DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
In the matter of:
Miss Katie Crilly
Heard on:
Wednesday 4 March 2015
Location:
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury
Square, London, WC1A 2LP
Committee:
Ms Helen Carter (Chairman), Mrs Judith Glover
(Accountant), Mr George Tranter (Lay)
Legal Adviser:
Mr Michael Conor Heaney
Persons present and capacity:
Ms Sarah Cawley - Wilkinson (Case Presenter)
Miss Kathryn Reece (Committee Officer)
Observers:
PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS/SERVICE OF PAPERS
1.
ACCA was represented by Miss Sarah Cawley-Wilkinson. Miss Crilly did not
attend the hearing and was not represented. The Committee was satisfied
that Miss Crilly had been served with the documents referred to in regulation
9(7) of The Chartered Certified Accountants Complaints and Disciplinary
Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) in accordance with regulation 9(1). The
required documents were contained in the papers before the Committee.
The papers confirm that they were sent to Miss Crilly at her registered
address by way of letter from ACCA on 9 January 2015. They were also
sent to Miss Crilly at HMP Holloway on 9 January 2015, where she is
serving a sentence of imprisonment. The letter sent to Miss Crilly at her
registered address was signed for in the name of Crilly on 10 January 2015.
The letter sent to Miss Crilly at HMP Holloway was also signed for, on this
occasion in the name of Hunter, on 12 January 2015. The Committee was
satisfied that service of the proceedings was effected in accordance with
regulations 9 and 21.
PROCEEDING IN ABSENCE
2.
In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in her absence the
Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Adviser. The Committee
balanced the interests of Miss Crilly against the interests of ACCA to ensure
that cases were dealt with expeditiously and the public interest. In emails
dated 27 January and 3 March 2015, from Miss Crilly’s solicitor who
represented her in the criminal proceedings against her, it was confirmed
that Miss Crilly would not be attending the scheduled hearing. The
Committee was also informed that Miss Crilly’s solicitor would not be
present at the hearing to represent her interests. No request was made
from either Miss Crilly or the solicitor acting on her behalf for an
adjournment of the proceedings to a later date. It was clear from the totality
of the correspondence passing between ACCA and her solicitor that Miss
Crilly was aware of the hearing date and a deliberate decision had been
made by Miss Crilly not to attend the hearing or be represented at it. The
Committee determined that Miss Crilly had waived the right to appear before
the Committee and that no useful purpose would be served by adjourning
the proceedings to a future date. The Committee decided that the need to
conduct the case in a timely manner and the public interest outweighed Miss
Crilly’s interests. The Committee therefore decided to proceed in Miss
Crilly’s absence.
ALLEGATIONS/ BRIEF BACKGROUND
Allegation 1
Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i), Miss Crilly is guilty of misconduct in that
between July 2009 and August 2010, she committed theft (from employer)
amounting to approximately £95,000.
Allegation 2
(a)
Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i), Miss Crilly is guilty of misconduct by
reason of failing to bring to the attention of ACCA the fact that her
conviction for theft (from employer) may have rendered her liable to
disciplinary action, contrary to bye-law 10(b).
or
(b)
Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(iii), Miss Crilly has breached bye-law 10(b)
by reason of failing to bring to the attention of ACCA the fact that her
conviction for theft (from employer) may have rendered her liable to
disciplinary action.
The Committee had before it papers numbering 1 to 74. The Committee
also had before it a Service Bundle numbering pages 1 to 20. On the
morning of the hearing a further bundle of on-table papers were placed
before the Committee numbering pages 75-81.
The Committee had regard to an email from Miss Crilly’s solicitor who
represented her in the criminal proceedings, dated 3 March 2015 in which
an admission was made in relation to allegation 1. Accordingly, the
Committee found the facts in relation to that allegation proved.
3.
Miss Crilly became an ACCA student on 12 March 2008. On 9 January
2013, Mr X of Company A (the company) sent an email to the inbox of
Professional Conduct of ACCA, to advise that Miss Crilly, a former
employee of the company was under a police investigation for theft (from
employer). Mr X confirmed that Miss Crilly was the Finance Manager from
May 2009 until she left the company in August 2010. In the same email, he
attached the control report showing company funds received into her
account. In July 2009, Miss Crilly was given access to the company’s
principal bank account in her position as Finance Manager. Between
January 2010 and August 2010, Miss Crilly paid £95,000 from that account
into her personal bank accounts.
4.
