DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mrs Diana Ivanova Heard on: 11 September 2015 Location: Committee: Legal Adviser: ACCA Offices, 29 Lincoln s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3EE Dr Jonathan Page (Chairman), Mr Trevor Salmon (Accountant) and Mr John Walsh (Lay) Mr Richard Ferry-Swainson Persons present and capacity: Mr Alex Mills (Case Presenter on behalf of ACCA) Miss Sophie Cubillo-Barsi (Committee Officer) assisted by Miss Kathryn Reece (Committee Officer) Observers: None PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS/SERVICE OF PAPERS 1. The Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) convened to consider two Allegations against Mrs Ivanova, who was in attendance. 2. The papers before the Committee were in two bundles numbered 1 to 70 and 71 to 85, together with a service bundle numbered 1 to 13. Further papers were tabled on the day numbered 86 to 88. ALLEGATIONS/BRIEF BACKGROUND 3. It is alleged that Mrs Ivanova is liable to disciplinary action. The allegations, which are in the alternative, are as follows: Allegation 1 Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) it is alleged that Mrs Diana Ivanova is guilty of misconduct by reason of possessing unauthorised materials, which she intended to use to gain an unfair advantage, during a P1 examination on 11
June 2014, contrary to Examination Regulation 5, 6 and/or 8, and/or the Fundamental Principle of Integrity, as applicable in 2014. Or Allegation 2 Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii) it is alleged that Mrs Diana Ivanova is liable to disciplinary action by reason of possessing unauthorised materials during a P1 examination on 11 June 2014, contrary to Examination Regulation 5, 6 and/or 8. 4. Mrs Ivanova attended the Moscow exam centre on 11 June 2014 in order to sit the P1 examination. Mrs Ivanova had not had any previous attempts at the P1 paper, but had previously sat and passed the F1-F9 and P2 ACCA examinations. The exam commenced at 12.00pm and was due to last for 3 hours, plus 15 minutes reading time at the start of the exam. 5. Prior to an examination, all candidates receive an attendance docket which contains the ACCA guidelines and Regulations and before an examination commences, the Supervisor s announcements draw candidates attention to the regulations and guidelines outlined in the attendance docket. 6. An invigilator, Ms 1 stated in her SCRS1 form, completed on the day of the exam, that at approximately 13.35pm she was alerted to the fact that this candidate may be cheating as she heard how she was turning over the pages. The student s behaviour is described by the invigilator who stated that Firstly, she refused to show the unauthorised materials, but then she calmly gave it to me without any arguments. 7. Ms 1 further explained that the unauthorised material was found in the women s toilet. Finally, on the form she stated, I politely asked the candidate to show the unauthorised materials, to hand them over and to tell the number of her desk. The SCRS1 form was signed and dated 11 June 2014 by the invigilator.
8. The unauthorised material consisted of an ACCA Paper P1 Kaplan book of pocket notes. 9. Mrs Ivanova completed an SCRS2 form on the day of the examination. She explained that I had pocket notes in my clothes, which I did not take out at the desk or elsewhere during the examination. I had them just in order to feel more comfortable and confident during the examination, however I did not use nor intended to use these materials in any way during the exam to gain advantage. When I was getting dressed in the toilet, the paper noise was heard by invigilator. This noise happened due to necessary manipulations with clothes and was not an indication of my usage/ intention to use materials. I was asked to leave the toilet room and give the materials to invigilator, so I did. The SCRS2 form was signed and dated 11 June 2014. 10. In the Examiner s Irregular Script report, the Examiner, Mr 1 stated that the material was relevant to the syllabus and was relevant to the examination. He further stated that the notes had possibly been used when the student was attempting the examination, and added: Taking in the Kaplan notes would seem to be a fairly serious breach of the exam rules to my mind. Invigilator s report suggests she was using them in the toilet which suggests they were used to help in the exam. The report was signed and dated 12 July 2014 by the examiner. 11. On 28 July 2014, Exams Conduct wrote to the student in relation to this matter. Mrs Ivanova responded by way of an email dated 28 July 2014 in which she stated, I neither used nor intended to use any unauthorised materials, either at the desk or anywhere else. I did not try to gain unfair advantage at the exam by using unauthorised materials. 12. On 22 August 2014, the Professional Conduct Department, via the Case Officer, wrote to Mrs Ivanova to advise of the complaint which had been received and requested a full account from her. She responded in an email dated 2 September 2014 in which she accepted possession of the notes but again denied any intention to gain an unfair advantage.
