DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Saadat Ali Heard on: Monday, 18 September 2017 Location: The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury Square, London, WC1A 2LP. Committee: Dr Jonathan Page (Chairman), Mr Gerard McClay (Lay), and Mr Martin Davies (Accountant) Legal Adviser: Mr Leighton Hughes Persons present and capacity: Miss Rachael Davies (Hearings Officer), Mr Matthew Kewley (Case presenter on behalf of ACCA) Observers: None Summary: (i) Removal from the student register. (ii) Any application for re-admission to the student register must be referred to the Admissions and Licensing Committee. 1. The Committee had bundles of papers paginated A-K and 1-87, together with a service bundle paginated 1-10. 2. ACCA was represented by Mr Kewley. Mr Ali was neither present nor represented.
SERVICE AND PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 3. The Committee's attention was drawn to the service bundle which established that Mr Ali had been given notice of the hearing in accordance with Rule 10 of the Chartered Certified Accountants' Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014 ("the Regulations") by service upon him of a formal notice dated 15 August 2017 sent to the only postal address provided by him to ACCA. Moreover, Mr Kewley told the Committee that the notice was also sent to Mr Ali by email on 21 August 2017, in accordance with his consent to communication by email given on 29 September 2015. Mr Kewley submitted that, there having been compliance with the Regulations, the Committee should proceed in the absence of Mr Ali. 4. Mr Kewley told the Committee that Mr Ali had made no contact with ACCA in response to the Notice of this hearing and that this is indicative of his lack of engagement with ACCA since a brief email sent by him on 18 February 2016. He submitted that in the circumstances it was fair and appropriate for the Committee to conclude that Mr Ali had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, and to exercise its discretion to proceed in his absence. 5. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Ali had been given notice of today's hearing in accordance with the Regulations. It next considered whether it was appropriate to hear the allegation faced by Mr Ali in his absence. It bore in mind its discretion to do so, in accordance with Regulation 10(7). The Committee noted that it should approach the exercise of its discretion with the utmost care and caution. It had regard to all of the information before it in order to determine the nature and circumstances of Mr Ali's absence, and in particular, whether he had voluntarily absented himself from today s proceedings and so waived his right to be present. 6. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Ali had decided not to attend this hearing or engage with his Regulator. The Committee considered that, in the circumstances, an adjournment would be unlikely to secure his attendance at a future date, or serve any useful purpose. 7. The Committee had regard to the general public interest in the expeditious disposal of a hearing without unnecessary delay. It determined that Mr Ali had
voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to be present, and that in all of the circumstances it would be fair and reasonable to proceed in his absence. To do otherwise would fly in the face of the efficient despatch of these Regulatory proceedings. THE ALLEGATION Allegation 1 (a) Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) Saadat Ali is guilty of misconduct by reason of submitting to ACCA in support of his registration application, a Letter of Support dated 20 January 2015 and Academic Transcript, which purported to show that the University of Central Punjab had issued him with a Bachelor Of Science in Applied Accounting (honours) when, in fact, they had not. (b) His conduct set out above was: i. Dishonest; ii. Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. THE BACKGROUND AND ACCA'S CASE 8. Mr Ali was a student member of ACCA, having been registered as a student on 13 August 2015. 9. ACCA's case was that on or 10 August 2015, Mr Ali dishonestly submitted a false Letter of Support and a false Academic Transcript which purported to represent a qualification that in fact he did not have. He did so in support of his online application for student membership of ACCA. ACCA's case was that in so doing he was dishonest, in breach of ACCA's Fundamental Principle of Integrity, and guilty of misconduct. 10. ACCA Accreditations department asked ACCA Pakistan to verify the documents submitted by Mr Ali. Mr A, Assistant Professor at the University of Central Punjab ("UCP"), confirmed he checked the university's records, and having reviewed the documents submitted to ACCA by Mr Ali, stated: " Saadat
Ali has not completed a Bachelor of Science, or any other course, at the University of Central Punjab." 11. The witness statement of Ms B detailed the process that prospective students undergo when registering as ACCA students. An applicant can upload documents electronically, including copies of award certificates, to confirm an entitlement to exemptions. 12. Ms B confirmed Mr Ali s application was processed by ACCA as follows: i. On 10 August 2015, Mr Ali uploaded six documents in support of his application via ACCA s online student registration process. ii. Those documents were stored on ACCA s storage system. iii. The documents included, inter alia, Mr Ali s Academic Transcript and Letter of Support dated 20 January 2015 which appeared to have been issued by UCP. iv. A letter from ACCA confirming Mr Ali s application for student membership had been accepted was sent to him on 14 August 2015. 13. On 21 August 2015 and 01 September 2015 Mr Ali pursued ACCA with requests that ACCA grant him exemptions from examinations. 14. ACCA s Investigations Department contacted UCP for verification of the documents Mr Ali had submitted to ACCA via the online registration process. 15. The response from the UCP was that the " documents seems fake according to the university record. The above mentioned students name does not exist with given registration number according to university records." The UCP explained that they knew the documents were not issued by them because " the fake documents used an existing registration and transcript number registered with another name within the system."
