DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr H. M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud Heard on: 15 February 2017 Location: Committee: Legal Adviser: Persons present and capacity: Observers: The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6AU Ms Helen Carter (Chairman), Ms Wanda Rossiter (Accountant) and Mrs Patricia Craggs (Lay) Ms Lucia Whittle-Martin Ms Emily Healy (ACCA Case presenter); Ms Poonam Patel (Hearings Officer) Ms Rosalind Wright (Appointments Board) 1. ACCA was represented by Ms Healy. Mr Mahmud was neither present nor represented. The Committee had before it a bundle of papers numbered 1 73 together with a service bundle numbered 1 21 and an on-table service bundle numbered 22 25. 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 by Special International Delivery to Mr Mahmud s registered address, as required by Regulation 22, on 12 January 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 dated 12 January 2017, as permitted by Regulation 22 (1) and the Register indicated that Mr Mahmud had given his consent for notice to be served by email, in accordance with Regulation 22 (2), as evidenced by a screenshot of the Register.
PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 3. Mr Mahmud was not in attendance. Ms Healy applied for the hearing to proceed in his absence in accordance with Regulation 10 (7). 4. The Committee concluded that Mr Mahmud had voluntarily absented himself from today s hearing and that it would be right to proceed in his absence. His 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. ALLEGATIONS Allegation 1 (a) On or around 8 February 2016 Mr H.M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud submitted a Certificate and Transcript of Exam Results to ACCA in support of his application for exemptions, which purported to have been issued to him by University A, when in fact they had not been. (b) Mr H.M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud s conduct as set out in Allegation 1(a) above was: i. Dishonest ii. Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity (c) By reason of his conduct as set out in Allegations 1(a) and/ or 1(b) above, it is alleged that Mr H.M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud is guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i). Allegation 2 (a) Contrary to Paragraph 3(1) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014 (as amended 1 January 2016), Mr H.M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud has failed to co-operate fully with the investigation of a
complaint in that he failed to respond to any or all of the following correspondence from ACCA requesting information: i. 9 May 2016; and ii. 1 June 2016. (b) In light of the facts set out at 2(a)(i) (ii), Mr H.M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud is: i. Guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i); or ii. Liable to disciplinary action pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii) BACKGROUND 5. Mr Mahmud registered as an ACCA student on 3 February 2016. 6. It was alleged that on or about 8 February 2016 Mr Mahmud sent an email to ACCA stating: I m H.M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud, student of FIA. My ACCA registration number is [PRIVATE] and date of birth is [PRIVATE]. Sir, I have complete BA Hons in Applied Accounting under [PRIVATE] UK. So, I want to transfer to ACCA qualifications and get exemptions ACCA papers F1 F9. Here are, I sent you my certificate and transcript. / Please, sir, you should process my transfer to ACCA qualification as early as possible.... 7. The certificate and transcript attached to the email comprised: - a document purporting to emanate from the University A confirming that on 15 February 2013 a person of the name of H M Afaj Uddin Mahmud had been awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree with Upper Second Class Honours having successfully completed an approved programme in Applied Accounting ; and - a document entitled European Diploma Supplement which purported to list the modules that Mr Mahmud had covered by the three-year course in Applied Accounting together with the respective grades that Mr Mahmud had achieved in them.
