DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

Transcription

1 DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Miss Thamina Hossain Heard on: 20 July 2017 and 8-9 November 2017 Location: Committee: Legal Adviser: Persons present and capacity: Observers: Summary: The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury Square, London, WC1A 2LP Mr Michael Cann (Chairman) Ms Wanda Rossiter (Accountant) Dr Pamela Ormerod (Lay) Miss Juliet Gibbon Mr Mohammed Ismail (ACCA Case Presenter) Miss Thamina Hossain (Student, by telephone) Mr Richard Lorkin (Hearings Officer) None OUTCOME: Allegations 1(b), (d), (e) and (f) found proved SANCTION: Miss Hossain s name removed from ACCA s Student Register with immediate effect COSTS: Miss Hossain ordered to pay 2,500 to ACCA by way of costs 1. The Disciplinary Committee ( the Committee ) reconvened part-heard to consider allegations made against Miss Thamina Hossain. The case was first listed on 24 May 2017 but in the event was adjourned that day. It was next listed on 20 July 2017 but had to be adjourned part-heard until 8 November The Committee had a hearing bundle of papers, numbered A-Y and 1-97 and eight additional bundles, numbered pages , ,

2 157, , , D and 208 from the previous hearing. It also had two additional bundles, numbered , , and , that included a transcript from the last hearing and documents provided by Miss Hossain. The Committee also had the previous service bundles together with a service bundle in relation to this hearing, numbered pages ACCA was represented by Mr Mohammed Ismail. Miss Hossain attended the hearings on 24 May 2017, 20 July 2017 and 8 November 2017, by telephone link but was not represented. There had, however, been some previous correspondence between ACCA and solicitors instructed by her. ALLEGATIONS Allegation 1 (a) On or around 21 December 2015 Miss Thamina Hossain altered a Provisional Results Notification in respect of an ACCA computer-based FAB-Accountant in Business exam to show that she had passed the exam when she had not. (b) On or around 21 December 2015 Miss Thamina Hossain submitted an altered Provisional Results Notification in respect of an ACCA computerbased exam FAB-Accountant in Business exam to her employer as proof she had passed the exam when she had not. (c) On or around 26 January 2016 Miss Thamina Hossain forged a Provisional Results Notification to show that she had passed an ACCA computer-based FMA-Management Accounting exam when she had not. (d) On 27 January 2016 Miss Thamina Hossain submitted a forged Provisional Results Notification to her employer as proof that she had passed an ACCA computer-based FMA-Management Accounting exam when she had not.

3 (e) Miss Thamina Hossain s conduct as set out in any or all of the Allegations in 1(a) to 1(d) above was: i) Dishonest; ii) Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. (f) By reason of her conduct in respect of any or all of 1(a) to 1(e) above, Miss Thamina Hossain is guilty of misconduct pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i). BACKGROUND 4. Miss Hossain has been a student member of ACCA since 18 September On 27 October 2015, Miss Hossain enrolled with Kaplan Financial ( Kaplan ), an ACCA computer-based exam ( CBE ) provider, to attempt ACCA s computer-based FAB-Accountant in Business exam at Kaplan s Nottingham centre on 20 November ACCA's case is that Miss Hossain sat that exam on 20 November, but failed it. Immediately following the exam she was provided with a printed Provisional Result Notification ( PRN ) and her score (40%). Miss Hossain subsequently sent a text to her manager, Person A to say that she had failed the exam. 7. On 26 November 2015, Miss Hossain enrolled with Kaplan to attempt ACCA s computer-based FAB-Accountant in Business exam at Kaplan s Leicester site on 21 December ACCA's case is that Miss Hossain sat the exam on 21 December, but failed it. She was again immediately provided with a PRN which showed her mark as being 46%. On returning to work that day, however, Miss Hossain gave her manager, Person A, a PRN showing that she had been Successful in the exam with a score of 56%.