16. ACCA wrote to Mr Ali on 05 February 2016 confirming that the exemptions granted to him had been removed on the basis of the UCP s confirmation that the documents he had submitted to ACCA were not issued by UCP. 17. The ACCA Investigating Officer had emailed Mr Ali on a number of occasions, requesting a response to the finding of the investigation, but Mr Ali had not provided any substantive response. THE COMMITTEE'S DECISON ON THE ALLEGATIONS 18. The Committee bore in mind that ACCA had brought this allegation and the burden remained upon ACCA to prove its case. Mr Ali did not have to prove anything. The standard of proof was the balance of probabilities but the Committee was mindful that it had to look for cogent evidence when considering an allegation of dishonesty. The Committee did not treat Mr Ali's absence from the hearing and, accordingly, his failure to give evidence, as any support for ACCA's case. The fact of his absence did, of course, mean that there was no oral evidence from him which was capable of contradicting, undermining, or explaining the evidence presented by ACCA, however the burden remained upon ACCA to prove its case to the required standard. 19. The Committee carefully considered the evidence adduced by ACCA, noting that it had never been the subject of challenge by Mr Ali. It found the evidence presented a clear and compelling case that supported the factual basis of the allegation. 20. Having found the facts giving rise to the allegation proved, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Ali had been acting dishonestly. It was in no doubt that a reasonable and honest person would consider that to submit a false certificate of qualifications in support of an application for student membership and the exemption from further ACCA examinations was dishonest. The Committee also concluded that Mr Ali would have known that a reasonable and honest person would think that. Furthermore, the Committee was in no doubt that he had acted in clear breach of ACCA's Fundamental Principle of Integrity, in that he was being neither straightforward nor honest. 21. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Ali's dishonest behaviour was morally
culpable, and discreditable to him, ACCA and the Accountancy Profession. The Committee considered his conduct to be a significant departure from the high standards expected of an ACCA student and conduct that brought ACCA and the profession into disrepute. 22. Accordingly, the Committee was in no doubt that the behaviour found proved amounted to misconduct. To characterise it as other than misconduct would fail to uphold proper professional standards and would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory function of ACCA. 23. Accordingly, the Committee found the Allegation proved in its entirety. SANCTION AND REASONS 24. The Committee had regard to ACCA's Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions. It had at the forefront of its consideration the public interest, which included 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. The Committee recognised that the purpose of sanctions was not to be punitive, although a sanction may have a punitive effect. 25. Mr Ali had not provided any references or testimonials. However, the Committee considered the absence of any previous disciplinary findings amounted to mitigation. 26. The Committee considered Mr Ali's serious misconduct was aggravated by his persistence in seeking exemption from ACCA examinations in reliance upon the fraudulent documents that he had supplied and thereafter his rude and intemperate correspondence with ACCA. 27. The Committee first considered taking no further action in this case. It was in no doubt that to do so would fail properly to mark the misconduct of Mr Ali and would undermine confidence in ACCA as a regulator.
28. 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. 29. The Committee first considered whether the appropriate sanction would be the Admonishment of Mr Ali. The misconduct arose from a deliberate attempt to deceive ACCA and to obtain exemption from sitting important professional examinations with the aim of personal advancement. The Committee determined that an Admonishment would not adequately reflect the nature of the misconduct in this case and would undermine public confidence in the regulatory process. 30. For the same reason the Committee determined that neither a Reprimand nor a Severe Reprimand was appropriate by way of sanction and that to impose either of these sanctions would not publicly mark the nature and seriousness of the misconduct in this case, nor would it suitably declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. 31. The Committee considered that Mr Ali's misconduct was a serious departure from the standards expected of a student member of ACCA. The Committee was satisfied that dishonesty was fundamentally incompatible with being a student member of ACCA and that no sanction short of removal from the student register was appropriate in his case. The Committee considered that a failure to remove a dishonest student 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 a regulator. Accordingly the Committee ordered that Mr Ali be removed from the student register. Any application for re-admission to the student register must be referred to the Admissions and Licensing Committee. COSTS 32. ACCA claimed costs in the sum of 3128. Mr Ali had not provided any details of his financial circumstances to the Committee. The Committee decided that it was appropriate to award costs and that the sum claimed was fair and reasonable. Accordingly, Mr Ali was ordered to pay 3128 to ACCA by way of costs.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 33. This order shall take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period unless Mr Ali gives notice of appeal prior to the expiry of that period, in which case it shall become effective (if at all) as described in the Appeal Regulations. Dr Jonathan Page Chairman 18 September 2017