DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Aamer Ahmad Heard on: Monday 29 January 2018 Location: ACCA s Offices, The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AU Committee: Mrs Kathryn Douglas (Chairman), Mrs Judith Glover (Accountant) Mrs Suzanne McCarthy (Lay Member) Legal Adviser: Mr Richard Ferry-Swainson Persons present and capacity: Ms Emily Healy (ACCA Case Presenter) Ms Poonam Patel (Hearings Officer) Observers: None Summary: Removal from Student Register and Mr Ahmad to pay ACCA the sum of 4,000.00. PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS/SERVICE OF PAPERS 1. The Disciplinary Committee ( the Committee ) convened to consider two Allegations against Mr Ahmad, who did not attend and was not represented. 2. The papers before the Committee were in two bundles paginated A to N and numbered 1 to 111 and 112 to 132, plus Tabled papers numbered 133 to
137 relating to costs. There was also a Service bundle numbered 1 to 20 and a Tabled Additional Service bundle numbered 21 to 23. 3. Ms Healy made an Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Ahmad. PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 4. The Committee first considered whether the appropriate documents had been served in accordance with the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations ( the Regulations ). The Committee took into account the submissions made by Ms Healy on behalf of ACCA and also took into account the advice of the Legal Adviser. 5. Included within the Service bundle was the Notice of Hearing dated 15 December 2017, thereby satisfying the 28 day notice requirement, and addressed to Mr Ahmad at his address as it appears in the ACCA register. Proof of postage was provided by way of a Royal Mail despatch receipt. 6. The Committee was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Regulations which, amongst other things, require proof that the Notice was sent, not that it was received. Having so determined, the Committee then considered whether to proceed in Mr Ahmad s absence. The Committee bore in mind that although it had a discretion to proceed in the absence of Mr Ahmad, it should exercise that discretion with the utmost care and caution, particularly as Mr Ahmad was unrepresented. 7. The Committee noted that Mr Ahmad had been responding in a very limited way to correspondence sent by ACCA in 2017 and that the last such response was on 25 July 2017. He had not responded to the Notice of Hearing sent in December 2017. That Notice was also sent by email to the email address that Mr Ahmad had been using to correspond with ACCA and the Committee noted that Mr Ahmad had agreed to service by email. He had not responded to that email either, nor had he responded to an email asking him whether he would be attending. The Hearings Officer attempted to contact him again by phone on the day of the hearing but when the phone was answered the line was then cut-off and thereafter was not answered, despite repeated attempts.
8. In light of Mr Ahmad s lack of response to the Notice of Hearing and subsequent email and phone contact, the Committee decided that he had voluntarily waived his right to be present and his right to be represented. 9. The Committee noted that Mr Ahmad faced serious Allegations of dishonestly submitting false documents to ACCA and that there was a clear public interest in the matter being dealt with expeditiously. The Committee considered an adjournment would serve no useful purpose, because it seemed unlikely that Mr Ahmad would attend on another occasion, given his recent limited engagement. The Committee noted he had not requested an adjournment. The Committee concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the matter should proceed notwithstanding the absence of Mr Ahmad. ALLEGATIONS/BRIEF BACKGROUND 10. At the outset of the hearing Ms Healy made an application to amend the Allegations in one respect in that Mr Ahmad s name was mis-spelt as Ahmed. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser and allowed the amendment, which was clearly typographical in nature and not one that would prejudice Mr Ahmad in the conduct of his defence. 11. It is alleged that Mr Ahmad is liable to disciplinary action on the basis of the following Allegations (as amended): Allegation 1 (a) On or around 18 June 2016 Mr Aamer Ahmad caused or permitted one or more of the documents set out in Schedule A to be submitted to The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) which purported to have been issued by the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants of Pakistan when, in fact, they had not. (b) Aamer Ahmad s conduct in respect of 1(a) was: (i) Dishonest; and (ii) Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity;
