Background Image
Previous Page  10 / 22 Next Page
Basic version Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 10 / 22 Next Page
Page Background

1 0

Issue 26 April - June 2014

LEGAL c o n t .


first practitioner

was fined R100,000, R50,000 of

was suspended for three years on conditions, with a


tribution of R5 000 towards costs, and publication in

general terms. The

second practitioner

was fined

R150,000, R75,000 of which was suspended for three

years on conditions with a contribution of R5,000 towards

costs, and publication in general terms.

Two matters


referred back

to the Investigating

committee for reconsideration.

Decision to charge and matter referred to the

Disciplinary Committee


matters were referred to the Disciplinary

Committee for disciplinary hearings.


The Disciplinary Committee sat three times during this period

(on 16 and 17January, 10 and 12March), to hear four matters.


On 16 and 17 January 2014 the Committee considered the

matter of Mr T who was present and represented. This was a

matter referred by the Auditor-General South Africa (“Auditor

General”). The Respondent had been in the employ of the

Auditor General at the time of the offences, but was currently in

public practise. At the commencement of the proceedings the

Respondent pleaded not guilty to all three charges of improper

conduct, however, on day two of the proceedings, the

Respondent admitted guilt in respect of charges two and

three. The plea was accepted.


Charge Two

The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening rules

regarding improper conduct 2.4, 2.6, and 2.17.

The second charge related to the respondent having amended

the audit report of a trading entity, by removing non-

compliance issues, despite having been advised by his

superior not to do so, and without following the Auditor

General’s standard procedure where there were differing

views on an audit report.


Charge Three

The Respondent pleaded guilty to contravening rules

regarding improper conduct 2.4, 2.6, and 2.17.

The third charge flowed from the second charge, and dealt

with the respondent dishonestly advising an employee at the

Auditor General that he had obtained permission from his

superior, at the time, to amend the audit report on the financial

statements of the trading entity by removing the material

findings relating to non-compliance.


The Committee had to give careful consideration to the fact

that the offences involved an element of dishonesty and

ordinarily once there is an element of dishonesty it is an

offence which results in the ultimate sanction which is a

permanent removal from the register. However the Committee

took into account a number of features of this matter which

made it distinguishable from those matters in which the

ultimate sanction for these purposes had been imposed.

These included the fact that the respondent was a relatively

recent entrant to the profession and was relatively

inexperienced at the time of the offences concerned. He had

personal commitments to his family, including three children

and had expressed unequivocal remorse and expressly

acknowledged that he committed an extremely serious lapse

of judgment which gave rise to the offences in respect of which

he had pleaded guilty.

The sentence imposed was as follows:


The Respondent was removed from the register of auditors

with effect from 18 January 2014, which sentence was

suspended for a period of five years on conditions;


The Respondent was ordered to make a contribution of

R278,000 to the costs incurred by the Investigating and

Disciplinary Committees in connection with the

investigation and hearing, which amount included R28,000

wasted costs incurred by the Board in respect of a

postponement granted to the Respondent;


Publication in IRBA News of the facts of the matter, the

charges, the fact that the Respondent pleaded guilty to the

charges and the sentence imposed, without reference to

the name of the Respondent.