4 9. In January 2016, Person B replaced Person A as Miss Hossain s manager. 10. On 27 January 2016, Miss Hossain provided Person B with a further PRN showing that she had been Successful in ACCA s computer-based FMA- Management Accountant exam taken at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January 2016 scoring 52%. Miss Hossain informed her employer, Person B, that she would be taking a further exam on 18 March Due to Miss Hossain being off work Person B subsequently contacted Kaplan to ascertain if she had taken the exam. He was informed that Miss Hossain had not been booked to take any exam in March 2016 and that the last ACCA exam she had sat was on 21 December 2015 and she had failed it. 11. On 31 March 2016, Miss Hossain s line manager, Person B, held a formal disciplinary meeting in relation to Miss Hossain. At that meeting Miss Hossain claimed that the PRNs she had provided to her employer were genuine and that confirmatory s about her exam bookings would be amongst her work s, which was not in fact the case. 12. Person B suggested that Miss Hossain should be able to access her exam results record on her MyACCA account but she failed to provide him with access to the account for him to check her record. 13. On 31 March 2016 Person C, the Kaplan Leicester and Nottingham Registered Exam Coordinator and Invigilator, spoke with Miss Hossain by telephone. As a result of Miss Hossain asserting that she had taken an exam at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January 2016, Person C invited her to provide evidence of her attendance and her payment for the exam. Miss Hossain has not provided any such evidence to Person C to date. 14. On 28 April 2016 and 10 May 2016, Miss Hossain responded to ACCA Investigations questions. The questions and Miss Hossain s responses are set out at pages and of the hearing bundle respectively. In summary, in relation to the 21 December 2015 PRN, Miss Hossain denied that she had altered it prior to giving it to her employer. She accepted that such conduct would be dishonest and a breach of the Fundamental Principle of Integrity, although she had not been aware of this fundamental principle. She stated that she had a similar issue with her AAT exams when Kaplan

5 had merged her accounts together and deleted all her results due to her name having been spelt incorrectly. 15. In relation to the 26 January 2016 PRN, Miss Hossain maintained that she had sat the exam at Kaplan Leicester. She said that she had passed the exam and the PRN was correct. She repeated her assertion about the difficulties she had had with Kaplan in respect of her AAT results. She denied manufacturing or creating the PRN dated 26 January 2016 and insisted that she taken the FMA Management Accounting exam at Kaplan Leicester and passed it with a mark of 52%. 16. ACCA wrote to Miss Hossain again on 16 May 2016 inviting her to provide evidence of the booking and payment for the exam that she claimed to have sat on 26 January She replied that she did not have any such evidence and there was no one who could verify that she had sat the exam. She stated that she had not taken a note of her desk number for any of the exams that she had sat. 17. Person C conducted a search of Kaplan s student database and exam calendar records in relation to Miss Hossain. The results showed that she had only attended at Kaplan Nottingham on 20 November 2015 for ACCA CBE F1 (FAB) (Kaplan ID number S11735) and Kaplan Leicester, on 21 December 2015 at 9.30 am for ACCA CBE F1 (FAB) (Kaplan Session ID S11780). 18. Person C also checked Kaplan s records in relation to fees paid by Thamina Hossain. The results showed that a payment of 88 on 27 October 2015 in relation to an ACCA CBE fee plus the admin charge. This related to the exam on 20 November The only other payment recorded was of 88 on 26 November 2015, in relation to an ACCA CBE fee plus admin charge. This related to the exam on 21 December Person C confirmed that the only two booking confirmation s sent to Miss Hossain s address were sent on 27 October 2015 and 26 November 2015 in respect of the exams to be undertaken 20 November 2015 and 21 December 2015 respectively.

