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: Kwek Hui Ying Heard on: Tuesday, 14 June 2016 Location: ACCA Offices, The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6AU Committee: Mr John Wilson (Chairman, Accountant), Mr Paul Moulder (Lay) and Mr John Walsh (Lay) Legal Adviser: Mr David Marshall Persons present: And capacity Mr Paul Renteurs (ACCA Case Presenter) Ms Pamella Ramphal (Hearings Officer) Observers: none 1. The Committee heard an allegation of misconduct against Ms Kwek Hui Ying, a student of ACCA, in relation to an examination. Mr Renteurs appeared for ACCA. Ms Kwek was not present or represented. PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE 2. The Committee was satisfied that Ms Kwek had been served with the documents required by regulation 10(7) of The Chartered Certified Accountants Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014, amended 2016 in accordance with regulation 22. The required documents were contained in the papers before the committee. There was evidence that they were sent by post to the registered address, and by , on 11 May A Royal Mail Track & Trace report stated that the letter was delivered on 20 May The Committee noted that Ms Kwek had informed ACCA by the Case Management Form that she did not intend to attend the hearing, either in person or by video or telephone link, and was content for the hearing to proceed in her absence. She confirmed in s that she would not attend. On 16 May 2016 she gave some reasons why she could not attend. ACCA

2 informed her that she could request an adjournment but on 8 June 2016 she ed ACCA to say that she would not attend and that she expected the hearing to proceed in her absence. The Committee was satisfied that she did not wish to attend and that it would be both fair to her and in the public interest to proceed in her absence. PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS 4. In the Case Management Form Ms Kwek asked for her case to be heard in private for the interests of protection of the private life of my family (including my husband and children). I also hope that the case be heard in private in the interests of [illegible] and public order. No further reasons have been put forward. 5. Mr Renteurs opposed the application. He submitted that there was nothing exceptional about this hearing that could justify holding all or part of it in private. 6. The Legal Adviser advised that the Committee could only exclude the public on the grounds that there were exceptional circumstances which outweigh the public interest in the hearing being open to the public. He referred to case law indicating that there was a strong public policy in favour of conducting regulatory hearings in public. 7. The Committee recognised that Ms Kwek and her family might experience embarrassment as a result of this hearing, but that was true of any registrant subject to disciplinary proceedings. The Committee did not consider that there were any exceptional circumstances which could justify holding this hearing in private. The Committee refused the application. ALLEGATIONS 8. Ms Kwek faced the following allegations: Allegation 1(a) Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) it is alleged that Ms Kwek Hui Ying is guilty of misconduct by reason of possessing unauthorised materials, which she intended to use to gain an unfair advantage, during an F3 examination on 24 May 2012, contrary to Examination Regulation 7.

3 Allegation 1 (b) Ms Kwek Hui Ying s conduct in respect of Allegation 1 (a) above is i. Dishonest ii. Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity Or Allegation 2 Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii) it is alleged that Ms Kwek Hui Ying is liable to disciplinary action by reason of possessing unauthorised materials during an F3 examination on 24 May 2012, contrary to Examination Regulation 6. DECISION ON FACTS/ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS 9. Miss Kwek completed ACCA s Case Management Form on 25 February In that document she admitted certain facts, namely possessed unauthorised materials during F3 examination. The Committee found those facts proved. 10. The Committee heard no oral evidence. It saw a brief report from the invigilator which stated 10 minutes after the commencement of the examination, we found her in possession with 2 pages of A4 size written with written notes. In subsequent s it was explained that the sheets were found clipped together with a receipt that she would be expected to bring to the exam. 11. Examination Regulation 5 stated that You are not allowed to take to your exam desk any notes. The examination instructions stated that all items other than those listed on the attendance docket were to be removed before the start of the examination. 12. The Committee was provided with a copy of the two sheets which were filled on both sides with small, closely spaced, hand writing. The Committee saw a brief report on the content of the sheets dated 11 October 2013 which stated: The materials consist of quite detailed notes that seem to cover all areas of the syllabus. Would definitely have been relevant to this exam. 13. The Committee was satisfied that Ms Kwek was in possession of the two

4 sheets during the examination, that they were unauthorised, and that they were relevant. Examination Regulation 8 states that in these circumstances it will be assumed that the student intended to use them to gain an unfair advantage in the exam, unless the student proves the contrary. 14. The only recorded response from Ms Kwek was in a brief Student Interview Form dated 1 June 2012 and signed by Ms Kwek. This included: Student mentioned the following: 2) unauthorised material was put together with her receipt 3) student mentioned that she was too anxious and not knowing that materials are brought into the exam venue 15. It is possible that this was a statement that Ms Kwek was not aware that she had brought the materials to the examination. However, the Committee did not consider that it was sufficient to establish, on the balance of probabilities that she did not intend to use the notes to gain an unfair advantage. On the contrary, the fact that the notes were compact and that they were clipped to a document which was not unauthorised indicates deliberate concealment. The Committee concluded that Ms Kwek did intend to use the notes to gain an unfair advantage. 16. The Committee considered that such conduct would be regarded as dishonest by any member of the public or accountancy student. It also considered that Ms Kwek would have known that it was dishonest. It noted that she had admitted misconduct in the Case Management Form. 17. The Committee found Allegation 1 proved in its entirety. Accordingly, it did not go on to consider Allegation 2. SANCTION(S) AND REASONS 18. The Committee carefully considered what sanction, if any, to impose having regard to ACCA s Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions (April 2016). 19. Having found that Ms Kwek acted dishonestly, the Committee was satisfied that it was necessary to impose a sanction.

5 20. The Committee first considered whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Committee was told that Ms Kwek was of previous good character. She had made a partial admission. She had cooperated with the investigation. There were no aggravating factors. 21. The Committee first considered the sanctions of admonishment and reprimand. However, it concluded that the misconduct in this case was far too serious to be marked by such sanctions. The guidance for reprimand states that it would usually be applied in situations where the conduct is of a minor nature. The dishonesty in this case cannot be regarded as minor. 22. The Committee next considered the sanction of severe reprimand. The Guidance states that for this sanction to be appropriate it would be expected that there would be sufficient evidence of an individual s understanding and genuine insight into the conduct found proved. The Committee had no information about Ms Kwek s attitude to her misconduct. Few of the specific factors mentioned in the guidance under severe reprimand were present in this case. 23. The Committee regarded Ms Kwek s actions as very serious. One of the foundations of a profession is the integrity of the system by which members enter that profession. Cheating in examinations is a direct attack on the profession and its values. The Committee concluded that the minimum sanction necessary to mark the seriousness of their misconduct was removal from the student register. COSTS AND REASONS 24. Mr Renteurs applied for costs totalling 2, The Committee was satisfied that ACCA was justified in bringing these proceedings and entitled to its costs in principle. The Committee had no information as to Ms Kwek s means. It noted that there had been considerable delay by ACCA in conducting its investigation. It considered that the costs would have been increased by that delay. The Committee decided to award 2, The Committee ordered that Ms Kwek Hui Ying: (a) (b) Be removed from the student register; Pay 2,500 to ACCA as costs.

6 EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER 26. The orders in this case shall take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period referred to in the Appeal Regulations. John Wilson Chairman 14 June 2016