READERS ARE SPLIT over the basis on which reprimands should be meted out in Accounting and Actuarial Disciplinary Board (AADB) disciplinary proceedings.
Just over half of Accountancy Age readers polled – 52% – feel punishments should fit the crime in question, while a significant minority of 42% would prefer to see penalties based on who is in the dock, with larger, more powerful defendants apportioned greater responsibility.
The remaining 6% of the 47 respondents were unsure where they stand on the issue.
The AADB – the disciplinary arm of the FRC – was warned this month that changes to the way disciplinary sanctions are calculated could damage the profession and deter people from entering the industry and continuing membership with institutes.
It is currently considering increasing fines on larger member firms because current penalties do not incentivise the right behaviour and are failing to be a “credible” deterrent to misconduct.
Following KPMG’s announcement of staff cuts, do you expect other firms to follow suit?
Click here to take part in Accountancy Age‘s latest poll.
Curiosity killed the cat, but doesn't appear to afflict accounting watchdog the FRC, muses Colin
The Treasury Select Committee criticises the FRC for a 'lack of curiosity and diligence' in deciding to not investigate KPMG’s audit of HBOS before the publication of a report financial regulators, the FCA and PRA
The FRC has banned two former Connaught finance directors responsible for a £4m accounting misstatement at the collapsed social housing maintenance provider
The UK’s decision to leave the EU has raised questions about whether the FRC's regulatory framework should change in the future