(c) By reason of his conduct in respect of 1(a) and/or 1(b) above, Aamer Ahmad is guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i). And/or Allegation 2 (a) Contrary to Paragraph 3(1) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014, Aamer Ahmad has failed to co-operate fully with the investigation of a complaint in that he failed to respond in full to any or all of ACCA s correspondence dated: i) 10 May 2017; ii) 7 June 2017; iii) 3 July 2017; (b) By reason of his conduct at 2 (a) above, Mr Aamer Ahmad is: (i) (ii) Guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i); or Liable to disciplinary action pursuant to bye-law 8 (a)(iii). 12. Mr. Ahmad applied to ACCA on 18 June 2016, and became a student of ACCA on 21 June 2016. 13. On 18 June 2016, Mr Ahmad submitted a CMA Final Certificate and Consolidated Grade Sheet purported to have been awarded by Institute of Cost Management Accountants of Pakistan ( ICMAP ) with his ACCA Student Application Form. The certificate and consolidated grade sheet awarded Mr Ahmad exemptions from F1-F9 examination papers. 14. On 3 April 2017, Mr Ahmad Manzoor, of ACCA Pakistan, requested a copy of the educational documents that were submitted by Mr Ahmad for registration and exemptions in order to verify them with ICMAP. 15. On 5 April 2017, Customer Services Executive for ACCA Pakistan provided the Head of Education North, ACCA Pakistan with a copy of Mr Ahmad s Consolidated Grade sheet and CMA Final Certificate purportedly awarded by ICMAP.
16. On 12 April 2017, ACCA Pakistan referred Mr Ahmad to the Investigations Department following confirmation from ICMAP that the CMA final certificate and consolidated grade sheet in the name of Aamer Ahmad were not genuine in that they did not match with their records. 17. On 10 May 2017, ACCA sent a letter to Mr Ahmad s registered postal address outlining the Allegations and providing him with the documentation in support. Mr Ahmad was requested to respond by 31 May 2017. On the same date, Mr Ahmad was also sent an email to his two ACCA registered email addresses requesting that he confirm data protection questions. 18. On 16 May 2017, Mr Ahmad responded to ACCA via one of those email addresses and answered the data protection questions. Mr Ahmad sent a further email to ACCA which stated Respected sir i receive mail from acca through airmail. I dont understand what i do? I dont know that there is issue in my reg 3742021 or something else please sir kindly respond me soon as possible. I am so in tention. Please sir. 19. On 17 May 2017, ACCA responded to Mr Ahmad via email and explained that the ICMAP documents which had been submitted with his registration documents in order to gain exemptions from ACCA examinations had not been awarded by ICMAP. ACCA asked Mr Ahmad to respond to the letter and the allegations in full by 31 May 2017, but he did not do so. 20. On 7 June 2017, ACCA sent an email to Mr Ahmad reminding him of his duty to cooperate with ACCA because a response to ACCA s initial letter had not been received. Mr Ahmad was requested to respond by 28 June 2017, but he did not do so. 21. On 3 July 2017, ACCA sent a further email to Mr Ahmad sending a final reminder of his duty to co-operate with ACCA s investigation. Mr Ahmad was requested to respond by 24 July 2017, but he did not do so. 22. On 25 July 2017, ACCA received an email from Mr Ahmad stating: Respected sir. Can i appear in exam hall? Sir what yours decision about my case? Please sir tell me to continue my ACCA or leave ACCA. I am so in depression.
