The Disciplinary Committee found registered student Lawrence Ford guilty of misconduct. The conduct, which occurred in the period between August 1 and November 2009, had led to his conviction in June 2010 of using forged documents to obtain a pecuniary advantage, and was relevant to his CIMA registration. The Committee referred to a serious breach of trust on the part of Mr Ford, observing that he had appropriated substantial amounts of money from his employer and that this had been over a considerable length of time. The Committee cancelled Mr Ford's student registration and imposed a fine of [pounds sterling]2,000 (the maximum fine for a registered student under the regulations). Mr Ford was also required to pay costs of [pounds sterling]7,175.
The Disciplinary Committee found Ronald Hewitson, ACMA, CGIVIA, guilty of misconduct. His conduct had resulted in his conviction in July 2006 under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, relevant to his membership. The sums involved were more than [pounds sterling]20,000. Mr Hewitson had also failed to inform CIMA of the conviction, in breach of the Laws of the Institute.
The Committee decided to expel Mr Hewitson. The Committee took into account the seriousness of the conduct, the financial sums involved and the issue of proportionality. Mitigating factors included Mr Hewitson's previous clear record, and that he had admitted the offences, which may have been committed almost seven years previously.
Convictions for offences of dishonesty are at the very highest end of seriousness, particularly when the offences are repeated and involve a significant amount of money. Protection of the public, the need to uphold proper standards and the maintenance of public confidence required the imposition of the most serious sanction. Mr Hewitson was also required to pay costs of [pounds sterling]9,165.
The Disciplinary Committee found registered student Shanmugam Kamalagaran guilty of misconduct. While sitting the C05 Fundamentals of Ethics, Corporate Governance & Law computer-based assessment examination in October 2010, he had failed to comply with the rules governing examinations in the CIMA Computer-Based Assessment Centre by keeping with him a C05-related, multiple-choice revision booklet. By having the annotated booklet in his possession and in a situation that suggested that he could have used it, he had also failed to act with the integrity required under the Code of Ethics.