As a result of this matter being brought to the attention of Professional
Conduct, a complaint was opened against Miss Crilly by ACCA.
5.
In February 2013, ACCA sent an email to Mr X to advise that ACCA’s
investigation would be placed on hold pending the outcome of a criminal
investigation and court proceedings against Miss Crilly.
6.
In October 2013, Mr X informed ACCA that Miss Crilly had faced trial and
had been convicted. A certificate of conviction was subsequently obtained
by ACCA which confirmed that Miss Crilly had been tried on indictment and
convicted of theft (from employer). She was sentenced to 42 months’
imprisonment on 13 September 2013.
DECISION ON FACTS/ALLEGATION(S) AND REASONS
7.
The Committee reminded itself that the burden of proving any allegation
which is in dispute rested on ACCA. Miss Crilly was not required to prove
anything. The standard of proof to be applied was the civil standard; the
balance of probabilities. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal
Adviser.
Allegation 1
8.
The Committee found this allegation proved in full.
9.
The Committee had regard to the Certificate of Conviction which recorded
that Miss Crilly was tried and convicted on indictment of theft (from
employer) on 13 September 2013. The Committee had regard to ACCA
Bye-law 8 (e) which provides that a copy of the certificate of conviction given
in criminal proceedings shall be conclusive proof of the conviction and of
any facts and matters found, as the case may be. The conviction was
recorded against Miss Crilly at Snaresbrook Crown Court which is a court of
competent jurisdiction. The Committee also had regard to the email from
Miss Crilly’s solicitor dated 3 March 2015 in which a clear and unequivocal
admission was made in relation to allegation 1.
10.
The Committee had regard to Bye-law 8(e) and saw no reason to go behind
the certificate of conviction which was contained on the papers.
11.
Miss Crilly was convicted of an offence which was discreditable to her and
derogatory to ACCA and to the accountancy profession. The offence was
serious, involving a substantial sum of money which Miss Crilly took for her
own purposes while in a position of trust in Company A. The course of
conduct was pursued by Miss Crilly over a significant period of time and
involved her in creating false invoices in order to conceal her theft. As a
result of her actions the company was required to take out a loan in order to
keep it afloat. In addition, the company was required to make five people
redundant as a result of Miss Crilly’s actions. The Committee also noted that
Miss Crilly was sentenced to a substantial period of imprisonment. In his
sentencing remarks, the judge referred to Miss Crilly’s behaviour as
‘thoroughly dishonest…conduct…motivated by nothing more than simple
greed’. The Committee considered Miss Crilly’s behaviour to be a significant
departure from the standards expected of a member of ACCA and
concluded that Miss Crilly was guilty of misconduct by reason of having
committed the criminal act of theft from her employer, which has resulted in
her criminal conviction.
Allegation 2
12.
The Committee found allegation 2(a) proved in full.
13.
Miss Crilly did not bring the fact of her conviction to the attention of ACCA.
Instead, this task fell to Mr X, the Group Financial Controller of the company
who first alerted ACCA in January 2013, that Miss Crilly had stolen money
from the company. Mr X later sent a copy of the certificate of conviction to
ACCA in October 2013. Confirmation of the conviction was later obtained by
ACCA from Snaresbrook Crown Court.
14.
Bye-law 10(b) states that ‘every member and…any person’ is bound to
inform ACCA ‘promptly’ of any matters which may render them liable to
disciplinary action. At the time of Miss Crilly’s conviction, she was a student
registered with ACCA. The Committee was satisfied that Bye-law 10(b)
captures a student registered with ACCA as ‘any person’ and places an
obligation on ACCA students, as well as affiliates and relevant firms to
report promptly to their regulatory body when a matter arises which may
result in disciplinary action being taken against them. The Committee noted
that the fact of her conviction was not disclosed to ACCA at all by her but by
Mr X.
15.
The Committee was satisfied that it was necessary for a student in her
position to inform ACCA promptly of the fact of her conviction. The
Committee was satisfied that Miss Crilly’s offence was connected directly to
her profession. The Committee was further satisfied that in failing at any
stage to inform ACCA of her criminal conviction Miss Crilly had departed
from the standards to be expected of a person in her position and was guilty
of misconduct
16.
On the basis of its finding in relation to allegation 2(a), the Committee did
not proceed to consider allegation 2(b) as it had been pleaded as an
alternative.
SANCTION(S) AND REASON(S)
17.
