15 JUNE 2006

NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No. 57

1419

Application: 6821381.
Applicants: Alexander Welsh and Mary Joyce Welsh.
Description: An estate in fee simple in 2023 square metres, more or less, being Town Sections 292 and 293, Clive, being land granted to Henry Thomas Hill on the 27th day of October 1878 and for which one half-share is now contained in Computer Freehold Register HB94/21 (Hawke’s Bay Registry) of which the registered proprietor is Charles Cairns Murray.
Dated at the Wellington Office of Land Information New Zealand this 9th day of June 2006.

PHILLIP ANDERSON, for Registrar-General of Land.
lt3904

General Notices

Notice of Decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal

(Member Guilty of Misconduct in a Professional Capacity, Conduct Unbecoming an Accountant and Breaching the Institute’s Code of Ethics)

At a hearing of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand held in public on the 30th day of May 2006, at which the member was in attendance and represented by counsel, Clement Chun-Wang Chak, of Auckland, pleaded guilty to the following charges (1), (2), (3) and (4) and admitted the following particulars 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and 2 (a), (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (b), (c), (d) and (e).

Charges

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 is guilty of:

(1) misconduct in a professional capacity; and/or
(2) negligence and/or incompetence in a professional capacity, that has been of such a degree and/or so frequent as to reflect on his fitness to practise as an accountant and/or tends to bring the profession into disrepute; and/or
(3) breaching the institute’s code of ethics; and/or
(4) supplying information to the institute which was false or misleading.

Particulars

IN THAT:

1. In his role as a chartered accountant in public practice and in relation to a complaint, the member:

(a) failed to advise the complainant that he had received his 2002 and/or 2003 terminal tax refunds and/or company A’s 2002 and/or 2003 terminal tax refunds; and/or

(b) failed to obtain the written consent of the complainant to record his bank account details on their tax returns that he subsequently filed with the Inland Revenue Department (IRD); and/or

(c) misled the complainant in that he advised him that the IRD was holding his refund and/or refunds when the funds were in his bank account; and/or

(d) misled the complainant in that he claimed that the IRD would deposit funds into the client’s bank account when, in fact, he transferred the funds into the complainant’s bank account directly from his own bank account.

2. Being a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand and in his role as a chartered accountant in public practice, the member:

(a) dealt with client monies through bank accounts (suffixes 90, 25 and 00) that were established and operated in breach of Professional Standard No. 2 "Client Monies" ("PS-2"). In particular he:

(i) failed to establish a trust account to deal with client monies (paragraphs 7 to 13); and/or

(ii) failed to credit interest earned on client monies held in his bank accounts to the clients concerned, within a reasonable period of time (paragraph 15); and/or

(iii) failed to record details on receipt of client monies in accordance with paragraph 24; and/or

(iv) withdrew client monies from his bank accounts other than in accordance with paragraph 26 of PS-2; and/or

(v) used client monies for private transactions, thereby obtaining a benefit from client monies without prior written authority (paragraph 34); and/or

(vi) retained client funds, particularly tax refunds, for longer than was reasonably necessary (paragraph 38); and/or

(vii) failed to balance client monies records and reconcile these to the bank accounts in accordance with paragraph 49; and/or

(viii) failed to keep a record of client monies in accordance with paragraph 50;

(b) did not hold appropriate client authorities to have IRD refunds direct credited to his bank accounts; and/or

(c) altered bank account details of clients recorded in clients’ income tax returns subsequent to them signing their tax returns but prior to filing them with the IRD; and/or

(d) misled practice review, in that he led them to believe that he did not receive or hold money on behalf of his clients, when in fact he did; and/or

(e) misled the professional conduct committee, in that he gave the impression to the investigator appointed by the committee that his account used for client monies was used infrequently when, in fact, it was used on a regular basis.

Reasons

The tribunal has had regard to the fact that no client has lost money, that interest has been paid albeit late, and that client money systems are now compliant and that the member has given assurances that they will continue to be so. The member has co-operated with the investigation. Without these mitigating factors, the tribunal would have imposed a much greater penalty.