6 20. In relation to the 26 January 2016 PRN, Person C stated that the results slip was not of the same quality and not consistent with other result slips given to students. The fonts used for the paper title, the exam location and the exam date appeared to be different from the rest of the document. The fonts were also shaded darker than the surrounding words and there was a suspicious looking shadow under the exam title. She also commented that the exam token reference at the bottom of the sheet was the same as the code used for the exam attempted at Kaplan Leicester on 21 December and it was her understanding that every ACCA exam had a unique exam token code. Further, there were no CBEs run at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January 2016 and, in fact, all members of the invigilation team were at Kaplan Nottingham where CBEs were being held that day. Further, the room at Kaplan Leicester where the CBE exams take place was being used by AAT Spreadsheets students that day. 21. Person C spoke to Miss Hossain about the allegations and asked her to provide Kaplan with evidence of her attendance at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January 2016 in the form of travel/ticket receipts. She also asked her to provide proof of her exam payment for the ACCA F2 FMA exam that Miss Hossain said she had sat at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January Miss Hossain has not provided the information requested. 22. Person D is the Senior Examinations Administrator with ACCA s Examinations Department. In March 2016 he carried out a search of ACCA s CBE system but there was no indication of any post exam changes in relation to the results for 20 November 2015 and 21 December Person D saw copies of the PRNs that Miss Hossain handed to her employer on 21 December 2015 and 25 January He was of the view that they looked unusual. Both had the same exam token information recorded on the bottom of them. This information relates to the exam being attempted and is comprised of a unique exam token number created by the exam centre in relation to the exam being attempted, together with the student s registration number. Each exam token number is unique and should not appear in relation to any other exam attempt. The information on the two PRNs that Miss Hossain gave to her employer, however, contained the same information that related specifically to Miss Hossain s FAB-Accountant in

7 Business exam that she attempted on 21 December 2015 at Kaplan Leicester. 24. Person D also stated that both PRNs provided to Miss Hossain s employer stated that the outcome of the exam was Successful whereas if more than 50% is achieved then the PRN should state Pass. 25. Person D provided copies of the PRNs for Miss Hossain held by ACCA. These show 40% - Unsuccessful Attempt in relation to the exam held on 20 November 2015 and 46% - Unsuccessful Attempt in relation to the exam held on 21 December According to Person D, there is no record of an exam having taken place at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January Following the adjourned hearing in May 2017 Miss Hossain consulted solicitors and, thereafter, submitted a witness statement to ACCA, dated 28 June She reiterated that she had previously had problems with Kaplan deleting her accounts and thus there were no exam results recorded. Miss Hossain criticised ACCA s investigation of the allegations. She produced a PRN from another student, Person E, which had the word Successful not Pass recorded on it. Miss Hossain disputed ACCA s evidence that there had not been an exam in Kaplan Leicester on 26 January 2016 and stated that Kaplan must have failed to keep accurate records. Miss Hossain stated that her former employer had paid for the exam on 26 January As a result of Miss Hossain s assertions that ACCA had not carried out a thorough investigation, ACCA contacted Miss Hossain s former employer. In an , dated 12 July 2017, Person B stated that he had checked the records and found payments made through staff expenses for a CBE exam taken in November 2015 and one in December There were, however, no payments on the system relating to an exam taken by Miss Hossain on 26 January There is also an from the Examinations Administrator at ACCA to the Case Progression Officer in which it is stated that, as far as they are concerned, students would receive a pass on their certificate.

8 30. ACCA also obtained a further statement from Person C. She produced a copy of Person E s PRN for 9 November 2015 that was held on the ACCA CBE exam portal. The percentage was the same on that document and the PRN provided by Miss Hossain. The copy provided by Miss Hossain, however, had Successful recorded on it not Pass as recorded on the copy produced by ACCA. Person C also provided three copies of provisional exam results for Miss Hossain s peers which all show the word Pass not Successful on them. 31. Person C also produced a copy of the provisional PRN for Miss Hossain that was printed at the completion of the exam on 21 December 2015 which has 46% - Unsuccessful Attempt recorded on it. 32. Person C confirmed that there was no ACCA FMA exam scheduled at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January She accepted that there were a couple of duplicate accounts for Miss Hossain but they were either empty or related to AAT. There was only one account that was being used for Miss Hossain s ACCA studies. Person C stated that she asked the caretaker of the building at the exam centre in Leicester to look at the CCTV coverage for 26 January 2016 and he confirmed that it only showed students attending a class that day and not an exam. The CCTV footage is no longer available. Person C produced the attendance registers for classes held at Kaplan Leicester on 26 January 2016, together with the classroom allocation schedule. This showed that Room 7, which is also known as the computer suite, was booked for AAT student classes on that day. 33. Person C gave evidence via telephone link. She confirmed the contents of her statement. The Chairman put a question to her and she replied that she couldn t find any evidence to suggest that an examination had taken place in Leicester in January. Person C also gave evidence that she had never seen successful instead of pass written on an examination certificate. Miss Hossain put it to Person C that if her evidence was correct then her witness, [Person E], must have forged his certificate before sending it to her. 34. At the resumed hearing on 8 November 2017, the Committee heard evidence from Miss Hossain via telephone link.

