facts giving rise to his conviction and then advanced personal mitigation which, he submitted, reduced the gravity of the offending. He candidly acknowledged the seriousness of a criminal conviction for a student member of ACCA and ACCA's Guidance for disciplinary sanctions in such cases. However, Mr Cowan invited the Committee to impose a sanction that falls short of Mr Ahmed's removal from the ACCA student register. 13. Mr Ismail made no submission regarding a specific sanction, but drew the Committee's attention to ACCA's Guidance to Disciplinary Sanctions and sought to identify features that may assist the Committee in assessing the seriousness of the allegations found proved. 14. The Committee had regard to ACCA's "Guidance For Disciplinary Sanctions." The Committee was cognisant of the fact that the purpose of a sanction was not to punish Mr Ahmed further for his offending, even though a disciplinary sanction may seem to have that effect. 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 by members of the profession. 15. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser that any sanction must be proportionate and that the Committee should consider sanctions starting with the least restrictive and moving upwards. 16. The Committee considered that Mr Ahmed's conviction demonstrated behaviour that amounted to a very significant departure from the standards expected of an ACCA student member. There is no evidence of direct damage to the reputation of ACCA, but the Committee was satisfied that Mr Ahmed's behaviour had the clear potential to undermine public

5 confidence in the profession and those seeking to join it as student members. 17. The Committee found a number of aggravating factors beyond the fact of the very serious conviction itself: Mr Ahmed demonstrated no meaningful insight into or appreciation of the potential impact of his conviction upon the reputation of ACCA, the Accountancy Profession and, particularly, the affected victim who was wrongly convicted in his place. The Committee considered Mr Ahmed's focus throughout his letter to ACCA in which he notified it of his conviction was the impact of his conviction upon himself and his immediate family Mr Ahmed's conduct, even if borne of initial naivety, was repeated and was fundamentally dishonest Harm was caused to an innocent man who was wrongly convicted 18. By way of mitigation, the Committee acknowledged that Mr Ahmed maintains his offending was driven by family circumstances and youthful naivety. Furthermore, he pleaded guilty to the offence before the Crown Court, has expressed remorse for his behaviour and referred himself to ACCA. The Committee bore in mind that it had been provided with a large number of testimonials that spoke highly of his personal qualities. 19. The Committee noted the mitigation advanced to the effect that the facts giving rise to his conviction took place some time prior to him becoming a student member of ACCA, however it was not impressed by this; Mr Ahmed became a student member in September 2014, but thereafter continued to refuse to accept any wrongdoing in a further police interview and in fact did not formally accept his criminality until February Furthermore, the Committee acknowledged that Mr Ahmed maintains that he did not initially appreciate that another person would be affected by what he and his co-defendant had done, and only learned of this after his first police interview. However, the Committee found this to be an unattractive submission in that in two subsequent police interviews he made no admissions to exonerate the victim of his offences.

6 20. The Committee first considered taking no further action in this case. It was in no doubt that to do so would fail to mark the gravity of Mr Ahmed's behaviour and conviction and would undermine confidence in ACCA as a regulator. 21. 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. 22. The Committee considered carefully whether the appropriate and proportionate sanction in Mr Ahmed's case would be either an Admonishment, Reprimand or a Severe Reprimand. It considered each of these individually. In light of the gravity of Mr Ahmed's offending the Committee was in no doubt that none of these sanctions was sufficient. The Committee determined that to impose any of these sanctions would not adequately reflect the seriousness of this case, nor would it suitably declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. 23. The Committee considered that Mr Ahmed's conviction and subsequent suspended term of imprisonment represented such serious departures from the standards expected of a student member of ACCA that they were incompatible with him remaining a student member of ACCA. The Committee was mindful that the reputation of a profession and professional body such as ACCA is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership brings many benefits, but comes at the price of liability to sanctions to maintain the reputation of the profession. 24. The Committee concluded that no sanction short of removal from the student register was appropriate in his case. The Committee considered that a failure to remove Mr Ahmed 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 Ahmed be removed from the student register.

7 25. The Committee ordered that any future application by Mr Ahmed for readmission to the ACCA student register must be referred to the Admissions and Licensing Committee. This is because ACCA will need to be satisfied that any such application is supported by a demonstration of meaningful and reflective insight by Mr Ahmed into his conduct. 26. The Committee also directed that no future application for re-admission to the ACCA student register may be considered until the expiry of 2 years from the effective date of this decision. The Committee was satisfied that no lesser period would reflect the seriousness of this case. COSTS 27. ACCA claimed costs in the sum of 6,130.04, as set out in the costs schedules. The Committee carefully considered the Statement of Financial Position submitted by Mr Ahmed, together with the supporting documentation 28. The Committee had regard to ACCA's Guide to costs orders in disciplinary proceedings. It was satisfied that the costs had been reasonably incurred and decided that it was appropriate to award costs, but assessed the appropriate sum to be 1000, in light of Mr Ahmed's limited means. Accordingly, the Committee ordered that Mr Ahmed pay the sum of 1,000 to ACCA by way of costs. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 29. The Committee was satisfied in light of its findings above that it is necessary in the interests of the public that the order shall have immediate effect. Mr John Crawley Chairman 6 September 2017