10 / 22
1 0
Issue 26 April - June 2014
LEGAL c o n t .
The
first practitioner
was fined R100,000, R50,000 of
was suspended for three years on conditions, with a
con
tribution of R5 000 towards costs, and publication in
general terms. The
second practitioner
was fined
R150,000, R75,000 of which was suspended for three
years on conditions with a contribution of R5,000 towards
costs, and publication in general terms.
Two matters
were
referred back
to the Investigating
committee for reconsideration.
Decision to charge and matter referred to the
Disciplinary Committee
Three
matters were referred to the Disciplinary
Committee for disciplinary hearings.
DISCIPLINARYCOMMITTEE
The Disciplinary Committee sat three times during this period
(on 16 and 17January, 10 and 12March), to hear four matters.
FIRSTMATTER
On 16 and 17 January 2014 the Committee considered the
matter of Mr T who was present and represented. This was a
matter referred by the Auditor-General South Africa (“Auditor
General”). The Respondent had been in the employ of the
Auditor General at the time of the offences, but was currently in
public practise. At the commencement of the proceedings the
Respondent pleaded not guilty to all three charges of improper
conduct, however, on day two of the proceedings, the
Respondent admitted guilt in respect of charges two and
three. The plea was accepted.
THECHARGES
Charge Two
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening rules
regarding improper conduct 2.4, 2.6, and 2.17.
The second charge related to the respondent having amended
the audit report of a trading entity, by removing non-
compliance issues, despite having been advised by his
superior not to do so, and without following the Auditor
General’s standard procedure where there were differing
views on an audit report.
which
Charge Three
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening rules
regarding improper conduct 2.4, 2.6, and 2.17.
The third charge flowed from the second charge, and dealt
with the respondent dishonestly advising an employee at the
Auditor General that he had obtained permission from his
superior, at the time, to amend the audit report on the financial
statements of the trading entity by removing the material
findings relating to non-compliance.
SENTENCE
The Committee had to give careful consideration to the fact
that the offences involved an element of dishonesty and
ordinarily once there is an element of dishonesty it is an
offence which results in the ultimate sanction which is a
permanent removal from the register. However the Committee
took into account a number of features of this matter which
made it distinguishable from those matters in which the
ultimate sanction for these purposes had been imposed.
These included the fact that the respondent was a relatively
recent entrant to the profession and was relatively
inexperienced at the time of the offences concerned. He had
personal commitments to his family, including three children
and had expressed unequivocal remorse and expressly
acknowledged that he committed an extremely serious lapse
of judgment which gave rise to the offences in respect of which
he had pleaded guilty.
The sentence imposed was as follows:
?
The Respondent was removed from the register of auditors
with effect from 18 January 2014, which sentence was
suspended for a period of five years on conditions;
?
The Respondent was ordered to make a contribution of
R278,000 to the costs incurred by the Investigating and
Disciplinary Committees in connection with the
investigation and hearing, which amount included R28,000
wasted costs incurred by the Board in respect of a
postponement granted to the Respondent;
?
Publication in IRBA News of the facts of the matter, the
charges, the fact that the Respondent pleaded guilty to the
charges and the sentence imposed, without reference to
the name of the Respondent.