9 MISS HOSSAIN S EVIDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE 35. Miss Hossain told the Committee that she did not consider that either Kaplan or ACCA had investigated the matter fully. She said that she had asked Kaplan/ACCA to look at CCTV footage of the exam centre in Leicester on 26 January 2015 and to speak to the security guard at the exam centre on that day but it had not done so. She had also told Kaplan/ACCA where she had parked that day but it had not investigated if that was correct or not. Further, ACCA had not spoken to Person E in relation to the certificate that she says he provided to her to forward to ACCA. Miss Hossain also considered that ACCA should have investigated the difficulties she had with her AAT accounts more fully. 36. Miss Hossain was cross-examined by Mr Ismail. Miss Hossain accepted the following in cross-examination: a. That she had failed the ACCA CBE F1 (FAB) exam that took place at 1.00 pm on 20 November 2015 at Kaplan Nottingham; b. She had provided PRNs to her employers in respect of ACCA exams held on 21 December 2015 and 26 January 2016; c. That ACCA s records indicate that she had failed the exam on 21 December 2015 with 46% which corresponded with the result shown on the exam register. Miss Hossain did point out, however, that the results had not been on the register when she had signed it prior to the exam to acknowledge attendance only; and d. That the unique exam token /[F79E03FB-596C-4C28- BB2D-B230FFA5682D]/s88eJJAWsZ9pVYyJ was the same on both the PRNs she had provided to her employer in respect of the exams held on 20 December 2015 and 26 January She could offer no explanation for this.

10 37. Miss Hossain did not accept the following: a. That she had failed the ACCA CBE F1 (FAB) exam that she had resat at 9.30 am on 21 December She maintained that she had passed with 56% as shown on the PRN she provided to her employer; b. That the PRN for the exam on 21 December 2015 had been altered to show 56% instead of 46%; c. That she had forged the PRN provided to her employer in respect of an ACCA FMA-Management Accounting exam at Kaplan Financial Leicester on 26 January Mr Ismail put it to Miss Hossain that the evidence showed that there had not been an exam held at Kaplan Leicester on that day and the room had been used as a classroom for AAT Spreadsheets students on that day but she maintained that she had attended the exam centre in Leicester and had asked Kaplan to investigate CCTV evidence of the car park where she had parked her car that day; d. That she had altered Mr 5 s PRN for an ACCA FAB-Accountant in Business exam held on 9 November 2015 to read 66% - successful instead of 66% - pass that is recorded on the copy of his PRN for that exam held by ACCA; and e. That she had been embarrassed to inform her employer that she had failed the foundation exam on 20 November In cross-examination Miss Hossain stated that she had not been able to send the original certificates to ACCA because her employer had kept hold of them during the course of the disciplinary investigation against her. During panel questions, Miss Hossain was asked about a phone call she had with ACCA in which she had said that the original PRNs were at her parents home and she was unable to gain access to them because she had fallen out with her parents and was no longer living with them. Miss Hossain said that she had been in a bit of a mess at the time.

