Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Accountant banned for £160k fund diversion

by
8th Apr 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

An accountant has been excluded from ICAEW membership for dishonestly withdrawing £160,000 over a nine-year period from a limited company for personal use.

As reported on the in April ICAEW disciplinaries, London-based Peter Maxwell Featherman diverted the money to his own account without the consent or knowledge of shareholders and directors of the company between 1998 and 2007.

Featherman, a former 30% shareholder and director of the company who was heavily involved in it until 2008, said his finances became “muddled” with that of the company.

The accountant was excluded from institute membership for at least five years and ordered to repay costs of £7,800.

The ICAEW reported that Featherman used the funds belonging to the company, the director and shareholder of which was a personal friend, over nine years to cover his personal expenses.

He then tried to disguise this by posting the drawn cheques from the company’s bank account to incorrect amounts in the company’s nominal ledger, including the directors’ loan account which, unusually, had a credit balance.

When Featherman was discovered, he reached a settlement with the company and shareholders in 2009 and repaid what he had taken.

Because he did not admit he acted dishonestly, the matter was taken to hearing and found to be contrary to ICAEW disciplinary bye-law 4(1)(a).

***

Another member, Philip Ivan Knight from Eastleigh, was excluded and ordered to pay costs of £2,000 for abusing his position of trust while treasurer of a church circuit.

Knight moved more than £22,000 from the circuit in a series of transactions, unauthorised, to the bank account of a company where he was director.

He then tried to cover up by describing them as transfers to a deposit account.

Knight alleges he did this as the building company, of which he was director and 50% shareholder, was suffering from poor cashflow and the circuit owed it for insulation work.

The accountant made an overpayment of £7,000 from the circuit’s bank account to the company’s account, then transferring a further £16,500 in transactions over a five month period.

Knight repaid the amount he owed back in three transactions later the same year, plus £386 and an extra £200 he said represented interest.

He confessed what he had done to the ICAEW, as did the circuit’s superintendent a few weeks later, who said he regarded the matter as closed.

The tribunal concluded that his actions represented “serious dishonesty” and acting in his own financial interests, after Knight admitted he had abused the trust placed in him in his position.

Tags:

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Roland St Clere-Smithe
10th Apr 2013 11:38

So thats it -is it?

Others who have stolen far less are sent to prison.. yet Mr Featherman escapes scott free!

Is it because he mixes in the same circles as police and magistrates and

is able to have "a quiet word" ? 

Thanks (1)
Replying to Mott the Hoople:
avatar
By Davidgblackburn
10th Apr 2013 11:49

Agreed. Shouldn't the Police be involved?

Thanks (1)
Replying to TomHerbert:
avatar
By The Black Knight
10th Apr 2013 16:31

Well done

George Gretton wrote:

 

 

There's actually loads more fraud seemingly lurking around, now that I have crawled around in Accounts from Companies House (even abbreviated) and compared essentials with the person on the receiving end. And that's before we get stuck in on the Property side.

My middle name is "Nemesis".

Yours, Sherlock

a bottomless pit of fraud and tax evasion, the evidence all lodged at companies house.

Well done you.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By ver1tate
10th Apr 2013 21:10

The black knight

That is what the Companies Act and companies house are there for. Why the Companies Act has not been used to prosecute more directors who knew, or should have known, that their companies were bankrupt and therefore trading illegally making the directors responsible for all debts, as possibly in the case of Glasgow Rangers, defeats me.

Congratulations. It is about time some of the big accountancy firms were found guilty of negligence or perhaps even complacency or------

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The Black Knight
11th Apr 2013 11:08

Victimless crime

I think it is regarded a as a victimless crime.

1, HMRC do not know about the companies act,and don't care either as its not on their jobs list for the day.

2, Companies house is only a large filing cabinet full of misinformation.

3, Insolvency practitioners want a quick clean job with no fuss, and offer little protection to creditors that you would expect when reading the insolvency act.

4, Solicitors draw sharp breath and decide it's to much effort or don't get it either.

5, The Insolvency service are about as much use as a chocolate teapot

6,larger creditors have credit insurance so the insurance company pays them. Insurers haven't worked this out either.

7,Smaller creditors do not even know the power they have and do not believe you when you tell them.

 

There is a gold mine waiting for all those groups if they woke up. might even clean up UK plc and get the economy moving but there must be a reason why this is not allowed?

s.993 companies act 2006 looks well scary, but that's all it does.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By The Black Knight
11th Apr 2013 12:43

Deficit

They must need the deficit for political purposes?

Although State employees are severe jobsworths.(With the exception of nurses and doctors)

Unfortunately they are trained to argue with whoever is there, and the trouble is you have provided them with some good information that they then see a duty to argue with.

We must stumble over hundreds of thousands of pounds a week in missing tax.

Drives you mad when the genuine are having a struggle to pay the bills.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jmsynge
15th Apr 2013 09:14

They were caught

And these were the ones who were caught. I'm afraid there is a lot of dishonesty about.; and people in positions of trust are (often misguidedly) assumed to be trustworthy. I dare say much more goes on like this which is not uncovered. The only deterrent is criminal justice which appears to be wanting in this (and other) cases where the toothless ICAEW or other professional bodies are incapable of bringing the memebers properly to book.

Thanks (0)
Replying to thomas34:
avatar
By Roland St Clere-Smithe
16th Apr 2013 09:28

They pick on easy targets

THe ICAEW are the same as the ACCA , the Police and other so called regulators who are

full of socially inadequate jobsworths who have n't the guts to get after the real criminals

who have fleeced us all.

I have read that the Plod intend rounding anti Thatcher protestors under the Section 5

 of the [***] style Public Order Act, passed by Blair,who has questions to answer regarding war crimes,

on the grounds that they( the protestors) might cause "alarm distress and harassment" to those attending the

funeral. The [***] Police could not have cared less about the mining communities they helped to destroy or the

criminal cover up following Hillsborough.

  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Brads.Kings
25th Apr 2013 10:12

Costs

Despite what the ICAEW say about the basis of the costs levied, I am surprised how high the costs normally are, eg fine of £2,000 and costs of £3,500 for not having professional indemnity insurance.  I would have thought that either you have or don't have PII so the ICAEW should not need to spend a lot of time establishing the lack of PII.

Does anyone know how the costs are calculated?

 

Thanks (0)