13. Mr Mills submitted that Mrs Ivanova has breached Examination Regulation 5, 6 and 8 by taking material which was relevant to the syllabus into an examination. He submitted that her purpose for so doing was to intend to use the unauthorised material in order to gain an unfair advantage. He said that the Kaplan notes were intended to assist people revising for and passing this particular exam and it was therefore difficult to imagine a document more relevant to the issue the Committee had to decide. Mr Mills said that Mrs Ivanova s explanation that she was in possession of the Kaplan pocket notes in her clothes during the examination but did not take the materials to the desk did not stand up to scrutiny, nor did her account of what happened in the toilet. He submitted, therefore, that she had not discharged the reverse burden on her, as set out in Examination Regulation 9, to show that her account was more likely than not to have happened. 14. Mr Mills submitted that Mrs Ivanova having breached Examination Regulations 5, 6 and 8 had also breached the Fundamental Principle of Integrity, in that her intention to use the materials to cheat was neither straightforward nor honest. Mr Mills submitted that intending and/or attempting to use unauthorised material in order to gain an unfair advantage is deliberate, dishonest behaviour which amounts to misconduct under byelaw 8(a)(i). 15. In her email correspondence with ACCA dated 2 September 2014, Mrs Ivanova accepted that she had possession of the unauthorised material, but asserted that she had the pocket notes in order to be able to do a quick revision before entering the exam. She then put the notes in her clothes before entering the exam hall and once in the exam did not use or intend to use the notes. She added that she did not believe the pocket notes could in fact help anyone gain an unfair advantage at P-level examinations. She said that these exams required a deep knowledge of the syllabus and that by using them before the exam she just wanted to ensure her knowledge was well structured. 16. Mr Mills submitted that in the alternative Mrs Ivanova is guilty of Allegation 2. He said that Mrs Ivanova has not provided ACCA with any form of defence in relation to the unauthorised materials found in her possession. She signed the SCRS2 form admitting possession of the unauthorised
material. Mr Mills said it was ACCA s case that in possessing unauthorised materials which were relevant to the exam in progress, Mrs Ivanova breached Examination Regulations 5 and 6 and as such is liable to disciplinary action under bye-law 8(a)(iii). 17. Mrs Ivanova provided a Notice of admission dated 20 August 2015, in which she admitted possessing unauthorised materials during her P1 examination. She repeated her denial that she had any intention to use the material to gain an unfair advantage. 18. In her oral evidence Mrs Ivanova said that she had been using the Kaplan notes to assist her on her way to the exam and on entering the exam had tucked them into the top of her jeans. She had a shirt on which was not tucked in and so covered the notes tucked into her jeans. She accepted that the material was unauthorised and that accordingly she was in possession of unauthorised material while the exam was in progress, in breach of examination regulation 6. However, she said that she had not taken the notes to her desk in breach of examination regulation 5 because they were tucked into the top of her jeans and not on her desk. She said she knew that it may sound stupid but having them there gave her an emotional feeling of confidence. She also denied using, attempting to use or any intention to use the notes during the exam. 19. Mrs Ivanova repeated the account that she had given in her correspondence and at the time, namely that she had gone to the toilet and it was whilst getting dressed and tucking the note book back into her jeans that the invigilator heard the rustling (her words) of papers. She said she was not using them to cheat. She added that she had not known that the invigilator was going to follow her to the toilet; it was not something she had thought about. She said that she first became aware of the invigilator when the invigilator asked her to come out of the toilet cubicle. Having done so, when asked for the material she initially refused because she knew that possessing unauthorised material in an exam is against ACCA regulations and she did not want the invigilator to know that she had them. However, she did then give the materials to the invigilator because she knew that she had not used the material and so felt free to hand the notes over. Mrs Ivanova added that she did not think a brief look at the Kaplan notes would
