DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
In the matter of:
Miss Angelika Gorb
Heard on:
Thursday 8 December 2016
Location:
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury
Square, London, WC1A 2LP
Committee:
Mrs Kathryn Douglas (Chairman), Ms Andrea
White (Accountant), Mr Grahame Owen (Lay)
Legal Adviser:
Miss Judith Chrystie
Persons present
and capacity:
Miss Angelika Gorb (Student)
Miss Diana Seferyan (Student – case against
Miss Gorb joined to that of Miss Seferyan)
Ms Victoria Gainza (Case Presenter, ACCA)
Miss Sophie Cubillo-Barsi (Hearings Officer)
1. Miss Gorb attended the hearing but was not represented.
ALLEGATION
2. The Committee was originally asked to consider the following allegation:
Allegation 1
(a) Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i), Miss Gorb is guilty of misconduct by
reason of submitting to ACCA between 19 November 2012 and 12
December 2013, false medical letters in support of a request for a
refund for ACCA examination fees
(b) Miss Gorb’s conduct as set out in 1(a) is:
(i)
Dishonest
(ii)
Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity as
applicable in 2012 and 2013
3. ACCA applied for the allegation to be amended as follows:
a. to separate the phrase,‘Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i), Miss Gorb is
guilty of misconduct by reason’ from paragraph 1(a) so that the
allegation of misconduct applied to both paragraph 1(a) and 1(b);
b. to replace the word ‘refund’ with the term ‘credit’ on the basis that
Miss Gorb submitted that she did not seek a refund and ACCA did
not offer refunds but credits to be used as examination fees at
future dates.
4. Miss Gorb agreed to the amendments being made as she wished the
allegations to be accurate. She admitted that she had submitted the
false letters to obtain a deferral and an examination fee credit and
explained that although she obtained a refund as a result of the third
false letter, the refund had been initiated by ACCA and had not been
requested by her.
5. The Committee determined to exercise its discretion at regulation 10(5)
of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2014 (as amended on 1
January 2016) (‘the Regulations’) to order the proposed amendments.
Having explored Miss Gorb’s understanding of the substance of the case
against her, the Committee was satisfied that the amendments proposed
clarified the meaning of the allegations for all parties, would be in the
interest of justice and, importantly, did not prejudice Miss Gorb in the
conduct of her defence.
6. The Committee considered the following amended allegation:
Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) Miss Gorb is guilty of misconduct in that:
(a) She submitted to ACCA between 19 November 2012 and 12
December 2013, false medical letters in support of a request for a
credit for ACCA examination fees;
(b) Her conduct as set out in (a) is:
(i)
Dishonest
(ii)
Contrary to the Fundamental Principle of Integrity as
applicable in 2012 and 2013
BRIEF BACKGROUND
7. Miss Gorb became a student of ACCA on 31 December 2006.
8. In written and oral submissions, ACCA argued that:
a. Miss Gorb had been withdrawn from seven exams over five
sessions having submitted medical certificates. Each certificate
(apart from that dated 8th January 2014), was identical and signed
by the same locum GP (Dr A), but the dates on the letters were in
different fonts and sizes.
b. Miss Gorb’s medical records contained no reference to the
medical letters dated 26 October 2012, 21 May 2013 and 21
November 2013, which were, according to a witness statement
from an ACCA Complaints Officer, submitted to ACCA by Miss
Gorb on 19 November 2012, 16 May 2013 and 12 December
2013.
c. Miss Gorb’s actions were clearly dishonest; she submitted false
documents to her regulator to secure her a financial credit that
would not otherwise have been available and nothing raised by
Miss Gorb affected her action meeting the test for dishonesty in
law.
d. Miss Gorb had breached the principle of integrity as integrity is
synonymous with honesty.
e. Miss Gorb’s conduct constituted misconduct as it demonstrated a
lack of professional responsibility and brought, or was likely to
bring, discredit to her, to ACCA and to the accountancy profession
in general. Whilst it was clear that she had genuine medical letters
before and after the period contained in the Allegation, the fact
that she had falsified letters over a significant period of time with
the intention to obtain examination fee credits was conduct that fell
far below the standards expected of someone in her position.
9. Miss Gorb had admitted the facts of the case in a letter to ACCA dated
19 February 2016, including that she had been dishonest.
She
confirmed her admissions at the hearing, and additionally admitted that
she had breached the Fundamental Principle of Integrity in a professional
sense and she accepted that her conduct amounted to misconduct.
10. Miss Gorb’s explanation for her conduct was taken in private session
following a decision by the Committee to exclude the public under
regulation 11 of the Regulations. This evidence given by Miss Gorb is
contained in Annex A.
DECISION ON FACTS/ALLEGATIONS AND REASONS
11. Miss Gorb admitted the factual basis of the Allegation, namely, that she
falsified three medical letters and submitted these to ACCA and that she
did so in order to obtain credits for examination fees.
