Published decisions
Investigation Committee
The Committee found a prima facie case for Mr Steven Moran ACMA to answer concerning an alleged failure to remove references to a former client from his company's website, despite requests for him to do so.
Pursuant to Members’ Regulation 6.3 (iii) and Council Regulation 16, the Committee invited Mr Moran to consent to the imposition of an admonishment by way of ‘consent order’, without further proceedings, to which Mr Moran agreed. The Committee recorded a finding upholding the complaint, issuing an order for the imposition of an admonishment.
The Committee found a prima facie case for Mr Steven Bailey ACMA to answer concerning an alleged failure, as a Company Secretary, to supply copies of statutory accounts in contravention of the Companies Act 1985 Section 238(1) and a further failure to inform one of the shareholders of General Meetings.
Pursuant to Members’ Regulation 6.3 (iii) and Council Regulation 16, the Committee invited Mr Bailey to consent to the imposition of an admonishment by way of ‘consent order’, without further proceedings, taking account of the fact that they were small companies; to which Mr Bailey agreed. The Committee recorded a finding upholding the complaint, issuing an order for the imposition of an admonishment.
Disciplinary Committee
The Disciplinary committee considered a complaint of misconduct against Mr Piyush Dosa, Registered Student that he had failed to comply with the Laws of the Institute by cheating in the CIMA Financial Analysis examination at the Mapatu Examination Centre, Mozambique. The allegations of (i) having notes or documents on his desk during the examination, (ii) bringing notes/writing paper or documents into the examination and/or failing to leave his notes/writing paper or documents in the designated area, contrary to the relevant Exam Rules and Regulations and (iii) therefore acting in a manner that might bring discredit to the Institute, were found proved.
In order to mark the seriousness with which this particular type of misconduct is regarded, the Committee decided the most appropriate sanction was for Mr Dosa’s student registration to be cancelled. Then when considering the question of costs, the Committee concluded that Mr Dosa should contribute approximately two-thirds of the costs of the proceedings, which in this case was £2,000.
The Disciplinary Committee considered a complaint of misconduct against Registered Student Mr Nasir Shahsuvarov that he had failed to comply with the Laws of the Institute during a Management Accounting Decision Management examination in Baku, Azerbaijan by (i) failing to leave a book in an area designated by the invigilators pursuant to Rule 2(g) of CIMA’s Exam Rules and Regulations, (ii) by cheating as defined by 4(d) having notes or documents in his clothing and attempting to dispose of them in the toilet during the examination and (iii) had therefore acted in a manner that might bring discredit to the Institute.
Mr Shahsuvarov admitted the facts but denied misconduct. He explained his actions were as a result of negligence on his part, and not a deliberate attempt to breach the rules.
The view taken by the Committee in respect of allegation (i) was that 2(g) of the Exam Rules and Regulations is more in the form of practical and technical guidance rather than a matter of conduct, and that the behaviour complained of did not amount to misconduct, although it was a technical breach. In respect of allegation (ii) the brief description of facts was not disputed and the Committee found misconduct. In respect of allegation (iii), by virtue of its finding in respect of allegation (ii) which was a matter which might bring discredit to the Institute, the Committee found misconduct.
The Committee accepted Mr Shahsuvarov’s explanation, supported by character witnesses, that his actions were not a deliberate attempt to improve his performance in an examination, and noted that he had co-operated fully with the Institute. The Committee was also greatly appreciative of his appearance at the hearing, having travelled from Azerbaijan, but nonetheless concluded that his behaviour was blameworthy, and imposed a sanction of a severe reprimand.
In determining whether Mr Shahsuvarov should contribute to the costs of the hearing, the Committee took account of the fact that his conduct had given rise to cost on the part of the Institute. However as he was a registered student keen to continue his education, and in view of his financial circumstances, the Committee decided that an appropriate contribution was £600.
The Disciplinary committee considered a complaint of misconduct against Mr Robert John Asher FCMA that, when visiting his clients’ business premises, he had failed to comply with the Laws of the Institute (i) by acting contrary to Section 150 of the CIMA Code of Ethics (“Professional Behaviour”), and/or in an unprofessional manner and/or a manner inconsistent with the good reputation of the profession, by inappropriately requesting from his clients payment of an outstanding invoice and threatening legal proceedings if the invoice was not paid by 5.00 pm that day, and (ii) by acting contrary to Section 140 of the CIMA Code of Ethics (“Confidentiality”), and/or in an unprofessional manner and/or a manner inconsistent with the good reputation of the profession, by discussing the affairs of his clients in public in their business premises in that he inappropriately disclosed in public that there was an outstanding invoice.
The Committee found Mr Asher guilty of misconduct. In deciding what sanction to impose the Committee took account of matters including his admission of misconduct in respect of part (i) of the complaint, that it had been an isolated incident at the minor end of the scale (although the breaches of the rules were not merely technical), and that it appeared to have been an impulsive action, somewhat provoked.
However as an experienced accountant, chasing three times for payment of an invoice within only ten days of its delivery was considered somewhat excessive by the Committee. Other concerns included the method of approach by Mr Asher meant it would be difficult to achieve confidentiality where the clients’ customers were likely to be present. In consequence the Committee decided that the appropriate sanction was a reprimand and that Mr Asher should make a significant contribution towards the costs of the hearing, the contribution to be £2500.
The Disciplinary Committee considered a complaint of misconduct against Ms Oyinade Ojo, Registered Student of CIMA that she had failed to comply with the Laws of Institute by failing to act in a manner consistent with the good reputation of the profession and/or had acted in a manner that might bring discredit to the Institute. Regarding the allegation that she had failed, within a reasonable period of time, to repay her former employers the sum of £992.85 in respect of course fees for a CIMA course which she had undertaken during 2004 which she was obliged to repay pursuant to her contract of employment, the Committee found Ms Ojo guilty of misconduct.
Taking into account matters including Ms Ojo’s relative youth and inexperience and what she told the Committee about having learned her lesson for the future, the Committee decided that the appropriate sanction was a Reprimand. Then, taking account of the time and expense of the hearing to the Institute but also Ms Ojo’s financial means and that two further allegations were not proved, the Committee decided it appropriate that Ms Ojo contribute £600 towards the costs.
