DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
In the matter of:
Mr Tuan Ahamadeen
Heard on:
Thursday 26 March 2015
Location:
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 12 Bloomsbury
Square, London, WC1A 2LP
Committee:
Mrs Judith Way (Chair)
Mr Constantinos Lemonides (Accountant)
Mr Stephen Griffiths (Lay)
Legal Adviser:
Miss Juliet Gibbon
Persons present and capacity:
Ms Sarah Cawley - Wilkinson (Case Presenter on behalf of ACCA)
Miss Kathryn Reece (Committee Officer)
Mr Tuan Ahamadeen
PRELIMINARY
1.
The Committee convened to determine an allegation of misconduct relating
to Mr Ahamadeen having been found guilty by the magistrates sitting at
Redhill Magistrates' Court on 30 November 2012 of four offences of
obtaining a benefit dishonestly, contrary to section 111A(1)(a) and (3) of the
Social Security Administration Act 1992.
2.
The Committee had a bundle numbering 1-48 and a bundle of tabled
additional papers numbered 49-61.
3.
Mr Ahamadeen attended the hearing but was not represented.
ALLEGATION
4.
Mr Ahamadeen faces the following allegation:
1
Allegation 1
Pursuant to bye-law 8(a)(i) Mr Ahamadeen is guilty of misconduct in that he
committed four counts of benefit fraud contrary to sections 11A(1)(a and (3)
of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
BACKGROUND
5.
Mr Ahamadeen registered as a student member of ACCA on 1 November
1988. He was suspended on 26 October 1994 for non-payment of ACCA
fees but was reinstated on 26 April 2000. By a letter dated 2 February 2013
Mr Ahamadeen wrote to ACCA disclosing that he had been found guilty of
four offences of benefit fraud on 30 November 2012. He enclosed the
information and summons giving details of the offences. He stated that he
had failed to declare his ex-partner as living at his address due to a sense of
obligation to him and because he did not understand how the benefit system
worked. He stated that he was ashamed of his behaviour and its clear
consequences to his career and reputation as an accountant.
6.
The allegations relate to Mr Ahamadeen dishonestly making false
statements from 7 January 2009 to 25 September 2009 by failing to declare
on benefit claim forms that his ex-partner was a member of his household
and in paid employment. As a result of failing to declare this information Mr
Ahamadeen obtained benefits, namely council tax and job seekers
allowance, to which he was not entitled. The magistrates sentenced Mr
Ahamadeen to a Suspended Sentence Order comprising 4 months
imprisonment wholly suspended for 12 months with an unpaid work
requirement of 180 hours to be carried out within the supervision period of
12 months.
Mr Ahamadeen's Case
7.
In his letter to ACCA disclosing his convictions Mr Ahamadeen stated that
he had pleaded not guilty to the charges as he 'had not intended to
dishonestly benefit financially' and that the offences were committed as a
result of an 'error of judgment'. He expressed shame and remorse.
2
8.
Mr Ahamadeen provided a copy to ACCA of his proof of evidence in the
criminal proceedings. In this Mr Ahamadeen stated that he did not deny that
he made false statements in relation to his claims for council tax benefit and
job seekers allowance but he categorically opposed the suggestion that he
did so dishonestly. He stated that his ex-partner had lived with him from May
2008 until 12 May 2012 but he had not declared this to Reigate and
Banstead Council until 5 January 2012. Mr Ahamadeen stated that he did
not disclose that his ex-partner resided with him before this at his expartner's request. He stated that he had not appreciated that his ex-partner
living with him would affect his eligibility for council tax benefit or job seekers
allowance. He also stated that he wished to pay back all the monies that he
owed.
9.
In a letter to ACCA, dated 8 April 2014, Mr Ahamadeen reiterated he had
not understood that the fact his ex-partner was living with him would have
affected his eligibility to receive benefits. He said he felt influenced by his
ex-partner who, he alleged, had lied at trial when he stated that he was
unaware that Mr Ahamadeen had made any application for benefits and that
he had not influenced him in any way. Mr Ahamadeen, in fact, stated that he
had wanted to inform the Council that his ex-partner lived with him but his
ex-partner had persuaded him not to. Mr Ahamadeen stated that his actions
“were not driven by financial greed or a need to cheat the benefit system but
by not understanding how a household income affects eligibility” and
because he was influenced by his ex-partner. He expressed remorse stating