12. On the basis of Miss Gorb’s admissions the Committee found the factual
basis of the Allegation 1 (a) proved.
13. The Committee considered Allegation 1 (b) and was satisfied that Miss
Gorb’s conduct was plainly dishonest. In the Committee’s view, the
ordinary reasonable, honest person, whether a professional or otherwise,
would regard falsifying medical letters on three separate occasions and
submitting them to a regulatory body with the intention to obtain a
financial gain as dishonest conduct – this was a serious falsification.
Miss Gorb accepted she was – and would be regarded as – dishonest.
14. Miss Gorb admitted – and the Committee found - that she had breached
the Fundamental Principle of Integrity; the Principle requires the student
to be honest and Miss Gorb was dishonest.
15. The Committee went on to consider whether the facts, as admitted and
found proved, amounted to misconduct. Miss Gorb accepted that she
was guilty of misconduct but submitted that she was suffering from a
health problem and financial difficulties (the details of which were given in
private session) at the time she falsified and submitted the medical
letters. Further, she submitted, that she had been unable to obtain
genuine letters from her GP as she could not afford the fees charged by
her doctor for preparing such letters.
16. The Committee recognised that matters of personal mitigation were not
relevant to the question of whether her admitted conduct amounted to
misconduct. The Committee was satisfied that Miss Gorb’s actions fell
seriously short of the standards of conduct expected of a student
accountant. Miss Gorb’s actions in deliberately falsifying documents and
submitting them to her regulator on three separate occasions amounted
to conduct that accountants would consider both deplorable and worthy
of moral opprobrium. The Committee judged that Miss Gorb was guilty of
misconduct.
SANCTION AND REASONS
17. The Committee had regard to the Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions (as
effective from 1 December), which it carefully and closely examined. The
Committee noted that the Guidance identified that ethical conduct which
involved deceiving a regulator and failing to act with integrity – which is
what Miss Gorb did – was regarded as very serious
18. The Committee recognised that Miss Gorb had no previous disciplinary
history. Miss Gorb had expressed genuine remorse, had demonstrated
significant insight and had an understanding of the gravity of her failings.
She had participated fully and professionally in today’s proceedings.
Although Miss Gorb had been unresponsive in the early stages of the
investigation and had falsely suggested that parts of her medical notes
had been lost, she had made a full and frank admission in February 2016
and before the Committee and had not sought to use the credit with
ACCA or continue with her accountancy studies.
19. Miss Gorb had personal mitigation in the form of her health problems and
financial difficulties (details of which were given in private session).
20. Bearing the mitigation closely in mind, the Committee considered what
sanction would be the minimum sufficient to conclude the matter in the
public interest. It recognised that it needed to be proportionate.
21. The Committee found the nature of the misconduct and related
dishonesty to be very serious and significant – Miss Gorb deliberately
falsified letters on three occasions to deceive her regulator into providing
a credit – the misconduct was not an isolated incident. The Committee
considered that it would be insufficient to conclude this matter with no
order, an admonishment or some form of reprimand serious or otherwise.
These sanctions would not reflect the seriousness of the planned and
repeated conduct and dishonest intention behind it.
22. The Committee considered that the only appropriate and proportionate
order was to remove Miss Gorb’s name from the student register.
However, notwithstanding the unacceptable nature of her conduct, given
her current insight and understanding of the seriousness of her actions,
the Committee did not consider it was necessary to prohibit Miss Gorb
from making an application for restoration to the student register for any
minimum period – although it recognised that no application can be made
in any case for a period of 12 months after an order for removal takes
effect.
23. The Committee, therefore, ordered that Miss Gorb’s name should be
removed from the student register. The Committee considered that there
was no public interest in ordering that this order should have immediate
effect. The Order will therefore take effect at the expiration of the period
within which any appeal must be made.
COSTS AND REASONS
24. ACCA claimed costs in the sum of £3,463.50.
25. Under Regulation 15(1) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations
2014, the Disciplinary Committee recognised that it could direct that the
relevant person pay such sum by way of costs to the ACCA as it
considered appropriate.
26. The Committee considered that it was appropriate to discount the level of
costs. ACCA’s claim included sums relating to allegations that were not
pursued and the costs claimed for the Case Presenter for this hearing
had been estimated at a higher sum than her actual fees.
27. In addition, it considered Miss Gorb’s means to pay the costs of the case.
It recognised that she was experiencing significant financial difficulties
and it had received a bundle of evidence supporting her oral submissions
regarding her severe financial hardship.
28. As a consequence, the Committee considered that the cost awarded to
ACCA should be limited to £250.
29. Accordingly, the Committee ordered that Miss Gorb should pay ACCA’s
costs of these proceedings in the sum of £250.
Mrs Kathryn Douglas
Chairman
8 December 2016