8. ACCA Connect responded on or about 8 February 2016, informing Mr Mahmud that he was required to complete an ACCA declaration and pay a fee in order to complete his application. 9. On 11 February 2016 ACCA received a further email from Mr Mahmud saying: Sir I am H.M Afaj Uddin Mahmud and student of FIA. My ACCA Registration number is [PRIVATE] and date of birth is [PRIVATE]. Sir, I have completed a ACCA transfer declaration form and sent you with attach file. Please, sir you should make a consideration on my transfer to ACCA qualifications as early as possible. 10. The Committee was informed that the transfer declaration referred to and attached was a declaration, signed by Mr Mahmud, that the documentation he had supplied was true. 11. A representative of the University A provided a signed witness statement stating that identifying features of the documentation revealed that the documentation had been issued to a legitimate student but had been tampered with. She stated that there was no record of a H. M. Afaj Uddin Mahmud with a date of birth [PRIVATE] having completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in Applied Accounting or any other course with University A. 12. The Committee was provided with copies of correspondence, allegedly sent by ACCA to Mr Mahmud on 9 May 2016 and 1 June 2016, informing him that his application for exemptions was under investigation and requesting his response to the complaint. It was alleged that Mr Mahmud failed to respond to either letter. DECISION Allegation 1 13. On the basis of the email sent from Mr Mahmud s email address on or about 8 February 2016, and received by ACCA, the Committee was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mahmud had submitted a Certificate and Transcript of Exam Results to ACCA. The Committee was also satisfied, on
the basis of the content of the email, that he had done this in support of his application for exemptions. 14. The Committee was satisfied, on the basis of the evidence of the witness statement provided by the representative of University A, that the Certificate and Transcript of Exam Results were both false documents in that they purported to have been issued to Mr Mahmud by University A when in fact they had not been. 15. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1(a) proved. 16. The Committee concluded, on the balance of probabilities and on the basis that there was no evidence to the contrary, that at the time of submitting the Certificate and Transcript of Exam Results Mr Mahmud 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. 17. The Committee concluded that this was dishonest by the standards of the ordinary reasonable members of the profession, and that Mr Mahmud must have realised that his actions were, by those standards, dishonest. 18. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1(b)(i) proved. 19. The Committee concluded that it followed, from its finding of dishonesty, that Mr Mahmud s conduct was conduct contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. 20. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1(b)(ii) proved. 21. It was the judgement of the Committee that this behaviour fell seriously below the standards expected of a student member of ACCA and amounted to misconduct. 22. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 1(c) proved. 23. It follows that the Committee found Allegation 1 proved in its entirety.
Allegation 2 24. On the basis of the letters of 9 May 2016 and 1 June 2016 sent by ACCA to Mr Mahmud, the Committee was satisfied that correspondence was sent to Mr Mahmud on 9 May 2016 and 1 June 2016, requesting his response to the complaint. The Committee accepted the evidence that Mr Mahmud had not responded. 25. The Committee concluded that Regulation 3 placed a duty on Mr Mahmud to co-operate by providing promptly such information as was required of him, and that he had failed in this regard. 26. Accordingly, the Committee found Allegation 2(a)(i) and (ii) proved. 27. The Committee concluded that the behaviour found proved in Allegation 2(a)(i) and (ii) fell far below the standards expected of a student member and amounted to misconduct in that Mr Mahmud had a duty under Regulation 3 to co-operate, and he had been reminded in both letters of that duty and of the possible consequences of a failure to co-operating. It was clear that he had not held his Regulator in high regard. 28. Accordingly, the Committee concluded, in light of the facts found proved in Allegation 2(a)(i) and (ii), that Mr Mahmud was guilty of misconduct. 29. In those circumstances the Committee was not required to decide whether Mr Mahmud was liable to disciplinary action pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii) as alleged in Allegation 2(b)(ii), because Allegation 2(b)(ii) had been presented as a lesser, alternative allegation to Allegation 2(b)(i). SANCTION 30. 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 Mahmud s interests. It took into account the relevant Guidance on Disciplinary Sanctions.
31. The Committee concluded that the allegation had been aggravated by the deliberate nature of the dishonesty and by the lack of any insight evidenced by Mr Mahmud. 32. The Committee regarded Mr Mahmud s previous good character to be a mitigating factor. 33. 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. 34. The Committee considered a severe reprimand and concluded that this was inappropriate as there were no particular circumstances in the case nor mitigation advanced with which to satisfy the Committee that there was no continuing risk to the public. Furthermore, such an order would not maintain public confidence in Mr Mahmud s profession and regulator, nor would it declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. 35. The Committee concluded that removal from the student register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances. Mr Mahmud 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. 36. Accordingly, the Committee ordered that Mr Mahmud be removed from the student register. 37. The Committee further ordered that no application for readmission may be considered until a minimum period of 3 years has elapsed because of the serious and deliberate nature of Mr Mahmud s misconduct. COSTS 38. ACCA applied for costs in the sum of 6,114.82. The Committee exercised its discretion to reduce this amount to 5,400.00 to account for the fact that the hearing had not taken as long as had been anticipated.
39. Accordingly, the Committee made an order for costs in the sum of 5,400.00 EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 40. The order will come into effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period. Ms Helen Carter Chairman 15 February 2017