DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Maksym Satbay Heard on: Wednesday, 19 July 2017 Location: The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6AU Committee: Mr Michael Cann (Chairman), Mr Robert Clarke (Accountant) and Mr David Grahame Owen (Lay) Legal Adviser: Ms Lucia Whittle-Martin Persons present and capacity: Mr Mohammed Ismail (ACCA Case Presenter) Ms Pamella Ramphal (Hearings Officer) 1. ACCA was represented by Mr Ismail. Mr Satbay was neither present nor represented. The Committee had before it a bundle of papers numbered A to O and 1 198 together with a service bundle numbered 1 22 and three tabled service bundles numbered 22 25 and 26 29 and 30-33. SERVICE 2. The Committee concluded that the Chartered Certified Accountants Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations ( the Regulations ) 10 and 22 had been satisfied in that Notice of today s hearing had been sent to Mr Satbay s registered address, as required by Regulation 22, on 9 June 2017, which was a date no later than 28 days of the date set, as required by Regulation 10(1). The Committee noted that Notice had also been sent by email, as permitted by Regulation 22 (1) and documentation within the bundle indicated that Mr Satbay had given his consent for notice to be served in this way, in accordance with Regulation 22 (2).
PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 3. Mr Satbay was not in attendance. Mr Ismail applied for the hearing to proceed in his absence in accordance with Regulation 10(7). 4. Mr Ismail took the Committee to the tabled service bundles which documented numerous attempts made by ACCA to contact Mr Satbay by email and telephone following service of notice of today s proceedings. Mr Satbay had not responded to any of these attempts. The Committee took account of the last communication from Mr Satbay, consisting of an email dated 20 November 2016 in which he said: Unfortunately I am not gonna pass ACCA exams anymore, because I am relocating to another city and changing my job. You can delete my account as well. Thanks. 5. The Committee concluded from his lack of response and his lack of attendance today that Mr Satbay had voluntarily absented himself from today s hearing and that it would be right to proceed in his absence. Mr Satbay s failure to engage in the proceedings gave the Committee no reason to suppose that he would attend if the hearing were to be adjourned to a later date. The Committee also bore in mind that it was in the public interest for the matter to be heard without undue delay. The Committee determined to proceed in his absence. ALLEGATIONS Allegation 1 (a) Mr Satbay submitted documents to ACCA in support of his applications for exemptions from ACCA papers, certifying he had obtained qualifications set out in Schedule A which had not been awarded to him; (b) Mr Satbay's conduct in respect of 1(a) was: i. Dishonest; and ii. Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity, as applicable in 2015-2016;
(c) By reason of his conduct in respect of 1(a) and/or 1(b) above, Mr Satbay is guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i). BACKGROUND 6. The Committee was provided with the witness statement of Witness 1, who produced ACCA records relating to an application made by Mr Satbay for student membership of ACCA, as a result of which he was registered as a student member on 22 September 2015. The application included documentation which purported to be genuine and comprised the following: - A Certificate for a BA (Hons) in Accounting & Finance dated 30 September 2012 issued to Mr Satbay by University 1; - A Certificate for a BA (Hons) in Accounting & Finance dated 30 September 2012 issued to Mr Satbay by University 2; - A Transcript of exam results for a BA (Hons) in Accounting & Finance dated 30 September 2012 issued to Mr Satbay by University 2; - A passport issued in Mr Satbay's name on 23 May 2008. 7. Witness 1 said that following his application ACCA had written to Mr Satbay on 23 September 2015 stating: I note from your application form that you have requested exemption(s). I regret to advise you that there is insufficient coverage within your qualification to merit the award of the exemption(s) requested. If you obtain any additional qualifications we would be pleased to hear from you. 8. The Committee was provided with the witness statement of Witness 2 who confirmed that prior to Mr Satbay's registration Deloitte Kazakhstan ('Deloitte') had emailed ACCA enclosing a form authorising Deloitte to access restricted information concerning Mr Satbay's ACCA records via ACCA's Exchange service. The authorisation form gave authority to Deloitte to 'register new students'. Witness 2 s witness statement confirmed that Mr Satbay's registration documents were not received via this Exchange Service.
9. ACCA contacted Deloitte to request further information regarding Mr Satbay. The Committee was provided with correspondence from Deloitte who confirmed: - that he was employed by Deloitte from 01 September 2015 until 10 November 2016, when he left the firm - that Mr Satbay had submitted his documents by himself''. 10. The Committee was provided with the witness statement of Witness 3 who informed the Committee that on or around 22 June 2016 Mr Satbay had emailed ACCA Connect, with the following request: why I couldn't get exemptions for exams [?]. I studied in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur and my major was Accounting/Finance. Additionally, I got MBA degree. I attached all my certificates, so you can see and decide whether to give me exemptions or not. 11. Witness 3 stated that Mr Satbay attached the following documents to his application: i. Certificate issued by University 3 for a Master of Business Administration dated 13 January 2016; ii. Certificate issued by University 2 for a BA (Hons) in Accounting and Finance dated 30 September 2012; i. Academic Transcript for a BA (Hons) in Accounting and Finance dated 30 September 2012; and ii. Academic Transcript for a Master of Business Administration issued on 27 January 2016. 12. Witness 3 stated that Mr Satbay repeated his application on 22 August 2016. 13. The Committee heard that Mr Satbay's application for exemptions was then checked. ACCA first contacted University 1, who responded on 26 July 2016, saying: We have checked the student record and found that the information provided does not match our records... Based on our records, the person did not complete the degree programme with University 1.
