ICAEW member loses two disciplinary appeals
An ICAEW member has had their two appeals dismissed after claiming that two tribunals’ decisions were flawed and that the costs were excessively harsh.
Replies (14)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Although the evidence suggests that Duncan's attitude & approach were myopic ... this hasn't prevented him from generating a 'no-lose' scenario when appealing.
If he'd won (however unlikely) he'd have been vindicated and presumably saved money ... but although he's lost (completely) he won't be paying the consequences, or indeed fines & costs, by the sound of it!
There's an increasing miasma of (let's be generous) inefficiency emanating from the PBs.
Looks like the people of South America (or Malta or Australia?) will now benefit from this man's talents. Clearly the creditors of his company will not benefit from anything. The receiver's report in December 2021 also states: "The Receivers determined that substantial sums were missing from the Company's bank account together with significant sums due to the various insolvency estates which should have been held in separate client accounts."
Looks like he will get another severe reprimand.
He's definately a determined refusnik.it seems he's even left the country to prove a point (ie hes not going to pay their fines or penalty).
Isn't the matter of the appeal somewhat irrelevant in the light of the comment of Brend201?
Can the author clarify something for me?
Members firms of the ICAEW are automatically registered as being supervised by the ICAEW as the AML supervisor.
Why do you say in your opening that the member
"failed to ensure that his company was registered with an AML supervisor"
Was he not a member with a practising certificate in which case supervision would be automatic?
As far as CIOT goes, we have a choice of CIOT or HMRC.
Both charge an additional fee (CIOT is £310) for this privilege...
It's a condition of membership that you are registered, but not automatic for CIOT.
Members of the ICAEW don't have a choice if you are practising, its automatic and part of the annual fees, that's why I was curious. But I think he is in insolvency and may not be a member firm
When will accountants wake up and smell the coffee? The ICAEW and ACCA and all the other so called governing bodies make their money by fining their members- its a great revenue stream for them. How else are they going to pay for their big fat salaries? £38,000 for admin errors about AML procedures is scandalous. Was this man involved in fraud? Apparently not. Did he cause any damage to the tax system? Apparently not. He had the temerity to do the unthinkable and challenge an accountancy body that he pays his annual memberships as so they increased the fines. The ICAEW take the membership fees and then effectively closed his business down by issuing huge fines. No wonder the man has left the UK. I don't for a minute blame him. If they wanted to reprimand him give him a warning about his future conduct and that his practising certificate but - hey £38,000 is not a bad amount of money for the governing body to rake in is it !!
Really?
Have a read of https://insolvencynewsonline.com.au/liquidator-who-fell-foul-in-oz-struc... if you "don't for a minute blame him"!
Hugo Fair - You didn't read my comment very well. I didn't offer an opinion on whether or not I blame this accountant. I did offer an opinion on the level of the fine and the absolute rule of judgment by the accountancy body this former member paid his membership fees. £33,000 how do they justify this amount and then a further £5000 - wake up and smell the coffee. Fines are a great revenue stream for the ICAEW and the alphabet soup of other accounting bodies.
I read it absolutely without difficulty and accurately.
I wasn't commenting on your diatribe (possibly justified) about Fines being a great revenue stream for the ICAEW ... just the sentence that I extracted/quoted.
As per the post above from Brend201:
"The receiver's report in December 2021 also states: "The Receivers determined that substantial sums were missing from the Company's bank account together with significant sums due to the various insolvency estates which should have been held in separate client accounts.""
So not a nice or honourable man for many years ... hence my questioning of your choice of words as a summary of your perspective on this unprofessional chancer.
AND yet again its followed by an op-ed from some insurer based adviser, there are fair points from Hugo and PJ , did the reports go on to say that the missing money was stolen?
PJones77 signed up for this site yesterday and his first comment is to complain about the ICAEW justice system.
"Was this man involved in fraud? Apparently not." Blames the ICAEW for high costs and says "No wonder the man has left the UK. I don't for a minute blame him."
In my opinion, the least that Mr Duncan could do would be to return to/remain in the UK and assist the Receivers with their investigations into the missing money. That's the real issue.
"PJones77"? Is that you Adrian Duncan?