AdSlot1

Former convict spared sanctions by ICAEW

AN ICAEW MEMBER who was jailed for soliciting to murder will face no sanctions from the institute due to the “exceptional circumstances” of the case.

The member, who is unnamed, was convicted of soliciting to murder in 2001, and sentenced to serve six years in prison.

He resigned his ICAEW membership and told the institute he was going abroad and did not intend to practise. Months later, he informed the ICAEW of his imprisonment, and the institute decided that it would take no further action while he was out of membership.

Now out of prison, he was turned down from re-admittance to the ICAEW in 2006, but successfully re-applied in 2011. His conviction details were then passed onto the ICAEW’s investigation division.

A breakdown in family relationships was given as background to the offence.

If aware at the time of his sentencing in 2001, the institute’s tribunal would have excluded him from membership and recommended he not be readmitted for ten years.

But in “the exceptional circumstances of this case, the passage of time, the evidence of rehabilitation and that he had been readmitted to membership”, no sanction has been imposed. The tribunal noted that the ICAEW’s re-admission committee had, on the second occasion, decided he was a fit and proper person to serve as a member.

He has been ordered to pay £2,240.66 in costs.

In other institute disciplinary findings, Paulo Maranzana failed in his appeal to overturn his exclusion from membership.

Maranzana, excluded from the ICAEW following an FSA investigation that found he had behaved recklessly while as a partner at Sedley Richard Lawrence Voulters (SRLV), claimed his exclusion was excessive.

While not dishonest, Maranzana had failed to realise that a holding company owned by SRLV was being used to facilitate share fraud operations, the FSA had found.

He provided various reasons for mitigation, including his previous clean disciplinary record, his cooperation with both the ICAEW and FSA, his remorse and absence of any intention to gain personally.

The institute tribunal upheld the exclusion, but it did reduce the time of which it recommended no re-admittance be considered – to 24 months – and decided against imposing a fine.

Related reading

aaj
/IMG/077/132077/uk-money
/IMG/939/236939/bdo-logo-glass
/IMG/064/125064/icaew-flag-very-close