IRBA newsletter #33

16 / 21

LEGAL c o n t .
registration and removal of the practitioner's name only
becomes effective from 2 May 2016. No order was made as to
costs. The committee ordered that a summary of the charge,
the fact of admission of guilt, the sanction and a summary of
the reasons be published in the IRBA News with no reference
to the name of the practitioner.
At the end of this quarter, we bid farewell to two long-serving
members of the Disciplinary Committee. Charles Reid, a
practising registered auditor, and Hussan Goga, a practising
attorney, together served the committee in excess of 28 years.
Their exceptional commitment and expertise will be missed
and we wish them well with their “retirement” and express our
sincere gratitude to them for their noble service to the auditing
profession.
Farewell
practitioner or the name of his firm.
The fifth case of Mr MS was heard on 22 March 2016. The
practitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of contravening Rule
2.13 in that he failed to comply, within a reasonable time, with
an order, requirement or request of the Regulatory Board; and
Rule 2.15 in that he failed, after demand, to pay monies due to
the Regulatory Board following a sanction imposed on him by
way of a consent order; and Rule 2.17 of the 2011 Rules
regarding Improper Conduct in that he conducted himself in a
manner that tended to bring the auditing profession into
disrepute.
The matter related to the non-payment of a fine imposed on
the practitioner in 2010 pursuant to him pleading guilty by
consent to improper conduct. Notwithstanding subsequent
demand and legal action instituted for recovery of the sanction
imposed, Mr MS failed to pay the outstanding amount of the
fine, which resulted in the current disciplinary proceedings
against him.
At the hearing, the practitioner pleaded guilty to the charge
and was accordingly found guilty of contravening Rules 2.13
and 2.15 and 2.17 of the Rules regarding Improper Conduct.
The committee considered the issue of an appropriate
sanction from three perspectives. First, the particular
misconduct involved; second, the practitioner's personal
circumstances and the practitioner's perspective on the
matter; and third, the public interest and that from the
perspective of both the auditing profession and the wider
public that places reliance on the work that auditors do. The
committee took into account that no dishonesty was involved
in the offence; nonetheless the offence remained a serious
one in that non-payment of the fine showed disrespect for the
Regulatory Board and its disciplinary processes. The
practitioner pleaded that economic circumstances had
prevented payment of the fine and that he had several persons
who are dependent on him.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the Disciplinary
Committee ordered the cancellation of the registration of the
practitioner as a registered auditor and the removal of his
name from the register. The sanction is subject to the following
conditions: first, the practitioner may only apply for re-
registration upon payment of the outstanding amount of the
fine in the sum of R71,550; and second, the cancellation of
1 7 Issue 33 January - March 2016
HussanGoga Charles Reidand
Reportable Irregularities (RIs)
The function of administrating and managing the reportable
irregularity process has moved from the Standards
Department to the Legal Department, and in this regard we ask
registered auditors to please continue sending all RIs to the
inbox. Furthermore, we ask that all
RIs be addressed to the Director Legal, Jane O'Connor.
If you have any questions or comments relating to the RI
process in general, we would like to hear from you. Please
forward all such correspondence to our newly appointed
Professional Manager, Louis Thom, at or to
ou r RI Admi n i s t r a t o r, Re t s i b i l e Maboshego a t