11 39. Miss Hossain accepted that she had not provided either Kaplan or ACCA with the original print-out of the PRNs that she claimed she received on 21 December 2015 and 26 January 2016 and she now insisted that these were in the possession of her previous employer. 40. Miss Hossain informed the Committee that her employer had not asked to have access to her My ACCA account despite the fact that he had signed a witness statement that indicated she had failed to allow him to have access to the account. ACCA S SUBMISSIONS 41. Mr Ismail, on behalf of ACCA, submitted that the evidence before the Committee clearly proved that the PRN for 20 November 2015 had been altered and the PRN for 26 January 2016 was a false document. He submitted that it was more likely than not that Miss Hossain had altered the PRN she had been provided with following the ACCA computer based FAB- Accountant in Business exam that she had failed on 21 December Mr Ismail submitted that she had submitted the altered/forged PRNs to her employer in an attempt to falsely convince her employer that she had passed the exams when she had not. Mr Ismail submitted that there were a large number of inconsistencies in the case that the Committee could rely upon. MISS HOSSAIN S SUBMISSIONS 42. Miss Hossain submitted that the inconsistencies in her case were because she could not recall everything that she had previously said. She told the Committee that if she had been lying then she would have done a better job of it. She made further submissions to the Committee in relation to what she considered to be an inadequate investigation of the case.

12 DECISION ON ALLEGATION AND REASONS 43. The Committee took note of the submissions of Mr Ismail and Miss Hossain. It accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. ALLEGATIONS 1 (b), (d), (e) and (f) Proved ALLEGATIONS 1 (a) and 1 (c) Not proved 44. The Committee carefully considered the evidence before it and the submissions made by both parties. It bore in mind that the burden of proving a fact in dispute rested with ACCA and that the standard of proof to be applied is the balance of probabilities. The Committee accepted the evidence of Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D and Person E. It was satisfied that the PRN for 21 December 2015 had been deliberately altered to show that Miss Hossain had passed the exam, when she had not. It was also satisfied that the PRN in relation to the exam on 26 January 2016 was a forged document and that Miss Hossain had not sat an exam on that day so could not have passed it. The Committee was also satisfied that Miss Hossain was aware that the two documents gave false information when she gave them to her employer in an attempt to make the employer believe that she had passed two exams when she had failed the one and not even attempted the second. 45. In relation to Allegations 1(a) and (b), on the evidence before it the Committee was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the PRN had been altered to show that Miss Hossain had passed the CBE FAB- Accountant in Business exam, when she had not. ACCA relied on the evidence of Person A, Person B, Person C and Person D. Their evidence proved that Miss Hossain had failed the exam with a result of 46% and had been not successful but she had provided her employer with a PRN showing that she had been successful with a result of 56%. The Committee was satisfied that the discrepancy was due to the PRN being deliberately altered following the exam on 21 December The Committee was also satisfied that the PRN had either been altered by Miss Hossain herself or by another person at her instigation. The Committee was not, however, satisfied to the requisite standard that it was in fact Miss Hossain who altered the

13 PRN, although it found that even if it was not her then she had been complicit with the PRN being altered and was aware that the PRN did not show the correct information when she provided it to her employer to falsely show that she had passed the exam when she had not. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1(a) not proved but Allegation 1(b) proved. 46. In relation to Allegations 1(c) and (d) the Committee was satisfied to the requisite standard that either Miss Hossain or another person, at her instigation, had forged a PRN which she had then submitted to her employer in an attempt to falsely show she had passed the ACCA CBE, FMA- Management Accounting exam when she had not. The Committee determined that the PRN from the exam on 21 December 2015 had been used to create a false PRN for 26 January The evidence before the Committee clearly showed that no such exam had taken place at Kaplan Leicester on that day and the unique exam token information on the PRN related to the exam that Miss Hossain had taken on 21 December Again, however, the Committee was not satisfied, to the requisite standard, that it was in fact Miss Hossain who had forged the PRN, although it found that if it was not her then she had clearly been complicit with the PRN being forged and that she was aware that the PRN was a forgery when she provided it to her employer in order to falsely show that she had passed the exam when she had not. The Committee therefore found Allegation 1(c) not proved but Allegation 1 (d) proved. 48. In relation to Allegations 1(e) and (f), the Committee was satisfied that Miss Hossain s conduct in knowingly providing her employer with an altered PRN in an attempt to deceive the employer into believing that she had passed the exam on 21 December 2015, when she had not, was both dishonest and in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Integrity. The Committee was also satisfied that Miss Hossain had been dishonest and in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Integrity when she provided her employer with a deliberately forged PRN in order to deceive the employer into believing that she had passed an exam on 26 January 2016, when she had not even attempted any such exam. The Committee, therefore, found Allegation 1(e) i) and ii) proved.

