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.
An Aberdeenshire director has been disqualified for failing to ensure her restaurant company kept adequate books and records
The director of a company set up to market a fuel-saving device has been disqualified for failing to maintain and preserve proper records
Assistant Accountant handed an 11-year Bankruptcy Restrictions Order for misappropriating funds
Father and Son directors disqualified for five years and three and a half years for running up large Crown debts whilst trading insolvently