Draft MLR 2007 - listed as its Professional Bodies

Draft MLR 2007 - listed as its Professional Bodies

Didn't find your answer?

I read CIMA already not in this list of draft MLR 2007. How come then?

Should the CIPFA, AIA, IFA, ICPA UK, CPA International London, ICSA also in the list or not as Professional Bodies?

Correct for me to say only ICAS, ICAI, ICAEW, ACCA, AAT, ATT already in the Professional Bodies listed on the draft MLR 2007?

Why AAT and ATT already in the Professional Bodies listed? They are not the professional bodies as they operate technician level only.

Clarify on this case very beneficial on all practising professional bodies members.

Narninda

Replies (8)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
23rd Feb 2007 10:40

Who monitor not in the list?
If AIA, CIMA, CIPFA, IFA in practice, who are possible to monitor them for not in list of professional bodies?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Feb 2007 04:20

Apology - oversight
I apologise calling ATT and AAT not professional bodies.

Actual fact, AAT and ATT are skillful, competent, engaged in own field specialisation as own name saying it as AAT and ATT. They, techinician professionals in accounting, so is taxation.

They belonged to, or connected with a profession, ie accounting technician and tax technician.

Thank you Rachel telling me the course on MLR.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Feb 2007 11:34

Well said, Sarah Kitchen
The AAT is governed by exactly the same code of practice and ethics as is the ICAEW.

An AAT member with a practising certificate is fully professional and has rigorous standards of conduct to follow as well as an extremely onerous CPD requirement.

An AAT member in practice is recognised by mortgage lenders as a qualified professional accountant and the AAT is recognised by HM Treasury as an appropriate professional body to self-regulate its members.

Narninda should apologise.

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
23rd Feb 2007 13:57

Monitoring of "unqualified" accountants

Narninda

The present proposal is that accountants / book-keepers / tax advisers in practice in the UK who are not subject to monitoring by their professional body (in respect of their compliance with the Money Laundering Regulations) should be monitored by H M Revenue & Customs.

See my AccountingWEB article The new money laundering regulations revealed.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Mr_Flibble
23rd Feb 2007 11:58

ATT also
The same applies equally to ATT. It is a widely recognised tax qualification and I (as a member) am bound by the same ethical code as any member of the CIOT.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Feb 2007 10:57

AAT not professional...??
I have never posted a comment if something someone has said has p'd me off, after all, the nature of a forum is to share opinions only.

BUT, Narninda, I am insulted at your suggestion that the AAT is not a professional body. Maybe you should've attended the college I did, with the AAT lecturers I had, and see for yourself that the AAT is indeed a very professional organisation. I have left my studies temporarily, but will be taking them up again this year, and am proud to be studying with the AAT. The attention to detail on their syllabus is second to none, preparing me well for the work I do. They support both students and members very well, and produce highly trained Accounting Technicians at the end of the rigorous course. This is the reason that AAT members are given exemptions from most of the chartered/certified bodies.

You only have to look at their website to see the high expectaions they have of their members, and read their forums to realise that AAT members are in fact as professional as any of the other accounting organisations members.

see - www.aat.co.uk

I have not entered into discussion regarding MLR as I don't know enough about it, and am only respnding to your insulting comment regarding The AAT.

End of Rant.

Sarah

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Feb 2007 09:14

Still in draft
If you can access the draft regulations, with associatied consultation documents, you will find in there a comment that other professional bodies are in discussion with the Treasury regarding recognition as a supervisory body.
Why don't you contact the head office of your organisation and ask if they are trying for recognition. The AAT, ATT and CIOT were not included on the first draft, but discussions were opened with the Treasury to put forward the case for recognition.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
23rd Feb 2007 08:06

A misunderstanding
I think that both AAT and ATT see themselves as professional bodies. You are suggesting that only the chartered bodies can be professional.

Also, you should be considering how many CIMA and CIPFA etc members are in practice where they need to be regulated. Perhaps CIMA and CIPFA did not want to take on the extra burden of monitoring their members that are in practice. However, if you are a member of one of the bodies mentioned, you should take the issue up with them.

Thanks (0)