14 49. The Committee determined that Miss Hossain s dishonest conduct in relation to Allegations 1(b), (d) and (e) was so serious as to amount to misconduct in that the conduct fell far short of that expected of a student member of ACCA. SANCTION AND REASONS ACCA SUBMISSIONS 50. Mr Ismail submitted that the Committee had found very serious dishonest misconduct against Miss Hossain. He invited the Committee to find that she lacked insight into her misconduct; that the misconduct was persistent in that Miss Hossain had provided false documents to her previous employer on two occasions in an attempt to deceive her employer into believing that she had passed ACCA exams when she had not. Mr Ismail submitted that Miss Hossain displayed a lack of insight into her misconduct and had attempted to blame others for a poor investigation instead of admitting her dishonesty. 51. Mr Ismail referred the Committee to the Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions ( GDS ) and, in particular, C5. He submitted that dishonest misconduct from an ACCA student was clearly a serious departure from relevant professional standards; that the dishonest misconduct had occurred on two occasions; she d attempted to cover up the misconduct; she had persistently denied her misconduct and she had been in breach of the fundamental principle of integrity. Mr Ismail said that Miss Hossain had kept up the façade throughout the investigation and the proceedings. MISS HOSSAIN S SUBMISSIONS 52. Miss Hossain submitted that she was not a dishonest person. She said that she had worked for 8 years in the finance industry and had always been honest. She continued to deny the allegations, informing the Committee that if she d know that the PRNs were altered or forged then she would not have provided them to her previous employer.

15 DECISION ON SANCTION 53. Mr Ismail had previously informed the Committee that there were no previous disciplinary findings against Miss Hossain and the Committee took this into account when considering what, if any, was the appropriate sanction. 54. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser who referred it to Regulation 13(3) of the Regulations and to ACCA s Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions (effective from 1 July 2017). In considering what sanction, if any, to impose the Committee bore in mind the principle of proportionality and the need to balance the public interest against Miss Hossain s own interests. The purpose of any sanction was not to be punitive but to protect members of the public, maintain public confidence in the profession and ACCA, and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. 55. When considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account any aggravating and mitigating features in this case. The principal mitigation for Miss Hossain was that she had no previous disciplinary findings against her since 18 September 2015 when she first registered as a student member of ACCA. The Committee noted, however, that this period of membership was relatively short. The Committee also noted that Miss Hossain had engaged with ACCA s investigation and these proceedings. The Committee also noted that there was no material loss or adverse effect on clients or members of the public. 56. In terms of aggravating features in the case the Committee considered the following to be relevant factors: a. Dishonest misconduct that was a serious departure from the standards expected of a student of ACCA; b. Persistent denial and attempting to put the blame on others; c. Lack of insight into her dishonest misconduct; d. The dishonest misconduct occurred on two occasions; and