give a student an unfair advantage in the exam. She said she used the notes to help her to structure her knowledge and she asked for it to be returned at the end of the exam. DECISION ON FACTS/ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 20. The Committee considered carefully the oral evidence of Mrs Ivanova, the submissions made by Mr Mills on behalf of ACCA and took into account the contents of the papers provided. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. 21. The Committee was satisfied that Mrs Ivanova received ACCA s guidelines and Regulations in advance of the examination, which make it very clear what materials you are not allowed to take into an examination, she having admitted as much. Mrs Ivanova did not dispute this and having already sat a number of ACCA examinations the Committee was satisfied that she would have been very familiar with what she was not allowed to take into the exam. 22. The Committee was satisfied, therefore, that Mrs Ivanova was aware that she was not permitted to take the pocket notes into the exam and indeed Mrs Ivanova admits as much in her various responses. In her oral evidence Mrs Ivanova disputed that she had breached examination regulation 5 because the notes were tucked into the top of her jeans not on the desk and therefore she had not taken" them to her desk. The Committee considered that this was an overly restrictive interpretation of regulation 5 and that if a student has unauthorised material anywhere in their possession whilst sitting at their exam desk that is clearly a breach of regulation 5. 23. The Committee was also satisfied that the material was relevant to the syllabus and the particular examination in light of the remarks to that effect made by Mr 1, the examiner. The notes specifically say they are pocket notes for Paper P1. The Committee also took into account Mrs Ivanova s remarks that she had the material in order to make a quick revision before the examination. The Committee was therefore satisfied that Mrs Ivanova was in possession of unauthorised materials during the exam and in breach of Examination Regulations 5 and 6.
24. The Committee was informed by the Legal Adviser that where Regulations 5 and 6 of the Examinations Regulations are engaged there is a presumption that the student concerned possessed the unauthorised material with intent to gain an unfair advantage in the exam and it is for the student to satisfy the Committee on the balance of probabilities that such was not the case. In her SCRS2 form Mrs Ivanova admitted possession of the material but denied using or intending to use it during the exam to gain advantage. The Committee noted that the three hour exam commenced at 1200 and Mrs Ivanova was found with the unauthorised material at 13.35, approximately half way through the exam. She had gone to the toilet and whilst there was heard by the invigilator to be turning over pages. She accepted that she had been hiding the notes by putting them in her waistband and she knew it was wrong to have them. The Committee did not find her account credible, that the noise, which was described as the noise of pages being turned over, was simply as a result of getting dressed. The Committee had access to the note book in question and was able to listen to the quite different and distinctive sounds made turning the pages as opposed to tucking the book into one s waistband. The noise was sufficiently distinctive that it made the invigilator knock on the door and ask Mrs Ivanova to come out with the material in her possession. The Committee did not accept her explanation that she merely had the notes as some form of reassurance. Mrs Ivanova had sat 10 ACCA exams before this one and so was very experienced at sitting ACCA exams and very familiar with the regulations and yet she had these notes hidden in her waistband out of view because, the Committee concluded, she did not want them to be seen. 25. The Committee noted that by going to the toilet Mrs Ivanova was no longer in direct visual oversight by an invigilator because once inside the cubicle she was no longer being directly watched. It was, therefore, the most obvious place to go to look at the notes in question if one was keen not to be observed. Furthermore, Mrs Ivanova had said that she did not know that she was going to be followed by an invigilator to the toilet and thus, the Committee concluded, she may not have thought there was anyone outside the door listening when she was in the toilet cubicle. She said that the first time she knew there was an invigilator interested in her was when she was asked to come out after having been in the cubicle for 3 to 5 minutes. The
Committee also noted that when first asked to hand over the unauthorised material she refused to do so, which it considered was indicative of a guilty state of mind. The Committee did not accept Mrs Ivanova s account that this material would not give a student an unfair advantage, because this was inconsistent with her evidence that she used it to revise for the exam, it being specifically designed for this purpose. In addition, the notes are specifically designed to help a student prepare for such an exam. The Committee was therefore satisfied that Mrs Ivanova had failed to rebut the presumption that she possessed the material with intent to gain an unfair advantage. The Committee therefore found that Mrs Ivanova had breached Examination Regulation 8. 26. The Committee then considered whether Mrs Ivanova had acted contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. The principle of integrity imposes an obligation on all professional accountants to be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships. Integrity also implies fair dealing and truthfulness. The principle applies equally to students. The Committee was satisfied that taking unauthorised material into an examination with intent to use it to gain an unfair advantage was neither honest nor straightforward. Any reasonable and honest person would consider such action to be dishonest and the Committee was satisfied that Mrs Ivanova would have realised that what she was doing was dishonest. Accordingly, the Committee found Mrs Ivanova had breached the Fundamental Principle of Integrity as well as Examination Regulation 8. The Committee considered that such action was likely to bring discredit to Mrs Ivanova, ACCA and the accountancy profession and therefore amounted to Misconduct. