Professional Conduct Tribunal

Advanced Search

Member Complaints & Discipline General Information Types Of Matters The Institute Can Investigate How to Make A Complaint The Complaint Process Complaints Relating to Fees and/or Fee Disputes Complaints Relating to Ownership and Possession of Books and Records Contact Details for Complaints Fees and other matters – FAQ’s Disciplinary Policy Paper Disciplinary Process - FAQs Tribunal Decisions

Professional Conduct Tribunal - August

Print this Article

Email this Article

On his own admission the Tribunal found a case established that Mr Albarran was liable to disciplinary action in accordance with:

A. By-law 40(e), in that:

on 3 May 2006 the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALDB) having been satisfied that he had failed within the meaning of s1292(2)(d)(ii) of the Corporations Law to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties or functions required by an Australian law to be carried out or performed by a registered liquidator in relation to the voluntary administration of Formula Engineering Pty Ltd, ordered:

on 27 March 2008, in the Federal Court of Australia, having ordered on 26 February 2008 pursuant to section 219(7)(b) of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 that he be punished in the same manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of Court for his refusal or failure to answer 37 questions that were put to him by the Panel Chairman of the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board, Justice Jacobson ordered that he pay to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the sum of $20,000 by way of penalty or fine, and that he pay the costs of the court proceedings on an indemnity basis.

B. By-law 40(j), in that his acts, omissions or defaults which led to the orders by Justice Jacobson bring or are likely to bring discredit on Mr Albarran, the Institute or the profession of accountancy.

The decision of the Tribunal was that Mr Albarran be severely reprimanded and that he be required to pay $1,000 plus GST towards the costs of the disciplinary action.

The matter before the Tribunal concerned a question of independence in 2000, when professional standards were evolving. The member was then a recently admitted partner within his firm and was following his firm’s then established procedures in respect of work referrals to other practitioners. The member accepts that such practices were not permissible under the professional independence standards. The Tribunal had regard to the relative inexperience of the member in 2000, the financial costs of the hearings before the CALDB and the Federal Court in the 2007/2008 proceedings, the severity of the decisions of those two tribunals and the contrition of the member. The Tribunal notes that the comments of Jacobson J in the Federal Court judgement reflect poorly on the member, the profession and the Institute.

The Tribunal also ordered that notification of it decision be given to appropriate professional bodies and regulatory authorities.