The Committee considered what, if any, sanction to apply in this case. The
Committee listened carefully to the submission of the Case Presenter in this
regard and accepted the Legal Adviser’s advice. The Committee also had
regard to the Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions (wef August 2013) and
adopted a proportionate approach.
18.
The Committee first considered the seriousness of the allegations proved
against Miss Crilly. The Committee accepted that Miss Crilly was a person
with a previous unblemished disciplinary record. In addition, Miss Crilly, at a
late stage in the process through her solicitor, admitted the more serious of
the two allegations; relates to her conviction for theft.
19.
The Committee then sought to identify the aggravating factors which were
present in this case. In that regard, the Committee noted that Miss Crilly
committed the theft of which she was convicted in circumstances directly
related to the accountancy profession. She was involved in a serious abuse
of trust in which she used her job in the company for her own financial
benefit. Her actions were concealed and resulted in direct financial harm to
the company and some of its employees. In failing to report the fact of her
conviction, Miss Crilly had also demonstrated a blatant disregard for the
regulatory process.
20.
The Committee concluded that balancing the factors above, Miss Crilly’s
misconduct was very serious. The Committee approached the question of
what, if any, sanction to apply by starting with taking no further action.
Having found this to be inappropriate, it then considered in ascending order
of severity, the sanctions of admonishment, reprimand and severe
reprimand. On the basis of the aggravating factors identified in this case and
the seriousness nature of the misconduct committed by Miss Crilly, the
Committee was satisfied that the public interest would not be upheld by
applying an admonishment or a reprimand to Miss Crilly’s membership.
21.
The Committee next turned to the question of whether it would be
appropriate to impose a severe reprimand in this case. On the basis of the
documentary evidence available, there is no evidence to suggest that Miss
Crilly acted unintentionally. Indeed, the judge in his sentencing remarks
made reference to Miss Crilly’s deliberate actions which resulted in her theft
from her employer. There is evidence that direct harm was caused
financially to the company and its employees as noted above. In addition,
there was no evidence on the papers that Miss Crilly had insight into her
actions and was remorseful for the effect which her actions had on others.
These factors, combined with the prolonged and severe nature of the
misconduct committed by Miss Crilly, made the sanction of a severe
reprimand inappropriate in this case.
22.
The Committee therefore considered that the only sanction which would
adequately protect the public and which would uphold the public interest
was an order to remove Miss Crilly from the register. While acknowledging
her previous good disciplinary record and admission to allegation 1, these
factors were outweighed by the nature and length of her criminal conduct,
the effect which this conduct had on others and the absence of any
evidence to demonstrate that Miss Crilly was remorseful or had insight into
her actions. The serious nature of the actions identified by the Committee
demonstrate clearly that the behaviour which resulted in her conviction and
her failure to adhere to her obligations to report her conviction is
fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the profession.
23.
The Committee also ordered, given the serious nature of the departure from
the standards to be expected from a student of the ACCA, that Miss Crilly
should not be permitted to apply for admission until a minimum period of
four years has expired from the effective date of the Committee’s order.
24.
Having regard to the fact that Miss Crilly pleaded guilty to theft in the course
of her employment in providing accountancy services, the Committee also
ordered that the period 1 July 2009 to 31 August 2010 should not be
reckoned as part of Miss Crilly’s approved accountancy experience.
COSTS AND REASONS
25.
ACCA claimed costs in the sum of £1570. This figure had been specified in
the papers, a copy of which was sent to Miss Crilly at her registered address
and HMP Holloway. The correspondence drew her attention to the fact that
the Committee had the power to award costs in the event of the allegations
being proved. The Committee had no information as to Miss Crilly’s financial
means. However, ACCA has succeeded completely in this case. The costs
claimed are reasonable. The Committee decided that it is appropriate to
award costs and orders that Miss Crilly pay ACCA’s costs in the full amount
claimed.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER
This Order will take effect from the date of expiry of the Appeal period in
accordance with Regulation 10 (2) (c) of the Regulations.
PUBLICITY
26.
The Committee ordered that a news release be issued to ACCA’s website
and to the local press, referring to Miss Crilly by name.
27.
No exceptional circumstances were pleaded or identified in this case.
28.
For information: ACCA’s regulations require ACCA to publish the
Committee’s findings and orders by way of a news release naming the
relevant person, as soon as practicable. The Committee has discretion as to
which publications the news release should be sent, and discretion in
exceptional circumstances to direct that the relevant person is not named.
Ms Helen Carter
Chairman
4 March 2015