Disciplinary

PUBLICITY NOTICES

STEVEN BALFOUR

In terms of ICAS Rule 13.21, notice is hereby given that the ICAS Investigation Committee has found Steven Balfour guilty of professional misconduct on the following grounds:

In May 2023, at Aberdeen Sheriff Court, he was found guilty of the criminal charges of:

1. taking, permitting to be taken or making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, contrary to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, Section 52(1)(a) as amended, and

2. causing an older child to look at sexual images, contrary to Section 33(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, and communicating indecently with an older child, contrary to Section 34(1) of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, which brings discredit to him, ICAS and the profession of accountancy. He has failed to adhere to the fundamental principle of professional behaviour contained in Section 115 of the ICAS Code of Ethics and is therefore liable to disciplinary action under ICAS Rule 13.1.2.

Sanction
Under operation of Investigation Regulation 2.15, Mr Balfour has accepted an order of exclusion from membership, and a requirement to pay £695 in respect of the costs of the investigation. 

Commentary
• In July 2023, it came to ICAS’ attention that Mr Balfour had been convicted of two serious criminal charges in Aberdeen Sheriff Court and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. The matter had received some press coverage.

• The ICAS Rules provide that a member shall be presumed to be guilty of professional misconduct if convicted in the United Kingdom of an indictable offence or sentenced to imprisonment on summary complaint. The Investigation Committee concluded that the criminal conviction is prima facie evidence that Mr Balfour is guilty of professional misconduct, and that he is liable to disciplinary action.

• The Committee also concluded that Mr Balfour has breached the fundamental principle of professional behaviour as set out in section 115 of the ICAS Code of Ethics, in that he failed to avoid actions which he knew (or should have known) would discredit the accountancy profession.

• Mr Balfour’s conduct fell far below the standards that the public reasonably expects of chartered accountants and is incompatible with his continued membership of ICAS. As such, the Committee concluded that no lesser penalty than exclusion was appropriate.