23. On 25 July 2017, ACCA informed Mr Ahmad that he could not be notified of a final decision as the Investigation process had not concluded. ACCA provided Mr Ahmad with a further copy of the initial letter dated 10 May 2017 and requested his response to the Allegations. Mr Ahmad responded to ACCA stating the following: Respected sir.. can i know about the final decision.. sir what you expect from your team final decison.. i pay 200 pound to ACCA of my exemption fee... if i discollified what about my future..sir i will take my life.. 24. When it was pointed out to him that he had not responded to the request in ACCA s email, Mr Ahmad responded further on 25 July 2017, stating Respected sir. I hav no more evidence. What i provided its final. I waste my time. I cant do anything. I work 2 to 3 year for this i lost everything please if can give me clear answer. I will decide about my future. I cant do anything. I cant appear in exam hall. I can take my Acca classes. I am in trouble. Deeply depressd. I swear i have no anyway. If you discolfied me. 25. On the same date, ACCA informed Mr Ahmad that they had not received any evidence from him in respect of the matter and requested that he resend the evidence. No response from Mr Ahmad was received. 26. On 27 July 2017, the Student Registration Team Manager at ACCA, provided a witness statement. The Student Registration Team Manager explained the routes by which prospective students can register with ACCA. The Student Registration Team Manager provided screenshots of the online Registration process and the declaration which must be signed before a Student is accepted onto ACCA s Register. The Student Registration Team Manager stated that Mr Ahmad applied for ACCA Studentship via the online Application process. The Student Registration Team Manager exhibited Mr Ahmad s Application documents, including the two purported certificates described in schedule A to the Allegations. 27. On 4 August 2017, ACCA obtained a witness statement from the Customer Service Executive at ACCA Pakistan. The Customer Service Executive at ACCA Pakistan explained that on 3 April 2017, he requested Mr Ahmad s educational documents in order for them to be verified by ICMAP. The
Customer Service Executive at ACCA Pakistan confirmed that he received an email from ICMAP s Director of Examinations which confirmed the status of the documents and that they did not match with their records. The Customer Service Executive at ACCA Pakistan produced the email chain between ACCA Pakistan and ICMAP. 28. The Committee noted that both the Customer Service Executive at ACCA Pakistan and the Student Registration Team Manager, in their respective witness statements, had misspelt Mr Ahmad's name as Ahmed. However, the Committee was satisfied that there was no mistake in the identity of Mr Ahmad as his Student Registration number was correctly identified with the documents. 29. Mr Ahmad did not provide any explanation for the matters alleged or any further written representations. DECISION ON FACTS/ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 30. The Committee considered carefully all the evidence provided, including the email responses from Mr Ahmad and the submissions made by Ms Healy on behalf of ACCA. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. 31. On the evidence relied on by ACCA, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Ahmad had provided ACCA with the two certificates that purported to say he had completed certain examinations at the ICMAP. The Committee was also satisfied on the evidence that those certificates were not genuine because they did not match the records held by ICMAP. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1(a) proved. The Committee noted that in his brief written responses Mr Ahmad did not at any stage deny the Allegations or provide any explanation for his alleged actions. 32. It follows from its findings in relation to 1(a) that Mr Ahmad either generated or obtained from somewhere, two fraudulent certificates. The only possible motive was to deceive ACCA into thinking he had qualifications that he did not and thereby exempt him from the need to take certain of ACCA s exams. The Committee noted that at no stage had Mr Ahmad denied that they were fraudulent or offered any explanation for his actions. The Committee was
satisfied that Mr Ahmad knew that the certificates he submitted were not genuine. The Committee was in no doubt that ordinary decent people would find such action to be dishonest. Allegation 1(b)(i) is therefore proved. 33. The provision of fraudulent certificates to avoid sitting exams is neither straightforward nor honest and thus is clearly contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1(b)(ii) proved. 34. The Committee was in no doubt that relying on fraudulent certificates to avoid taking the exams necessary in order to qualify as a member of ACCA brings discredit upon Mr Ahmad, the accountancy profession and ACCA. The Committee was satisfied that fellow Members of the profession would find his actions deplorable and that they amounted to misconduct. 35. There was ample evidence that Mr Ahmad had not responded fully, or in most instances, at all, to the correspondence sent by ACCA on 19 May 2017, 7 June 2017 and 3 July 2017. Such responses as he did provide did not in any way answer the questions that were being asked. Regulation 3 of ACCA s Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014 [as applicable in 2017] state that every relevant person is under a duty to co-operate with any investigating officer or any assessor in relation to the consideration and investigation of any complaint. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Ahmad had failed to co-operate fully with the investigation by failing to respond in full to the relevant correspondence. The Committee therefore found Allegations 2(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) proved in their entirety. 36. Regulation 3 also states that a failure to co-operate fully with the consideration or investigation of a complaint shall constitute a breach of the regulations. The guidance provided by ACCA makes it clear that a failure to co-operate with ones regulatory body is a serious matter and the Committee agreed. A lack of co-operation can frustrate and extend an investigation and would be considered deplorable by fellow Members of the profession. The Committee was satisfied that such lack of co-operation brought discredit upon Mr Ahmad, the Accountancy profession and ACCA and amounted to misconduct.