16 e. Breach of the fundamental principle of integrity; 57. Given the seriousness of Miss Hossain s dishonest misconduct/breach of the fundamental principle of integrity on two occasions, the Committee determined that it was not appropriate to take no action and that a sanction was required. 58. The Committee considered the available sanctions from the least serious upwards. It considered carefully whether the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose upon Miss Hossain was an admonishment or a reprimand. The Committee, however, determined that to impose one of these sanctions would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the dishonest conduct in this case. It took account of the GDS and noted that most of the factors that should be present for these sanction did not apply in this case. It further noted that a reprimand would usually be applied in situations where the conduct is of a minor nature and there appears to be no continuing risk to the public; it would also be expected that there is sufficient evidence of an individual s understanding and genuine insight into the conduct found proved. This was not applicable in Miss Hossain s case. Again, very few of the factors in the GDS applied in relation to a reprimand. 59. The Committee next considered whether a severe reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose in this case. The Committee, however, had found that Miss Hossain s misconduct on two occasions had been deliberate and pre-meditated dishonest conduct. It also found that she had no insight into her misconduct and, due to her persistent and continued denial, there had been no expression of remorse or regret for her actions. In all the circumstances the Committee determined that a severe reprimand was not a sufficient sanction in light of the need to protect the public and uphold the reputation of the profession. 60. The Committee noted Section E2.1 of the GDS that states: Dishonesty, even when it does not result in direct harm and/or loss, or is related to matters outside the professional sphere undermines trust and confidence in the profession.

17 61. The Committee considered that the majority of circumstances set out in Section C5.1 of the GDS were present in this case. It determined that Miss Hossain s dishonest conduct, in knowingly presenting an altered PRN to her employer to falsely show that she had passed an exam, when she had in fact failed it, and then knowingly presenting a forged PRN in an attempt to deceive her employer into believing that she had passed another exam, which she had not even sat, was a very serious departure from the standards expected of an ACCA student and was fundamentally incompatible with Miss Hossain remaining on the Student Register. In the Committee s view any other sanction would not be sufficient and would undermine public confidence in the profession and ACCA as regulator. 62. The Committee, therefore, determined that the appropriate and proportionate sanction for Miss Hossain was removal from the Student Register. Such an order was necessary to mark the seriousness of the misconduct; to uphold professional standards, maintain confidence in the profession and ACCA as regulator, and to adequately protect the public. The Committee was of the view that no other sanction would adequately reflect the gravity of Miss Hossain s dishonest misconduct. Honesty and integrity go to the heart of the accountancy profession. Miss Hossain s conduct in knowingly presenting the altered PRN of 21 December 2015 and the forged PRN of 26 January 2016, in order to deceive her employer into believing that she had passed two exams, when she had not, was fundamentally incompatible with her being a student of ACCA. The Committee considered that the appropriate period of time before Miss Hossain can apply for readmission as a student of ACCA should be at least three years, given the seriousness of her dishonest misconduct. EFFECTIVE DATE 63. The Committee determined that in the interests of the public the order should have immediate effect.

18 ORDER (i) Miss Thamina Hossain s name shall be removed from ACCA s Student Register with immediate effect. (ii) No application for Miss Hossain s readmission to the Student Register shall be considered until the expiry of three years from the effective date. COSTS ACCA S SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS 64. Mr Ismail, on behalf of ACCA, applied for costs amounting to 16, He invited the Committee to award the full sum of costs applied for. 65. Mr Ismail, informed the Committee that despite the application for costs being over 16,000 it did not, in fact, include the costs of 8 and 9 November He said that some of the costs were due to ACCA having to carry out further investigation, as a result of Miss Hossain s responses, following the adjourned hearing on 24 May Mr Ismail addressed the Committee on the submissions made by Miss Hossain s solicitors in a letter, dated 17 July 2017, that included the submission that the Committee does not have the jurisdiction to award costs against Miss Hossain. Mr Ismail said that this had necessitated ACCA having to obtain a witness statement from Person F, the Student Registration Team Manager at ACCA. 67. Mr Ismail referred the Committee to Person F s statement in which she exhibited the declaration signed by Miss Hossain that includes agreeing to comply with the ACCA Charter, Byelaws, Regulations, and Code of Ethics and Conduct. This declaration was signed by Miss Hossain on 18 September 2015.

