Accountants fined for ignoring ICAEW letters

iStock_DNY59_AI.jpg

istock_Wavebreakmedia
Community Assistant
AccountingWEB
Columnist
Share this content
Tags
0

In the ICAEW monthly disciplinary report, two accountants in separate hearings have both been severely reprimanded for failing to respond to Disciplinary Bye-Law (DB) 13.

An Essex chartered accountant has been handed a severe reprimand for failing to provide information requested by the investigation committee under the Disciplinary Bye-Law (DBL) 13.

David John Gillespie was ordered to provide the information requested and fined £4,000 for failing to respond to the DBL 13 notice.

The ICAEW was contacted by the Financial Conduct Authority regarding an adverse finding against Gillespie and his role as the former managing director of a company. But apart from a phone call and a response letter, Gillespie failed to respond to the ICAEW, ignoring four subsequent letters. At this point, on 26 August 2015, the IC intervened and requested that Gillespie respond by 10 September 2015. Again, Gillespie did not co-operate.

While Gillespie held a clean disciplinary record, the tribunal felt no lesser penalty was appropriate. Gillespie was also left to cover the costs of £1,511.50.

* * *

In a separate case, an accountant from Horsham was also fined £4,000 after failing to provide documents requested issued under Disciplinary Bye-law 13.

The ICAEW received two separate complaints against Alan George Kent relating to his professional work. The ICAEW received no response to either of the two letters they sent to Kent, and no ‘substantive response’ to the letters sent over the following four months in the summer of 2015.

The investigation committee then pursued Kent under DBL 13 with two more letters, which Kent ignored. During the period the letters were sent, Kent blamed the pressures of work and suffering from bereavement of a close friend for his failure to respond, the ICAEW tribunal heard.

Kent appeared in person to explain himself and not to excuse his actions, which the tribunal acknowledged in their sentencing. However, the two separate complaints and the Kent’s failure to comply with DBL 13 resulted in a reprimand, £4,000 fine and an order to present the information originally requested in August 2015.

Kent also has to pay the costs of £1,399. 

Replies

Please login or register to join the discussion.

There are currently no replies, be the first to post a reply.