ICAEW excludes member over £6K false expense claims
An ICAEW member, who falsified expense claims to swindle his accountancy firm employer out of more than £6,000, has been excluded and fined £10,000 with costs of £10,723 on grounds of dishonesty.
Replies (13)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
While I have no sympathy, there is something about the timelines of this that seems off - why did the employer wait for a year or more before reporting the matter to ICAEW who then in turn allowed 5 years to elapse before doing anything about it?
Seems strange to worry about the public interest at this point.
I can understand it being 2015 when the internal investigation took place. It might take several months between claim and internal audit identifying the problem and then several months for him to fail to explain himself and disciplinary action/appeal or whatever. ICAEW's timeline is puzzling though.
From the facts that are stated here, he was found out & shown the door in 2015 after the internal investigation of events in 2014. Even if his happened in December 2015 then it was a full year until the employer reported the matter to ICAEW - if they felt they were duty/ethically bound to do so then they seemed to take an awfully long time reaching this conclusion (although perhaps they asked the advice of the ICAEW who took a year to respond...)
My money would be on Mr Raza doing something to further upset his ex-employer - poaching clients etc after their "agreement" at which point they decided to stick the boot in.
Why do people who know better do this sort of thing?
The tax free gain was really trivial.
When I was with the Inland Revenue in the 1970s there were stories of staff who had submitted false repayment claims and stood outside the door at the false addresses and met the postman to get the cheques. Small amounts were made in total, spread over many occasions so the 'workload' must have been immense. I always wondered why someone would throw over a career and pension for so little reward.
Then again, in this case perhaps the hotels were the tip of an iceberg?
It might take several months between claim and internal audit identifying the problem and then several months for him to fail to explain himself and disciplinary action/appeal or whatever. ICAEW's timeline is puzzling though. https://www.greatpeople-me.me/
Has ICAEW got a bee in their bonnet because they have felt THEY have been treated with contempt... they presented as protecting the accountant i put in a complaint about in every way. The so called independant committee's ruling was that they couldnt even be bothered investigating. Infact i felt contempt from ICAEW by they way that they justified every issue in regard to the accountant, they did not seem interested in investigating at all! I am interested that they have taken action here.
It is always difficult to decide what is fair in expenses claims where more than 1 person is involved.
Would it only have cost half if one person had stayed in the hotel instead of 2?
Like in mileage claims. If 3 employees travelled in 1 car, should only one person claim or all 3?
If 3 employees had travelled in their 3 cars, all of them could have claimed the mileage allowance.
What is fair???????????/
I disagree with you on this Raju. Whoever is bearing the expense should be the one to claim it. In this case
The cost of the hotel is not in question. The point is that the individuals involved recovered twice the expense of what the room cost.
In your car example - only the driver/owner of the car incurs the 'costs' related to the travel, therefore should be the only one to claim the mileage allowance. Why should the 2 passengers claim anything? They had no costs!
This is all about the integrity of the Accountants involved, although I do agree with other comments that the timeline seems a bit "iffy". Why wait so long to go through this process?!
"If 3 employees travelled in 1 car, should only one person claim or all 3?"
You really need to ask that?
we are not told whether there was a settlement between the 2 employers to correct the proper cost to be bourne by each. Perhaps that contributed to the delays referred to in earlier replies
What about the wife? She was also ICAEW. Was she not a party to the fraud at least? Which of them is the rightful claimant of the expenses?
Like David Ross , I was around at the same time . The Internal Inland Revenue Investigation team were not the sharpest knives in the drawer but the crass stupidity with some of the fraudulent claims made their life a bit easier.
Like David the cynic in me says Raza’s “No Comment” could well suggest something else afoot,