19 68. Paragraph 12 of the Royal Charter was referred to. This provides: Persons who immediately prior to the date of this Our Charter were Honorary Members or registered graduates or registered students of the existing Association shall be deemed hereafter to be of similar status in the Association in accordance with the bye-laws subject to the completion by them of such undertaking or requirements as the Council may require of them. He submitted that the same must apply to registered students since the time of the date of the Charter and reminded the Committee that that Miss Hossain had agreed to comply with the ACCA Charter, Bye-laws, Regulations and Code of Ethics and Conduct. 69. Mr Hossain referred the Committee to the documents provided by Miss Hossain. He urged caution in respect of the statement from Miss Hossain s mother due to the document being unsigned. He accepted, however, that it would be reasonable for Miss Hossain to make a contribution towards the household expenses in the family home. MISS HOSSAIN S SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS 70. Miss Hossain asked if her solicitor could address the Committee on the issue of costs. The Committee allowed time for Miss Hossain s solicitor, Mr Martin Cornforth, to be contacted. Mr Cornforth referred the Committee to his letter to ACCA, dated 17 July 2017, in which he addressed the issue of jurisdiction. He pointed out that a student would be unlikely to fully appreciate the terms which they were agreeing to if they were not pointed out to them. He submitted that as it was an online process Miss Hossain would not have received a verbal explanation of ACCA s terms and conditions. He submitted that if Miss Hossain were ordered to pay a large sum of costs then it would prevent her getting on the housing ladder in due course. He also submitted that Miss Hossain should not be held accountable for the costs of the adjourned hearing on 24 May Miss Hossain had provided the Committee with some information as to her current financial means. The Committee had a payslip, dated 31 October 2017, that showed net pay of It also had a copy of Miss Hossain s Creation Loan Annual Statement in respect of a 15,000 loan taken out in March 2015 to purchase a car. Miss Hossain said that she paid back 438 a

20 month. The Committee also saw a Barclaycard statement, dated 2 October 2017, that showed debt of 4, which Miss Hossain was paying off at around 100 a month. The Committee had also seen an unsigned statement from Miss Hossain s mother indicating that her daughter contributes 500 towards the family s household expenses each month. Miss Hossain said that in fact she made various contributions to the household that varied somewhere between 450 and 600 a month. 72. Miss Hossain informed the Committee that she is working as a contractor through an agency and her current contract is due to come to an end in December She also said that as her previous employer had bad mouthed her she was having to travel two hours from her home daily in order to obtain work. DECISION AND REASONS ON COSTS 73. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser who referred it to the fact that Miss Hossain had signed ACCA s Foundations in Accountancy Declaration by which she agreed to comply with ACCA s Royal Charter, Bye-laws, Regulations and Code of Ethics and Conduct. That declaration also provided for a registered student to be made subject to disciplinary action under Bye-law 8. The Legal Adviser again referred the Committee to paragraph 12 of the Charter and Bye-law 3(a) of the Bye-laws, as referred to by Mr Ismail. She also referred the Committee to ACCA s Guide to Cost Orders in Disciplinary Proceedings. 74. The Committee was advised that Regulation 15 provided that costs may be sought to be paid by a relevant person to the Association. A relevant person is defined as including a registered student who has undertaken to abide by and be bound by, inter alia, the Association s Bye-laws and the regulations made under them. 75. The Committee considered the submissions made by Mr Ismail and Mr Cornforth, on behalf of Miss Hossain. It determined that it had jurisdiction to award costs against Miss Hossain on the basis that as well as it being able to infer that the Royal Charter applied to current registered students, Miss Hossain had agreed to comply with ACCA s Charter, Bye-laws and

21 Regulations when she made her online application to become a student of ACCA on 18 September 2015 with all the attendant liabilities. 76. The Committee gave careful consideration as to what would be a reasonable sum to order Miss Hossain to pay ACCA by way of costs. It gave due consideration to Miss Hossain s Statement of Financial Position and the documents that she had provided in relation to her current financial position. It also took into account that her contract would be coming to an end in December 2017, and that she was finding it hard to secure work in her locality. 77. The Committee considered ACCA s investigation of the case and the costs applied for to be reasonable. Taking into account Miss Hossain s limited financial means, however, it concluded that the sum of 2,500 was a fair and reasonable sum for Miss Hossain to pay ACCA by way of costs. ORDER 78. Miss Hossain shall pay ACCA the sum of 2,500. Mr Michael Cann Chairman 9 November 2017