Disciplinary

PUBLICITY NOTICES

TASSIB HUSSAIN

Charge

In terms of ICAS Rule 13.21, notice is hereby given that the ICAS Investigation Committee has found Mr Tassib Hussain of Keystone Accountants & Business Advisors guilty of professional misconduct on the following grounds:

1. On 15 November 2023, in the crown court at Southwark, Mr Hussain pled guilty to, and was convicted of, the criminal offence of fraud by false representation, 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.

 2. Between June 2021 and November 2023, Mr Hussain used the designatory letters CA and the term Chartered Accountant(s) to describe himself and his firm when his membership had been suspended by an interim order of the ICAS Discipline Tribunal, in breach of the terms of the interim order and the ICAS Rules.

Sanction
Under operation of Investigation Regulation 2.15, Mr Hussain has accepted an order of exclusion from membership.

Commentary
• In April 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority commenced criminal proceedings against Mr Hussain and a third party for the offence of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. The charges related to a series of mortgage applications made between January 2015 and March 2018. It was alleged that Mr Hussain had created false employment documentation to support mortgage applications for clients with insufficient income. As a result of the fraud, lenders granted mortgages to several applicants on a false basis, placing lenders at greater risk of loss. The total value of the mortgages applied for was circa £3.8 million.

• The matters in question occurred when Mr Hussain was a director of The Wizards of Abacus Limited, which traded as Keystone Chartered Accountants (now trading as Keystone Accountants & Business Advisors), based in Nottingham.

• In June 2021, the Discipline Tribunal granted an interim order suspending Mr Hussain from ICAS membership while the criminal proceedings were underway. The order prevented Mr Hussain from referring to himself or his business as Chartered Accountants.

• In November 2023, Mr Hussain pled guilty to, and was convicted of, the indictable offence of fraud by false representation in the criminal proceedings. 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. The Investigation Committee concluded that the criminal conviction is prima facie evidence that Mr Hussain is guilty of professional misconduct, and that he is liable to disciplinary action.

 • The Committee also concluded that Mr Hussain 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.

• Furthermore, there was evidence that Mr Hussain had publicly held himself out as a Chartered Accountant and traded his business under the designation ‘Chartered Accountants’ during the period when he was suspended from ICAS membership. The Committee concluded that this was a breach of the interim suspension order and the ICAS Rules.

• The Committee considered that the facts of the case are extremely serious, in that they involve: (i) financial impropriety by a Chartered Accountant in public practice, (ii) an abuse of a position of trust, and (iii) prejudice or potential prejudice to a third party. Mr Hussain’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.

GRAHAM BRIDGEFORD

 In terms of ICAS Rule 13.21, notice is hereby given that the ICAS Investigation Committee (“the Committee”) has found Mr Graham Bridgeford of James Milne & Co (trading as James Milne Chartered Accountants), a CA member, guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct on the basis of the following:

(i) While engaged to act as an accountant to Firm A, Mr Bridgeford failed to respond to correspondence from an executor in respect of the said business’ accounts (in order to assist with the winding up of an estate) as requested in their correspondence dated 3 October, 19 October, 15 November, 1 December and 16 December 2022 contrary to the fundamental principles of professional competence and due care and professional behaviour, contained in sections R113 and R115 of the ICAS Code of Ethics.

(ii) By not responding in writing to correspondence from the Case Officer dated 22 March, 5 April, 3 May, 10 May, 15 June and 22 June and also failing to respond to telephone calls made to Mr Bridgeford by the Case Officer on 10 May and 6 June 2023, he failed to co-operate fully with the investigation of the complaint to ICAS in breach of Regulation 3.4 of the ICAS Investigation Regulations.

Sanction
Under operation of Investigation Regulation 2.15, Mr Bridgeford has accepted an order of reprimand, payment of a financial penalty of £2,000 and a requirement to pay £2,925 as a contribution towards ICAS’ costs.

 Commentary
• On 26 January 2023, ICAS received a complaint from an executor of an estate, who raised concerns about Mr Bridgeford’s conduct while preparing the final accounts for Firm A that formed part of an executry. In particular, the executor was concerned that Mr Bridgeford had failed on several occasions to respond to his correspondence requesting information related to Firm A’s accounts. 

• Separately, the Committee was disappointed to note that Mr Bridgeford had failed to respond to correspondence from ICAS while investigating the matter, with correspondence going unanswered until a letter from the Convenor of the Committee was issued to Mr Bridgeford in June 2023 reminding him of his duty to co-operate. Mr Bridgeford then failed to respond to a further deadline set by ICAS.

