12 / 22
LEGAL c o n t .
1 2
Issue 26 April - June 2014
and professional reputation of the profession to which the
Respondent belongs. It accepted that the interests of that
profession as well as the public it serves are vital and have to
be adequately protected by means of an appropriate
sentence.
The Committee also took into account the contrition displayed
by the Respondent for his misdeeds, the fact that there was no
financial prejudice to persons or entities affected by his
misrepresentations and that he did not obtain undue financial
benefit those factors should not be over-emphasized at the
expense of the interest of the community. In the final analysis
the Respondent was driven by his expediency to please his
client at the expense of his professional obligation to maintain
and display the requisite honesty and professional duties in
both to his client and the profession to which he belongs.
The fraudulent and dishonest conduct of the Respondent is
reprehensible and in the ordinary course would merit removal
from the register of auditors without suspension. However
each matter must be dealt with on its merits. The
recommended suspension strikes a fair balance between the
interest of the Community, the auditing profession and the
respondent.
For the above reasons, charges one to six were taken together
for the purposes of sentence.
?
The Respondent was removed from the register of auditors
with effect from 31 March 2014, which removal was
suspended for a period of five years on conditions;
?
Afine of R100,000 was imposed;
?
The Respondent was ordered to make a contribution of
R150,000 to the costs incurred by the Investigating and
Disciplinary Committees in connection with the
investigation and hearing;
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, and the reasons or a
fair summary of those reasons, without reference to the
name of the Respondent.
FOURTHMATTER
On 12 March 2014 the Committee considered the matter of Mr
T J van Heerden Lochner of Lochner & Associates. The
Respondent was present and represented. The Respondent
pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, four charges levelled
against him.
THECHARGES
Charge One
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening old
disciplinary rules 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.1.20 and 2.1.21.
The first charge dealt with a statutory contravention and
related to the professional services rendered by the
respondent to an unrehabilitated insolvent client which
entailed advising him on the corporate structure and
management of setting up a public company to conduct his
business affairs unlawfully.
Charge Two
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening old
disciplinary rules 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.1.20 and 2.1.21.
The second charge related to a lack of independence in that
the respondent reported on the financial statements of the
public company as auditor and reported on the prospectuses
of the public company as independent reporting accountant.
Charge Three
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening old
disciplinary rules 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.1.20 and 2.1.21.
The third charge related to a failure to report material
irregularities and reportable irregularities which had taken
place or were taking place in the public company and that had
caused or were likely to cause financial loss or prejudice to the
public company.
Charge Four
The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening the old
disciplinary rules 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.1.20 and 2.1.21.
The fourth charge related to the respondent not keeping
proper accounting and secretarial records.
SENTENCE
?
The Respondent's name and his firm's name (Lochner &
Associates) were removed from the register of registered