# Accountant Fined €10,000



## Bedlam (24 Aug 2007)

An Accountant was fined the above amount by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Why are Accontants allowed to self regulate?, unlike other's who are answerable to the Financial Regulator.


----------



## Nige (24 Aug 2007)

The financial regulator deals with sellers of financial products. Accountants don't sell loans, mortgages etc and, like many professions, are self regulating.


----------



## CCOVICH (24 Aug 2007)

To clarify that point, if an accountant does give investment advice or act as a broker, that aspect of their business would be regulated by the Financial Regulator.


----------



## Bedlam (24 Aug 2007)

But have been known to be involved in the selling of pensions, life cover and investments.


----------



## CCOVICH (24 Aug 2007)

...for which they would need to be more heavily regulated.

What was the nature of the offence in question?


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

See here?


----------



## Bedlam (24 Aug 2007)

Faileto account for a sum of mony due the estate of a client,which was susequently resolved. failed to reply to correspondence seeking clarification that all bogus non resident accounts had been properly disclosed to the revenue and borrowed money from a client contary to the institutes ethical guide


----------



## CCOVICH (24 Aug 2007)

How would those offences fall under the remit of the Financial Regulator, even if the firm in question were subject to regulation by same?

FWIW, [broken link removed].


----------



## Bedlam (24 Aug 2007)

Code:

Act honestly, fairly and proffessionally in the best interest of its customers and the integrity of the market

Act with due skill, care and diligence in the best interests of its customers

The above are the first 2 general principles from the Consumer Protection Code from the Financial Regulator


----------



## CCOVICH (24 Aug 2007)

Can you link those to the offences in question?

I don't see how any customers were affected by the actions of this accountant?  There was no misselling, overcharging etc.

The offence seems to be non co-operation with the Chartered Accountants Regulatory Body (CARB) and breach of the ICAI Ethical Guide.

I don't recall the Finacial Regulator getting involved when Irish Life said that they were unwilling to fully co-operate with the Revenue in the Single Premium investigation?


----------



## Bedlam (24 Aug 2007)

Obviously a client felt compelled in th efirst instance to make a complaint to the Institute. It would seem to me faily apparent that the Accountant din't act in a Professional manner and to the standards set by his own Institute and that he acted without integrity.

In relation to Irish Life if memory serves me right didn't this go to the High Court at the time


----------



## CCOVICH (24 Aug 2007)

The accountant in question was fined by the relevant regulatory body.

So what would the Financial Regulator have done differently? Why whould they be involved/concerned with accountancy services?  Why not legal services as well?  Why stop there?




> In relation to Irish Life if memory serves me right didn't this go to the High Court at the time


 
So the Financial Regulator had no interest in getting involved?

P.S. I am an accountant, but am not in practice, so the regulatory aspects don't really matter to me (other than CPD requirements).  I am just interested in why the Financial Regulator would take any interest in this specifc case.


----------



## Bedlam (24 Aug 2007)

I just feel that given the Firm in question also holds Life Assurance Agencies and practises as an Accountant that like Insurance Brokers they should be accountable to the Financial Regulator and not to their own Institute.


----------



## Graham_07 (24 Aug 2007)

Bedlam said:


> I* just feel that given the Firm in question also holds Life Assurance Agencies *and practises as an Accountant that like Insurance Brokers they should be accountable to the Financial Regulator and not to their own Institute.


 
I'm sorry, but where exactly in the press reports does it say that this firm was fined in connection with life agency business ? I can't seem to find that. If they do then they are accountable to the F.R. for that aspect of the business ONLY. 

Regarding accountancy/auditing and related matters, then their institute and IAASA are the relevant authorities, not the F.R.


----------



## Bedlam (24 Aug 2007)

Fair Point, But if it were the case that the complainant had, had an issue surrounding a life or a pension product with the firm. He would end up having to go to 2 Authorities with his complaint. The point I am making is why are they self regulated for one aspect and the business and regulated by the Financial Regulator for the other.


----------



## ubiquitous (24 Aug 2007)

Bedlam said:


> Fair Point, But if it were the case that the complainant had, had an issue surrounding a life or a pension product with the firm...


To paraphrase a certain mildly crude expression in my own neck of the woods, if my uncle were called Mary, he'd be my aunt.



Bedlam said:


> He would end up having to go to 2 Authorities with his complaint.



I don't think this is correct, because the ICAI are secondarily regulated by the FR for matters falling under the FR's remit, and can prosecute regulatory breaches on that basis. Have you any basis for assuming otherwise?



Bedlam said:


> The point I am making is why are they self regulated for one aspect and the business and regulated by the Financial Regulator for the other.


Because the law provides for this.


----------