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1 proved. 27. Having found Allegation 1 proved, it was not necessary for the Committee to consider Allegation 2, which was in the alternative. SANCTION AND REASON 28. The Committee was referred to the Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions. The Committee was cognisant of the fact that the purpose of sanctions was not to punish Mrs Ivanova, 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. The Committee considered each sanction in ascending order from the least serious and took into account the Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions issued by ACCA. 29. Mrs Ivanova said that membership of ACCA was extremely important to her career and essential for progression into management. She outlined her career and her current position with a leading firm of Chartered Accountants. She told the Committee that she was a high performer and anticipated being elevated to management within a year, provided she was still a member of ACCA. The Committee noted that she has taken a significant number of ACCA exams and was clearly passionate about her career as an accountant. She said she was remorseful for her actions. 30. When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee carefully considered the aggravating and mitigating features in this case. The principal mitigation was Mrs Ivanova s admission that she been in possession of the offending material during the examination. There was also her lack of previous disciplinary matters, her genuine remorse and her cooperation with the investigation. 31. The Committee considered the behaviour was aggravated by being both dishonest and intentional, together with her continued denials which meant there was a limited amount of insight. 32. The Committee considered all the options available from the least serious upwards and concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction was a severe reprimand. Cheating in accountancy exams in order to gain a qualification upon which the public will rely is very serious and ordinarily considered to be incompatible with being a student of ACCA. Honesty and integrity goes to the heart of the profession. The Committee considered that a failure to issue a severe reprimand to a student who had cheated during one of her accountancy exams, 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 will not be tolerated.
33. The Committee also decided to declare that Mrs Ivanova will be ineligible for a period of two years to sit the P1 exam, to indicate how serious the Committee considered her misconduct to be. 34. The Committee did consider whether to exclude Mrs Ivanova from membership given the seriousness of the finding against her. However, the Committee felt just able to avoid this sanction because Mrs Ivanova cooperated throughout with the investigation and had engaged with and attended this hearing, coming all the way from Moscow. Having seen and heard from her at length, the Committee considered it was clear that she took the matter very seriously and had expressed genuine remorse for her behaviour. It was an isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career and one that was most unlikely to ever be repeated. In light of this and the fact that she had already sat a significant number of ACCA exams without issue and was progressing well in her career, the Committee considered that removal from the student register would, in the specific circumstances of this case, be disproportionate. COSTS AND REASONS 35. ACCA applied for costs in the sum of 1,743 (allowing for a calculation error in the sum originally applied for). The Committee considered that this was a reasonable and appropriate sum. Mrs Ivanova submitted a statement of financial means and said that in light of her income she would need two years in order to pay this amount. The Committee noted that she had an income and decided that she should be responsible for these costs. Accordingly, the Committee made an order in the sum of 1,743. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 36. This decision will take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period or at the conclusion of any appeal should one be pursued.
PUBLICITY 37. ACCA s Regulations require it to publish the above findings and orders by way of a news release naming the relevant person, as soon as practicable. The Committee has a discretion as to which publications the news release should be sent and has a further discretion, but only in exceptional circumstances, to direct that the relevant person is not named. Mrs Ivanova argued that there were exceptional circumstances in that she was engaged on a number of audits for public clients and publicity of her name would mean she would no longer be able to work with those clients. She added that this would cause severe harm to her career. It is plainly in the public interest that disciplinary findings and orders should be published and should not be suppressed and the Committee did not consider the reasons put forward to be exceptional. The Committee accordingly directed that the news release should be published on ACCA s website and sent to the local press, referring to Mrs Ivanova by name. Dr Jonathan Page Chairman 11 September 2015