Publicity notices

Prasad Khedekar  

Prasad Khedekar, student member, has been excluded from membership of ICAS and declared unfit to become a member of ICAS following a Discipline Tribunal held in September 2026.

The Discipline Tribunal found Mr Khedekar guilty as follows:

(i) that between 17 November 2022 and 30 October 2023, the defender made 176 claims against the firm in respect of travel expenses, each of which was supported by a voucher which the defender had either fabricated or had manipulated so that the sum claimed was higher than the sum actually expended by him; and

(ii) that the total amount of the false claims made by him to the firm by this means was £12,646.38.

His actions were dishonest in breach of the fundamental principles of integrity and professional behaviour in sections 111 and 115 of the Code of Ethics and thereby guilty of professional misconduct under Rule 13.1.2 of the ICAS Rules.

Mark Stewart

In terms of ICAS Rule 13.21, notice is hereby given that the ICAS Investigation Committee has found ICAS member Mark Stewart, of the firm Stewart Accounting Services, liable to disciplinary action in respect of the following charge:

While engaged as the accountant for Company A (‘the company’), Mr Stewart failed to deliver the management accounts for the quarter ended 31 December 2022, and for the years ended 31 December 2023 and 2024 within a reasonable timeframe. In doing so, he failed to act diligently or on a timely basis, in accordance with the requirements of an assignment, which is a breach of the fundamental principle of professional competence and due care in the ICAS Code of Ethics.

Sanction
Under operation of Investigation Regulations 2.15, Mr Stewart has accepted an order of reprimand, with a financial penalty in the sum of £3,000 and a requirement to pay £1,975 in respect of ICAS’ costs.

Commentary
• The member was engaged from September 2022 to provide various accountancy services to the company, including the preparation of quarterly management accounts.

• In June 2025, ICAS received a complaint concerning the late preparation and delivery of management accounts for the quarter ended 31 December 2022 and the years ended 31 December 2023 and 2024. The complaint was referred to ICAS’ Investigation Committee, which made enquiries into the matter. After due consideration, the Committee determined that the service provided by the member in respect of the quarterly management accounts fell below the standards expected and the member’s conduct fell within the definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct.

• The Committee considered that the primary purpose of management accounts is to provide those running a company with current financial information so that timely and informed management decisions can be made. By failing to provide the management accounts within a reasonable timeframe, the member undermined their usefulness to the company.

• The member explained that it had been agreed that the management accounts would be discussed at quarterly meetings, but these meetings did not take place, with the result that preparation of the accounts fell off his radar. The Committee considered that the member should nevertheless have prepared and provided the accounts by email shortly after each quarter end, regardless of whether a meeting had been arranged.

• The Committee also noted that the member was aware that management accounts for the quarter ended 31 December 2022 and the year ended 31 December 2023 had not been provided in a timely manner. It considered that he had sufficient opportunity to put measures in place to prevent the issue recurring for the year ended 31 December 2024 but failed to do so.

• In reaching its decision on sanction, the Committee had regard to ICAS’ Sanctions Guidance. Overall, the Committee ultimately considered that the breaches arose due to inadequate attention to a client’s affairs and that the member had failed to comply with the fundamental ethical principle of professional competence and due care, as contained in the ICAS Code of Ethics. The Committee therefore considered that it was appropriate to base the sanction on the indicative sanctions set out in Part 4(A) and Part 6(B) of the Sanctions Guidance. Taking account of all relevant factors, including that the breach was limited to one client, albeit over a three-year engagement period, the Committee agreed that it was appropriate to offer a consent order for reprimand.