Among the recent cases heard was an ICAEW member who was excluded after it was confirmed that he had been excluded from membership of the Chartered Institute of Taxation for dishonest conduct regarding the inclusion of claims under the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Seed Enterprise Investment Schemes in client tax returns; completing VAT returns that deliberately understated the VAT liability for two clients and that he requested VAT registration for a client when he knew that the client had been raising invoices that contained VAT from prior to the requested date for registration. They were also required to pay ICAEW’s costs.
In another tribunal decision a member was found to have lacked competence as a result of the approval of accounts for his own company that contained disclosure errors and where the shareholding in the accounts did not agree to the shareholdings recorded at Companies House. A complaint was also found proven that the member had provided information to the Official Receiver advising that the company bank account was closed when this was incorrect. He received a reprimand, was fined £3,000 and required to pay ICAEW's costs.
Another member was excluded from membership following a conviction on his own admission of two counts of fraud by abuse of position. He was excluded from membership and required to pay costs.
The Investigation Committee also remains busy and continues to deal a wide variety of conduct matters.
Consent orders were issued and accepted by firms in relation to a number of complaints about poor audit work. These included the receipt of a severe reprimand for one firm, including a fine of £20,925 plus costs for providing an unmodified audit report when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with ISA230 (audit documentation) and ISA500 (audit evidence).
There was also an order accepted by a firm for a reprimand, fine of £5,250 plus costs for providing prohibited non-audit services to a client.
An individual was severely reprimanded, fined £7,000 and ordered to pay costs for accepting a loan from an affiliate of an audit client in breach of the APB Ethical Standards.
A further individual was reprimanded, fined £1,050 and required to pay costs for a complaint that they signed audit reports when they should not have done so as a network firm was the company secretary for the client, in breach of the FRC Ethical Standards.
On more general conduct cases, two members received severe reprimands and fines of £7,000 each plus costs for engaging in public practice without a practising certificate and PII and without having an anti-money laundering supervisor.
One member accepted a severe reprimand, fine of £700 plus costs for failing to notify ICAEW that he was engaged in public practice. While another individual received a reprimand, fine of £2,800 and costs for submitting incorrect information on two ICAEW annual returns regarding the principals of the firm and who their anti-money laundering supervisor was.
Another member received a reprimand, fine of £3,000 plus costs having been reprimanded by the Tax Disciplinary Board for not advising clients of the risks of a tax avoidance scheme.
A further individual was reprimanded and fined £2,310 for incorrectly calling his practice Chartered Accountants and for not having an anti-money laundering supervisor.
Access further details on these cases
New tool to aide disciplinary searches
The ICAEW Disciplinary Database offers an efficient way to obtain disciplinary and regulatory records.