37. Having found Allegation 2(b)(i) proved it was not necessary for the Committee to consider Allegation 2(b)(ii), which was in the alternative. SANCTION AND REASONS 38. In reaching its decision on sanction, the Committee took into account the submissions made by Ms Healy and the emails sent by Mr Ahmad. The Committee also referred to the Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions issued by ACCA. The Committee had in mind the fact that the purpose of sanctions is not to punish, 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. 39. When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee carefully considered the aggravating and mitigating features in this case. 40. The Committee considered the following aggravating features: the degree of planning and sophistication in either producing or sourcing such false certificates; a complete lack of insight, as demonstrated in Mr Ahmad s responses, which focused on what he could do now going forward without in any way acknowledging what it was he was alleged to have done or the seriousness of it; a lack of remorse. 41. The Committee considered the following mitigation: no previous disciplinary matters, although it noted the short time that Mr Ahmad had been a Student Member. The Committee noted that Mr Ahmad stated on a number of occasions in correspondence to ACCA that he was [PRIVATE], but he did not suggest that this had affected his conduct as alleged in this case. 42. The Committee noted the Guidance issued by ACCA. It provides specific guidance on the approach to be taken in cases of dishonesty, which is always said to be regarded as a particularly serious matter, even when it does not result in direct harm and/or loss, or is related to matters outside the professional sphere. This is because it undermines trust and confidence in the profession. The guidance states that Courts have consistently supported the approach to exclude Members from their professions where there has
been a lack of probity and honesty and that only in exceptional circumstances should a finding of dishonesty result in a sanction other than striking off. The public is entitled to expect a high degree of probity from a professional who has undertaken to abide by a code of ethics. The reputation of ACCA and the Accountancy profession is built upon the public being able to rely on a Member to do the right thing in difficult circumstances. It is a cornerstone of the public value which an accountant brings. The Committee took this guidance into account when considering the appropriate sanction in this case. 43. The Committee considered all the options available from the least serious upwards and concluded that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Student Register. Providing fraudulent certificates to ACCA in order to avoid sitting the exams ordinarily required to be completed, and thereby help to gain a qualification upon which the public will rely, is very serious and fundamentally incompatible with being a Student of ACCA. The Committee acknowledged the impact this decision would have on Mr Ahmad and thought it was unfortunate that he had decided to behave in this way at the beginning of his time with ACCA. However, this intentional conduct was such a serious breach of bye-law 8 that no other sanction would adequately reflect the gravity of his offending behaviour. Honesty and integrity go to the heart of the profession. Mr Ahmad s conduct was exacerbated by his behaviour thereafter in that he failed to co-operate with ACCA which was trying to carry out its Regulatory function by investigating his alleged conduct. 44. The Committee was of the view that there were no exceptional circumstances that would allow it to consider a lesser sanction. The Committee considered that a failure to remove a Student from the Register who had behaved in this way 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 would not be tolerated. 45. In light of the serious nature of Mr Ahmad s misconduct and his complete lack of insight, the Committee decided that, in accordance with CDR
13(4)(c), that no Application for readmission may be considered until the expiry of five years after the effective date of the order. Also, that, in accordance with CDR 13(10), any future Application for Membership be referred to the Admissions and Licensing Committee. COSTS AND REASONS 46. ACCA applied for costs in the sum of 7,118. The Committee was provided with a schedule of costs. The Committee noted, as was accepted by Ms Healy, that the schedule of costs had been calculated on the basis that this Hearing would take a full day, whereas in fact it had taken a little over half a day. The Committee also considered that Part C lacked sufficient detail for it to be fully satisfied that all the costs were reasonable incurred. Accordingly, the Committee decide to reduce the amount of the order to reflect these concerns. 47. Taking into account the above, the Committee decided it appropriate and proportionate to reduce the sum requested and to make an order in the sum of 4,000.00. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 48. This order will have effect at the expiry of the appeal period, or at the conclusion of any appeal if one is made. Mrs Kathryn Douglas Chairman 29 January 2018