2672

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

No. 101

(inclusive of G.S.T.) in respect of the costs and
expenses of the hearing before the disciplinary
tribunal and the investigation by the professional
conduct committee.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal considered that the
misconduct described above demonstrated a serious lack of
integrity, and that it would not be in the interests of the
public nor the profession for the member to remain as a
member of the institute.

In accordance with Rule 21.35 of the Rules of the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, the disciplinary
tribunal directed that the decision be published in the
New Zealand Herald, the New Zealand Gazette and the
Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand with
mention of the member’s name and locality.

Right of Appeal

Pursuant to Rule 21.41 of the Rules of the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, which were in force
at the time of the original notice of complaint, the member
may, not later than 14 days after the notification of this
tribunal to the member of the exercise of its powers, appeal
in writing to the appeals council of the institute against the
decision.

No decision other than the direction as to publicity shall take
effect while the member remains entitled to appeal or while
any such appeal by the member awaits determination by the
appeals council.

Dated this 31st day of July 2003.

A. N. FRANKHAM, Tribunal Chairman.

gn5163

Disciplinary Tribunal of the Institute of Chartered
Accountants of New Zealand—Notice of Decision
(Member Guilty of Misconduct in a Professional
Capacity, Negligence or Incompetence in a
Professional Capacity, Conduct Unbecoming
and Breaching the Code of Ethics)

At a hearing of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of New Zealand held on the 23rd day
of July 2003, at which the member was present, and a
continued hearing on the 31st day of July 2003, which the
member attended by teleconference, the tribunal recorded
that Philip Roger Young pleaded not guilty to the following
charges and denied the following particulars:

THAT in terms of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
New Zealand Act 1996 and the Rules made thereunder, and
in particular Rule 21.30:

● the member has been guilty of misconduct in a
professional capacity (particulars 1 (a), 1 (b), 1 (c), 1 (d),
1 (e), 1 (f), 1 (g) and 2);

● the member has been guilty of negligence or
incompetence in a professional capacity and that this has
been of such a degree or so frequent as to reflect on the
member’s fitness to practise as an accountant and/or
tends to bring the profession into disrepute (particulars
1 (a), 1 (b), 1 (c), 1 (d), 1 (e), 1 (f), 1 (g) and 2);

● the member has been guilty of conduct unbecoming an
accountant (particulars 3 and 4);

● the member has breached the Code of Ethics of the
Institute (EP 53, 54 and FP 2 and 5) (particulars 1, 2, 3
and 4).

IN THAT

● In respect of a complaint by the Chairman of the Practice
Review Board:

(a) the member and/or the member’s company,
Progressive Business Centre Limited, borrowed
money from the associated finance entities Omega
Finance Limited and/or Omega Group (NZ)
Limited;

(b) the member failed to have the financial statements of
Omega Finance Limited and/or Omega Group (NZ)
Limited audited;

(c) the member allowed Baywater Finance Limited
(an associated finance company) to receive moneys
from the public without having issued a current
prospectus as required by the Securities Act;

(d) despite a warning that the prospectus in relation
to Baywater Finance Limited had expired on the
31st day of August 2002, the member failed to
correct the position;

(e) without a correct prospectus and despite the warning
referred to in 1 (d) above, the member continued to
receive deposits and roll over current deposits and
make loans to customers;

(f) the member operated Baywater Finance Limited in
breach of clause 5.4 (b) of the trust deed in that the
member failed to operate the business in an efficient,
prudent and businesslike manner and/or in breach of
the Securities Act;

(g) the member operated the said company in such a
manner as to invite a section 30 notice pursuant to
the Corporations (Investigation and Management)
Act 1989, thus indicating the company was “at risk”.

● The member operated a corporate practice without
approval (Rule 19).

● In the course of corresponding with the institute
and/or the appeals council, the member has engaged in
intemperate and offensive remarks concerning the
investigator and members of the professional conduct
committee.

● In the course of corresponding with Inland Revenue, the
member faxed an offensive statement to a female officer.

The tribunal found all the particulars to be proven, except in
relation to (f), where it made no determination on whether
the member failed to operate the business in an efficient,
prudent and businesslike manner.

The tribunal made its determinations based on submissions
and evidence presented by both the professional conduct
committee and the member.

Taking into account the cumulative effect of the proven
particulars, the tribunal found the member guilty as charged.

Orders of the Tribunal

Following consideration of evidence and submissions for the
professional conduct committee and by the member, the
tribunal made the following orders:

(a) Pursuant to Rule 21.31 (a) of the Rules of the
Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand,
the disciplinary tribunal ordered that the name of
Philip Roger Young be removed from the institute’s
Register.

(b) Pursuant to Rule 21.33 of the Rules of the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, the
disciplinary tribunal ordered that Philip Roger
Young pay to the institute the sum of $12,878.00
(inclusive of G.S.T.) in respect of the costs and
expenses of the hearing before the disciplinary
tribunal and the investigation by the professional
conduct committee.

In reaching its decision, the tribunal considered the
wide-ranging nature of the particulars, their seriousness
and the member’s unwillingness and/or inability to
recognise the failures that the member has been guilty of.
These factors led the tribunal to conclude that it would not
be in the interests of the public nor the profession for the
member to remain as a member of the institute.