14. The Committee heard that ACCA then contacted all three awarding institutions whose names appeared on Mr Satbay's documentation as follows: Evidence from University 1 15. Two witness statements obtained by ACCA from University 1 attested that whilst Mr Satbay had been a student of the university since 27 March 2012 on the 'Accounting and Finance course', he had not passed any exams with them. 16. The witness statement confirmed that the Certificate and Transcript submitted to ACCA by Mr Satbay purporting to have been produced by University 1 was not genuine. Evidence from University 3 17. The Committee was provided with an email from the Examinations Officer at University 3 to ACCA who confirmed: We do not hold details of a person called Maksym Satbay on our students records system so he was not a student at University 3. As he is not on the system, I can confirm he was not awarded the MBA by University 3. The transcripts and degree certificates were not issued by University 3. The degree certificates have different signatures which are not belonging to our Vice-Chancellor and Associate Dean. There was no final assessment board on 13 January 2016 to award the students. The transcripts send to you are a completely different format, printed on different paper and contains letter grades and GPAs which University 3 does not issue. 18. A second email from the Student Records Administrator at University 3 added: Unfortunately, these documents are fraudulent. The student ID [PRIVATE] is not recognised on our system, and there is no current or former student in our records showing this name. / In addition, various details on the documents provided are incorrect: the two signatures on the certificate are not genuine, and there is no one by the name of Person A employed at
University 3. / To confirm, this person has not been a student of, or been awarded by, University 3. This is a fraudulent claim. Evidence from University 2 19. The Committee was provided with an email from the Award Support Assistant at University 2 who emailed ACCA to confirm: Maksym Satbay did begin a course with University 1 in partnership with University 2 Maksym Satbay did NOT complete a Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and Finance with University 2. The attached certificate was NOT issued to Maksym Satbay. They do appear to look extremely genuine, only when double checking information systems can it be seen that he failed his course and so the documents must be forged.' Submissions It was submitted by ACCA that Mr Satbay had dishonestly provided ACCA with documents which contained untrue information in an attempt to obtain exemptions from ACCA papers. It was submitted that Mr Satbay's dishonest conduct was aggravated by the number of false documents he had submitted. Mr Satbay s Response 20. The Committee heard that ACCA had requested a response to the complaint from Mr Satbay by means of letters dated 30 August 2016, 03 October 2016, 25 October 2016 and 21 November 2016, and had telephoned the number registered on Mr Satbay's ACCA records on a number of occasions without success. 21. The Committee was informed that Mr Satbay had acknowledged receipt of ACCA's emails in relation to the Allegation, but had provided no response. DECISION Allegation 1 22. On the basis of the evidence placed before it, as set out in this determination, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Satbay had submitted documents in support of his applications for
exemptions from ACCA papers, and was satisfied that each of those documents purported to certify that he had obtained the qualifications set out in Schedule A when in fact none of these had been awarded to him. 23. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1 (a) proved. 24. The Committee concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that at the time of submitting the false documentation Mr Satbay must have known that the documentation was false, and that the only reason why he had chosen to submit false documentation was in order to obtain exemption. 25. The Committee concluded that this was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable people, and that Mr Satbay must have realised that his actions were, by those standards, dishonest. 26. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1 (b)(i) proved. 27. The Committee concluded that it followed, from its finding of dishonesty, that facts found proved amounted to conduct contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. 28. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1 (b)(ii) proved. 29. It was the judgement of the Committee that this behaviour fell seriously below the standards expected of a student member of ACCA, and was conduct which brought disgrace upon Mr Satbay and prejudiced the reputation of the accountancy profession, and amounted to misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i). 30. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1 (c) proved. 31. It follows that the Committee found Allegation 1 proved in its entirety. SANCTION 32. The Committee bore in mind that its task was not to be punitive but to protect the public interest, maintain confidence in the profession and
maintain proper standards of conduct. It accepted that it needed to act proportionately, by balancing the needs of the public against Mr Satbay s interests. It took into account the relevant Guidance on Disciplinary Sanctions. 33. The Committee concluded that the allegation had been aggravated by the deliberate nature of the dishonesty, and by the number of false documents submitted by Mr Satbay. 34. The Committee regarded the absence of any previous adverse findings against Mr Satbay s name to be a mitigating factor. 35. The Committee considered taking no action, an admonishment and a reprimand but concluded that these would be insufficient in light of the seriousness of the dishonest conduct. 36. The Committee considered a severe reprimand and concluded that this would be insufficient as there were no particular circumstances in the case nor mitigation advanced with which to satisfy the Committee that Mr Satbay would not repeat his misconduct and that he did not present a risk to the public. Furthermore, such an order would not maintain public confidence in Mr Satbay s profession and regulator, nor would it declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. 37. The Committee concluded that removal from the student register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances. Mr Satbay had deliberately sought to deceive his regulator and his behaviour undermined confidence in the profession and in ACCA, and showed a clear lack of integrity. 38. Accordingly, the Committee ordered that Mr Satbay be removed from the student register.
COSTS 39. ACCA applied for costs in the sum of 9,688.80. The Committee exercised its discretion to reduce this amount to 9,000 to account for the fact that the hearing had not taken as long as had been anticipated. 40. The Committee made an order for costs in the sum of 9,000. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 41. The order will come into effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period. Mr Michael Cann Chairman 19 July 2017