Since the last update, the outcomes of two disciplinary tribunals have been published as well as seven consent orders made by the Investigation Committee.
In the first disciplinary tribunal, a member was severely reprimanded fined, £14,700, and required to pay costs as a result of multiple compliance failures. They were also ordered to be subject to a paid for, follow-up visit by the Quality Assurance Department (QAD) and to provide outstanding information not provided. They had failed to:
- provide information requested in a letter from ICAEW's Regulatory Practice Group and in doing so breached regulation 12 of the Practice Assurance Regulations;
- cooperate with ICAEW in that they failed to respond to multiple letters in breach of Practice Assurance Regulation 8;
- provide evidence to their AML supervisor of the documented risk assessments and customer due diligence for all clients; and
- submit the 2018, 2020 and 2021 ICAEW annual returns for their firm in breach of the following Practice Assurance Regulations.
They also engaged in public practice through their firm but did not confirm compliance with the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations, as required by regulation 2.5 of the Professional Indemnity Insurance Regulations.
In the other disciplinary tribunal published this month, a member was excluded from membership and required to pay costs following their convictions for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving.
Consent orders made by the Investigation Committee and published this month were that:
- a firm was reprimanded and fined £143,350 because it had issued unqualified audit opinions on the financial statements of "X" plc, for four consecutive years, which stated that the group financial statements had been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) as adopted by the European Union when the goodwill, acquired intangible assets and related deferred tax liabilities recognised on the acquisition of two subsidiaries were not recorded in the functional currency of the subsidiaries; and/or
- were not translated at the closing rate at the year-end, in breach of International Accounting Standard 21 'The effects of changes in foreign exchange rates'.
Another firm was severely reprimanded and fined £42,187 for issuing audit opinions:
- in one year on the financial statements of 11 companies which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA) (UK and Ireland) when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 230 'Audit documentation' or International Standard on Auditing (UK and Ireland) 500 'Audit evidence' in respect of cash and share capital;
- in the following two years on 14 companies when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with ISA 230 'Audit documentation' or ISA 500 'Audit evidence' in respect of other debtors and share capital; and
- in the year after that on three companies when the audit had not been conducted in accordance with ISA 230 'Audit documentation' or ISA 500 'Audit evidence' in respect of other debtors.
A member was severely reprimanded and fined £7,000 for failing to fulfil four undertakings given on a QAD visit in respect of both Money Laundering and Client Money Regulations and also for the underlying breaches those assurances related to, in that they failed to:
- ensure that their firm applied customer due diligence measures on all clients;
- ensure that their firm carried out regular reviews of their firm's compliance with the relevant Money Laundering Regulations;
- comply with Rule 22 of the Clients' Money Regulations when they withdrew funds from their firm's client money bank account towards their fees on 37 occasions when the precise amount had not been agreed with the client; and/or 30 days had not elapsed since the date of the invoice; and/or the fees had not been accurately calculated in accordance with a formula agreed in writing by the client; and
- comply with Regulation 27 of the Clients' Money Regulations as they failed to ensure that their firm carried out annual reviews of their firm’s compliance with the Clients' Money Regulations.
A member was severely reprimanded and fined £4,200 because they had incorrectly prepared the accounts of a limited company client for two consecutive years with the comparatives restated by way of a prior year adjustment, but there was no disclosure note in the accounts as required by financial reporting standard (FRS102 1A 1AC.8).
A member was reprimanded and fined £840 because they had failed to notify the Members' Registrar of ICAEW of their appointment as principal of a firm, engaged in public practice without holding a practising certificate, and had failed to ensure the firm was supervised by an appropriate anti-money laundering supervisory authority,
A member was reprimanded and fined £1,610 because they failed to notify the Members' Registrar of ICAEW of their firm as required by Practice Assurance regulations, and they failed to ensure the firm was supervised by an appropriate anti-money laundering supervisory authority
Another member was reprimanded and fined £630 having engaged in public practice without holding an ICAEW practising certificate for two years, contrary to Principal Bye-law 51a and also failed to ensure, over the same period, that they were supervised by an appropriate anti-money laundering supervisory authority
All of the above consent orders included a requirement to pay costs.