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: The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury

Square, London, WC1A 2LP

Committee: Mr Michael Cann (Chairman)

Ms Wanda Rossiter (Accountant)

Dr Pamela Ormerod (Lay)

Legal Adviser: Miss Juliet Gibbon

Persons present

and capacity: Mr Mohammed Ismail (ACCA Case Presenter)

Miss Thamina Hossain (Student, by telephone)

Mr Richard Lorkin (Hearings Officer)

Observers: None

Summary: 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

2017.

2. The Committee had a hearing bundle of papers, numbered A-Y and 1-97 and

eight additional bundles, numbered pages 98-125, 130-134, 135-146 147-

157, 158-192, 193-194, 195-207D and 208 from the previous hearing. It also

had two additional bundles, numbered 209-291, 292-298, 299-300 and 301-

302, 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

54-70.

3. 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 computer-

based 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.

(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

2015.

5. 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 2015.

6. 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 2016.

8. 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%.

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 2016. 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 emails about her exam bookings would be

amongst her work emails, 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 19-20 and 25-26 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

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 2016. 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 2015. 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 2015.

19. Person C confirmed that the only two booking confirmation emails sent to

Miss Hossain’s email 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.

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 2016. 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 2015.

23. Person D saw copies of the PRNs that Miss Hossain handed to her employer

on 21 December 2015 and 25 January 2016. 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

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 2015.

26. According to Person D, there is no record of an exam having taken place at

Kaplan Leicester on 26 January 2016.

27. Following the adjourned hearing in May 2017 Miss Hossain consulted

solicitors and, thereafter, submitted a witness statement to ACCA, dated 28

June 2017. 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 2016.

28. 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 email, 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 2015. There were, however,

no payments on the system relating to an exam taken by Miss Hossain on 26

January 2016.

29. There is also an email 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.

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 2016. 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.

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 “3518455/[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 2016. She could offer no

explanation for this.

37. Miss Hossain did not accept the following:

a. That she had failed the ACCA CBE F1 (FAB) exam that she had re-

sat at 9.30 am on 21 December 2015. 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 2016. 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 2015.

38. 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.

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 2015. 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.

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 2015. 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

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 2016. 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 2015.

47. 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.

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.

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

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”.

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.

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 £16,741.46. 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

2017. 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 2017.

66. 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.

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 2017.

71. 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 £958.33. 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

month. The Committee also saw a Barclaycard statement, dated 2 October

2017, that showed debt of £4,349.06 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 2017. 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

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