Accountant banned for £160k fund diversion

Kashflow logo
Share this content


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...

Please Login or Register to read the full article

The full article is available to registered members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register. Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

About Rachael Power

Your friendly, neighbourhood community editor. 

Twitter: @rachpower10 


Please login or register to join the discussion.

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)
to Mott the Hoople
10th Apr 2013 11:49

Agreed. Shouldn't the Police be involved?

Thanks (1)
to TomHerbert
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)
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)
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)
11th Apr 2013 12:43


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)
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)
to thomas34
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 Nazi[***] 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 Nazi[***] Police could not have cared less about the mining communities they helped to destroy or the

criminal cover up following Hillsborough.


Thanks (0)
25th Apr 2013 10:12


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)
27th Jul 2015 03:49

Thanks for this informative article. I hope you continue writing articles like this one. Kindly try this one

buy soundcloud likes

Thanks (0)