“I am sorry to have brought the ACCA into disrepute and shall humbly
accept any and all punishments dispensed to me”.
10.
Mr Ahamadeen has repaid £3,081.64 being the overpayment of council tax
to which he was not entitled and £2,729.52 of the £12,307.03 overpayment
of jobseekers allowance.
Hearing on 26 March 2015
11.
Mr Ahamadeen attended the hearing and gave oral evidence to the
Committee.
3
12.
Mr Ahamadeen admitted the facts of the allegation, that he committed four
offences of benefit fraud contrary to sections 111A(1)(a) and (3) of the
Social Security Administration Act 1992. He did not, however, admit that he
was guilty of misconduct.
13.
Miss Cawley-Wilkinson submitted that the fact that Mr Ahamadeen had
been found guilty of four offences of fraud was discreditable to him and
derogatory to ACCA and the profession. The Committee could find him
guilty of misconduct by virtue of bye-law 8(e) (as it applied in 2012) which
provides that such shall be conclusive proof of misconduct.
14.
Mr Ahamadeen explained that he had been influenced by his ex-partner into
not declaring him on his application for benefits. He continued to deny that
his conduct was dishonest. He accepted that his behaviour was ‘wrong’ and
the public would ‘not be happy’ with it.
DECISION ON MISCONDUCT AND REASONS
15.
The Committee considered all the evidence before it together with the
submissions of Ms Cawley-Wilkinson and Mr Ahamadeen. The Committee
accepted the advice of the legal adviser.
16.
The Committee noted that under Regulation 11(2)(c) of the Complaints and
Disciplinary Regulations 2015 “The status of any criminal conviction … is as
set out in the bye-law 8 which was in force at the time the matters
complained of took place, and the Disciplinary Committee shall apply the
provisions of that bye-law to its proceedings”.
17.
The Committee took into account that by virtue of bye-law 8(e), as it applied
in 2012, “the fact that a member … had pleaded guilty or been found guilty
of, any offence discreditable to him or, as the case may be, it, or derogatory
to the Association or the accountancy profession before a court of
competent jurisdiction in the United Kingdom” shall be conclusive proof of
misconduct. It was a matter for the Committee to determine whether Mr
Ahamadeen's convictions were for offences discreditable to him or
derogatory to the Association or the accountancy profession.
4
Allegation 1 - Proved
18.
The Committee found the facts in Allegation 1 proved by virtue of Mr
Ahamadeen's admission together with the evidence of the memorandum of
conviction, which is conclusive proof of the commission of the offences.
19.
Mr Ahamadeen did not admit misconduct so this was a matter for the
judgment of the Committee.
20.
The Committee noted that Mr Ahamadeen’s offending behaviour took place
over a long period of time during which he made a number of claims for
council tax and job seekers allowance without declaring that his ex-partner
was living in the same household. The Committee also noted that Mr
Ahamadeen obtained a substantial amount of money as a result of his
fraudulent offending.
21.
The Committee noted that Mr Ahamadeen continued to blame his ex-partner
for his offending behaviour and continued to deny that he had been
dishonest. The Committee, however, found no exceptional circumstances
that enabled it to go behind the convictions of the Magistrates’ Court. The
Committee considered that even if Mr Ahamadeen may have been
influenced by his ex-partner this could not excuse his dishonest conduct.
22.
The Committee determined that the four offences of dishonesty that Mr
Ahamadeen was found guilty of by the Magistrates’ Court were discreditable
to him and derogatory to ACCA and the accountancy profession. In the
circumstances the Committee determined that this was conclusive proof of
misconduct by virtue of bye-law 8(e), as it applied in 2012.
23.
The Committee found that Mr Ahamadeen was guilty of misconduct by
committing the offences of dishonesty referred to in Allegation 1 and,
therefore, Allegation 1 is proved.
SANCTION AND REASONS
24.
The Committee was informed that there were no previous disciplinary
findings against Mr Ahamadeen.
5
25.
The Committee accepted the advice of the legal adviser who referred it to
Regulation 12(3) of the Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations 2015 and
to ACCA’s Guidance for Disciplinary Sanctions (2013). 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 Mr
Ahamadeen's 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.
26.
By way of mitigation the Committee took the following into account:

Mr Ahamadeen had promptly disclosed to ACCA that he had been
found guilty of 4 offences of fraud;

Mr Ahamadeen was repaying the sum that he had been overpaid as
a result of his dishonest offending;

there had been no repeat of the offending behaviour since his
convictions in 2012;

Mr Ahamadeen had demonstrated remorse for bringing ACCA into
disrepute;

Mr Ahamadeen had demonstrated some insight into the effect of his
convictions on ACCA and the accountancy profession;

Mr Ahamadeen had fully engaged with ACCA throughout these
proceedings.
27.
The Committee also accepted that Mr Ahamadeen was influenced by his expartner, as he asserted in his evidence, and considered that this may have
provided an explanation for Mr Ahamadeen’s offending behaviour but could
not excuse it. The Committee was, however, impressed that Mr Ahamadeen
now accepted the Committee’s finding that he is guilty of misconduct.
28.
In terms of aggravating features the Committee noted that Mr Ahamadeen
had pleaded not guilty at his criminal trial and had been convicted of four
serious offences of dishonesty.
6
29.
Allegation 1 related to four offences of fraud. Given the seriousness of the
misconduct the Committee determined that it would not be appropriate to
take no action and a sanction was required.
30.
The Committee considered the available sanctions from the least serious
upwards. It considered carefully whether the appropriate and proportionate
sanction to impose upon Mr Ahamadeen was an admonishment or a
reprimand. The Committee, however, determined that to impose either of
these sanctions would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the
dishonest offending in this case.
31.
The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction
was a severe reprimand. Committing offences of dishonesty is very serious
and, in the Committee's view, no other sanction would adequately reflect the
gravity of the offending behaviour. The Committee noted the contents of the
pre-sentence report that described “no entrenched pattern of offending” and
it considered that although Mr Ahamadeen’s offending continued over a long
period of time it was, in the Committee’s view, unlikely to be repeated in the
future. It noted that the offences did not occur in Mr Ahamadeen’s
professional life and, therefore, the risk to the public was, in the Committee’s
view, low. It noted that there has been no repetition of the offending
behaviour since he was convicted in 2012.
32.
The Committee would have imposed a sanction excluding Mr Ahamadeen
from the student register had it not been for the mitigation referred to above.
In all the circumstances the Committee found that the appropriate and
proportionate sanction was a severe reprimand.
33.
The Committee therefore ordered that Mr Ahamadeen be made subject to a
severe reprimand.
COSTS
34.
Ms Cawley-Wilkinson applied for costs amounting to £1,483.00. Mr
Ahamadeen did not argue that the sum claimed was unreasonable and
accepted that he should pay costs.
7
35.
The Committee gave careful consideration to the question of costs and took
into account Mr Ahamadeen’s means. It concluded that the sum claimed of
£1,483.00 was reasonable for the work undertaken and that it was
appropriate to make an order in that sum.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER
36.
This order shall take effect from the date of the expiry of the appeal period
referred to in the Regulations or at the conclusion of any appeal should one
be made.
PUBLICITY
37.
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. Mr Ahamadeen said he would
prefer that his name was not published but he conceded that he did not
have any exceptional circumstances to put before the Committee.
38.
The Committee considered whether there were exceptional circumstances
in this case and determined that there were not. There was, therefore, no
reason not to make an order for publicity. The Committee ordered that a
news release be issued to ACCA’s website and to the local press referring
to Mr Ahamadeen by name.
Mrs Judith Way
Chairman
26 March 2015
8