DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Saiful Islam Heard on: Wednesday, 20 September 2017 Location: The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury Square, London. Committee: Dr Jonathan Page (Chairman), Mr Gerard McClay (Lay) and Mr Martin Davis (Accountant) Legal Adviser: Mr Leighton Hughes Persons present and capacity: Miss Rachael Davies (Hearings Officer) and 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-L and 1-81, together with a service bundle paginated 1-10. 2. ACCA was represented by Mr Kewley. Mr Islam 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 Islam 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 16 August 2017 sent to the postal address provided by him to ACCA. Furthermore, Mr Kewley told the Committee that out of an abundance of caution the notice was also sent to Mr Islam's registered email address on 16 August 2017, an email address confirmed as used by him in an email to ACCA dated 20 December 2015. Mr Kewley submitted, there having been compliance with the regulations, that the Committee had the power to proceed in the absence of Mr Islam. Mr Islam had not responded to any of the enquiries of ACCA's Investigation Officer or the Hearings Officer. Nothing was heard from Mr Islam until 25 October 2016, when he sought the return of the fee he paid for his unsuccessful application for exemption for sitting ACCA examinations. 4. Mr Kewley told the Committee that Mr Islam had made no contact with ACCA in response to the Notice of this hearing and that this was indicative of his lack of engagement with ACCA since the beginning of the investigation. He submitted that in the circumstances it was fair and appropriate for the Committee to conclude that Mr Islam had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing, and to exercise its discretion to proceed in his absence. 5. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Islam had been given notice of the hearing in accordance with the Regulations. It next considered whether it was appropriate to hear the allegations faced by Mr Islam 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 the information before it in order to determine the nature and circumstances of Mr Islam's absence, and in particular, whether he had voluntarily absented himself from the proceedings and so waived the right to be present. 6. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Islam had decided not to attend the 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 Islam had voluntarily absented himself and waived his right to be present, and that in all 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 ALLEGATIONS Allegation 1 (a) Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) Mr Saiful Islam is guilty of misconduct by reason of causing or permitting the submission of a certificate and a transcript to ACCA on or around 14 August 2015 in support of his application for exemptions, which purported to show that the University of Central Punjab had awarded him with a Master of Commerce degree when, in fact, it had not. (b) Mr Saiful Islam s conduct as set out in Allegation 1(a) was: i) Dishonest ii) Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity Allegation 2 (a) Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) Mr Saiful Islam is guilty of misconduct by reason of his failure to co-operate with the investigating officer during the course of the investigation, contrary to Complaints and Disciplinary Regulation 3(1) in that he failed to respond to any or all of the ACCA s correspondence requesting information on: (i) 8 December 2015 (ii) 6 January 2016
or (b) Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii) Mr Saiful Islam is liable to disciplinary action by reason of his failure to co-operate with the investigating officer during the course of the investigation, contrary to Complaints and Disciplinary Regulation 3(1) in that he failed to respond to any or all of the ACCA s correspondence requesting information on: (i) 8 December 2015 (ii) 6 January 2016 THE BACKGROUND AND ACCA'S CASE 8. Mr Islam was a student member of ACCA, having been registered as a student on 20 December 2010. 9. ACCA's case was that on or around 14 August 2015, Mr Islam submitted to ACCA a false certificate and false transcript which purported to show that the University of Central Punjab had awarded him a Master of Commerce degree when, in fact, it had not. He did so in order to be granted exemptions from ACCA examinations. ACCA's case was that in so doing he was guilty of misconduct and was dishonest, in breach of ACCA's Fundamental Principle of Integrity, and guilty of misconduct. 10. ACCA's case was further that, once informed of the investigation into the matter, Mr Islam had failed to co-operate with the investigation. 11. On or around 14 August 2015, a certificate and transcript stating that Mr Islam had been awarded a Master of Commerce degree by the University of Central Punjab was received by ACCA from Mr Islam s registered email address Email 1. In the accompanying email Mr Islam stated; "Honourable Sir/Madam, I have completed my master degree in Commerce from University of central Punjab. I came to know that ACCA is awarding some exemptions on the basis of this qualification." Mr Islam then set out the individual papers that he had sat for his degree and requested that ACCA "award me these exemptions as soon as possible."
12. On 28 September 2015, a lecturer at the University of Central Punjab emailed to ACCA stating that neither of the documents submitted by Mr Islam was "original." Furthermore, the witness statement of Mr A, Assistant Professor at the University of Punjab subsequently confirmed that he had undertaken a check of the University's records and that Mr Islam had not completed a Master of Commerce degree at the University. Mr Kewley submitted that it was significant that Mr Islam's submission of false documents followed shortly after failing his ACCA F9 examination, from which he then sought exemption by reason of his bogus qualification. 13. On 8 December 2015, ACCA Investigations department wrote to Mr Islam at his registered address, enclosing copies of the transcript and certificate and asking him for his response and comments to the allegation that had been made against him. 14. On 6 January 2016, ACCA Investigations department sent an email to Mr Islam at his registered email address chasing up his responses and stating that if a satisfactory response was not received from him by 27 January 2016, an allegation under Complaints and Disciplinary Regulation 3(1) would be raised against him. 15. Mr Islam did not respond to the enquiries of ACCA's Investigations Officer. THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION ON THE ALLEGATIONS 16. The Committee bore in mind that ACCA had brought these allegations and the burden remained upon ACCA to prove its case. Mr Islam did not have to prove anything. The standard of proof was on 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 Islam'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; the burden remained upon ACCA to prove its case to the required standard.
17. The Committee carefully considered the evidence adduced by ACCA, noting that it had never been the subject of challenge by Mr Islam. It found that the evidence presented a clear and compelling case that supported the factual basis of the allegation. 18. Having found the facts giving rise to Allegation 1 proved the Committee was in no doubt that it 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. 19. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Islam had been acting dishonestly. It was in no doubt that a reasonable and honest person would consider that to submit a false transcript and certificate in respect of qualifications that he did not have, in support of an application for exemptions from further ACCA examinations, was dishonest. The Committee also concluded that Mr Islam would have known that a reasonable and honest person would think that it was dishonest. 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. 20. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Islam's dishonest behaviour, aggravated by his subsequent failure to cooperate with ACCA's investigation, was morally culpable, and discreditable to Mr Islam, ACCA and the Accountancy Profession. The Committee considered the overall 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. 21. Accordingly, the Committee found the Allegations proved except Allegation 2(b), which was not considered by the Committee as it was an alternative to Allegation 2(a). SANCTION AND REASONS 22. 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. 23. Mr Islam had not provided any references or testimonials. However, the Committee considered the absence of any previous disciplinary findings amounted to mitigation. 24. 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 Islam and would undermine confidence in ACCA as a Regulator. 25. 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. 26. The Committee first considered whether the appropriate sanction would be the Admonishment of Mr Islam. 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. 27. 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 mark publicly the nature and seriousness of the misconduct in this case, nor would it suitably declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. 28. The Committee considered that Mr Islam'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 to uphold
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 Islam 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 29. ACCA claimed costs in the sum of 4,195. Mr Islam 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. In light of the inefficient way in which the evidence to establish falsity of the documents was obtained, leading to further costs that were not incurred by any fault of Mr Islam, the Committee reduced the sum which it ordered, Mr Islam to pay to ACCA by way of costs to 4000. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 30. This order shall take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period unless Mr Islam 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 20 September 2017