• On responding to the complaint, Mr Bridgeford advised ICAS that there were personal circumstances which had affected his ability to respond. Nonetheless, the Committee was of the view that Mr Bridgeford still had a duty to respond to ICAS as his regulator and to act professionally and diligently in all engagements.

• While acknowledging that the information requested by the executor has since been provided to Firm A’s new advisors, the Committee considered that Mr Bridgeford’s failure to provide this in a complete and timely manner breached the requirements of the ICAS Code of Ethics which requires members to act with diligence and professionalism in all client work.

• Further in failing to respond to ICAS, Mr Bridgeford was in breach of Investigation Regulation 3.4 which places a duty on members to co-operate fully and promptly with the investigation of a complaint.

• The Committee concluded that Mr Bridgeford’s conduct fell below the standards to be expected of an ICAS member, and that he was guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

• In determining the appropriate level of sanction, the Committee had regard to the explanation provided by Mr Bridgeford for his failings, concluding that an order of reprimand was sufficient to allow it to issue a caution as to future conduct.

• The Committee considers that the finding should serve as a reminder to all CAs of the need for the investigation of a complaint by ICAS to be treated with priority.

SANDRA GAULT

In terms of ICAS Rule 13.21, notice is hereby given that the ICAS Investigation Committee has found Ms Sandra Gault, formerly of SBP Accountants, guilty of professional incompetence on the basis of the following:

On 30 August 2021, Ms Gault signed the Independent Examiner’s Report to the Trustees of Association A (“the Association”) for the period ended 31 May 2021, when she failed to properly carry out the Independent Examination, insofar as she failed to ensure that the accounts, including the Trustees’ Annual Report, were correctly prepared in accordance with The Charities Accounts (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (as amended) and Charities SORP (FRS 102) ‘Accounting and Reporting by Charities: Statement of Recommended Practice’, in breach of the fundamental principle of professional competence and due care contained in section R113.1 of the Code of Ethics.

Sanction
Under operation of Investigation Regulation 2.15, Ms Gault has accepted an order of reprimand.

Commentary
• In October 2021, ICAS received a complaint from a third party which raised concerns about the disclosures within the accounts of the Association for the period ended 31 May 2021. The accounts had been prepared and independently examined by Ms Gault.

• The Association is a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Association (SCIO). Prior to incorporation, the work of the SCIO was carried out through an unincorporated association. The complaint raised concerns that Ms Gault, as independent examiner, had failed to ensure that the accounts of the Association (i) included all information required under Scottish charity legislation and (ii) were in the appropriate statutory format, with particular reference to the transfer of funds and assets from the previous unincorporated association.

• Responding to the complaint, Ms Gault advised that the 2021 accounts of the Association had required to be corrected on account of the disclosure errors. In preparing an amended set of accounts, the trustees had agreed to prepare simplified receipts and payments accounts, rather than the fully accrued accounts that were the subject of the concerns.

• While the Committee acknowledged that Ms Gault subsequently prepared an amended set of accounts that mainly rectified the disclosure errors noted by the complainer, the Committee expressed concern that the exercise to amend the accounts had been prompted by the receipt of the complainer’s concerns. Had it not been for the intervention of the complainer, the original accounts would have been filed with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) and available to the public on request.

• The Committee observed that the role of the independent examiner is to independently scrutinise a charity’s accounts, therefore playing a key part in maintaining public trust and confidence in charities. In this instance, the Committee considered that the accounts were materially misstated by the impact of the transfer of funds from the previous unincorporated association.

• Overall, the Committee was disappointed to note that Ms Gault had not shown the competence required to prepare the accounts on behalf of the charity. The accounts contained fundamental and basic errors that were not acceptable, especially where a charity had chosen to entrust the role of independent examiner to a CA.

• While acknowledging that the errors were limited to a single client engagement and one financial period, taking account of the number of errors, the Committee considered that Ms Gault’s failings fell within the definition of professional incompetence. The Committee was therefore content that a disciplinary sanction should be applied and that an order of reprimand was sufficient to address the level of seriousness of the errors, which warranted a stronger sanction than a caution, but where the element of ongoing risk is considered to be relatively low.

• Acknowledging that Ms Gault appeared to have been experiencing difficult personal circumstances at the time the errors were made, the Committee decided that no financial penalty should be applied.

• The Committee considers that this case serves as a reminder to all CAs undertaking independent examination work for charities to ensure that they act diligently and in accordance with the professional standards as required by section 113 of the ICAS Code of Ethics.