Hearings, orders, and decisions

Name of Member:	Mr Edward Franklin ACA – 066558/MATT
Allegation	The Allegation is that Mr Edward Franklin ACA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a.
Date of hearing:	1 – 4 December 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	IDRC, 1 Paternoster Lane, St Paul’s, London, EC4M 7BQ

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr Christopher Neil Bailey, 053495/MATT
Allegation	The allegation is that Mr Christopher Neil Bailey is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1b
Date of hearing:	29 September, 1 and 2 October 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing – for more details, please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr Mark Broadhead, 074270/MATT
Allegation	The allegation is that Mr Mark Broadhead is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c .
Date of hearing:	11 September 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for details

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr David Lloyd Evans, 066441/MATT
Allegation	The allegation is that Mr David Lloyd Evans is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a and 4.1c
Date of hearing:	3 and 4 September 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing – please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for more details

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr Martin Ibbotson, 075104/MATT
Allegation	The allegation is that Mr Martin Ibbotson is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1h
Date of hearing:	14 August 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing – for more details, please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr Philip Trevor Woolmer,  065538/MATT
Allegation	The allegation is that Mr Philip Trevor Woolmer is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1e
Date of hearing:	11 August 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing – for more details, please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr Sachin Sharma, 069322/MATT
Allegation	The allegation is that Mr Sachin Sharma is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing:	23 July 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing – please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for more details

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr Lewis Edmondson, 066031/MATT
Allegation	The allegations are that Mr Edmondson is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing:	8 July 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing – please contact vanessa.broxham@icaew.com for more details

 

Name of Respondent:	Mr Balraj Oberoi – 072094/MATT
Allegation	The allegation is that Mr Balraj Oberoi is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a
Date of hearing:	2 July 2025
Time:	10:00
Place:	Remote hearing – please contact diane.waller@icaew.com for details

If you think your hearing should be held in private, you must make an application in writing to the Head of Committees and Tribunals. The regulations governing such an application can be found in the Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations.

An application needs to be made within 21 days of service of the documents sent by the Head of Committees and Tribunals further to Regulation 39.2 of the Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations. These are the documents sent once allegations have been referred from the Conduct Committee to the Tribunals Committee.

An application can be made by ICAEW's Conduct Department or by the subject of the formal allegation(s) under regulation 39.1(b) and 39.2(c), as appropriate. If the subject of the formal allegation(s) makes an application under regulation 39.2(c), Conduct Counsel may file a written response to the Head of Committees and Tribunals 7 days before the case management hearing.

The application will be determined by the case management chair at the case management hearing subject to the requirements of the Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations 39.1, 39.2 and 43.1.

Pursuant to regulation 43.2, the case management chair may decide that the press and public shall be excluded from the whole or any part of the final hearing where it appears appropriate to do so in the interests of justice or for any other exceptional reason provided that:

a. the circumstances of the case outweigh the public interest in holding a public hearing; and

b. the case management chair making the decision is satisfied that the parties have had an opportunity to make representations.

The case management chair shall give the parties a summary of reasons for allowing or dismissing any application made under regulation 39.1(b) or 39.2(c). An application can also be made to a panel of the Tribunals Committee at any final hearing, if the applying party can demonstrate that they could not have made the application at the case management hearing, as outlined above.

At the final hearing, you may still ask the Tribunals Committee panel whether it is prepared to proceed in private. This would usually be on the first day of a hearing, but the panel can exercise the power to sit in private at any stage, even if none of the parties have asked it to do so; for example, if it is necessary to protect the identity of a third party. However, we can never guarantee anonymity.

When a panel agrees to hold all or part of the hearing in private, it gives its reasons on the day, and in public, unless such reasons as are given, do not, in the opinion of the panel, unreasonably undermine the purpose of proceeding in private. The panel also gives these reasons in writing if the formal allegations are found proved.

The panel has the power to proceed in private by excluding the press or public from the whole or any part of a hearing, whether or not the parties ask it to do so. It can do this at any stage of a hearing. When it decides whether to exclude anyone, the panel considers:

• the interests of justice
• any other special reason or
• the circumstances of the case

The panel will assess whether these factors outweigh the public interest in holding a public hearing. The panel must also be satisfied that both parties have been given an opportunity to make representations.

This section lists a summary of all recent disciplinary decisions (apart from cases found not proved). All of these decisions can go to an Appeal Committee upon successful application. We do not publish details of cases where the formal allegations are found not proved, or where a decision has been made that the matter should not be published. A full report of decisions is available in the ‘Full reports of disciplinary orders and regulatory decisions’ section below.  

---

Tribunals Committee Tribunal summary of decision

Mr Lewis Edmondson of Plymouth, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunal's Committee made the decision recorded below having heard the formal allegations on 8 July 2025

Type of Member Provisional Member

Terms of allegation:

1A. On or around 8 March 2022, Mr Lewis Edmondson stated in a chat conversation with his people manager that he had attempted and passed his ICAEW Certificate Level Accounting exams when he had not done so.

This conduct was dishonest because Mr Edmondson knew at the time he made the statement that he had not passed the ICAEW Certificate Level exam.

Mr Lewis Edmondson is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1a (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023).

On or around 8 March 2022, Mr Lewis Edmondson falsified ICAEW exam reports and presented them to show that:

• On 26 February 2022 he had attempted and passed the Assurance exam with a mark of 65; and/or
• On 4 March 2022 he had attempted and passed the Accounting exam with a mark of 63.

The conduct was dishonest because Mr Edmondson knew he had not passed the aforesaid exams.

Mr Lewis Edmondson is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1a (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023).

2A On or around 31 March 2022, Mr Lewis Edmondson stated during a job interview that he had been dismissed by his previous employer because he had failed an ACA exam, which was not true.

This conduct was dishonest because Mr Edmondson knew he had been dismissed for presenting falsified ICAEW exam certificates and/or fraudulently claiming that he had passed exams when he had not.

Mr Lewis Edmondson is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Byelaw 4.1a (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023).

2B On or around 31 March 2022, Mr Lewis Edmondson stated during a job interview that he had been dismissed by his previous employer because he had failed an ACA exam, which was not true.

This conduct lacked integrity because Mr Edmondson knew he had been dismissed for presenting falsified ICAEW exam certificates and/or fraudulently claiming that he had passed exams when he had not. For Mr Edmondson to say otherwise was materially false and contrary to ICAEW's Code of Ethics (effective from 1 January 2020).

Mr Lewis Edmondson is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023)1.

Finding: All allegations found proved

Order:
Provisional membership status withdrawn and Mr Edmondson is ineligible to reapply for 2 years.
Pay costs of £6,000

This decision may be subject to appeal.

---

Tribunals Committee Tribunal summary of decision

Mr Balraj Oberoi of Cheam, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 2 July 2025

Type of Member Provisional Member

Terms of allegation:

1. On or around 30 May 2023 Mr Balraj Oberoi submitted his mock Audit and Assurance exam to his training provider ‘A’, which plagiarised information from the model answer, when he knew, or should have known, that he should not do so.
   
   Mr Oberoi’s actions were contrary to R.115.1 of ICAEW’s Code of Ethics (effective from 1 January 2020).
   
   Mr Oberoi is therefore liable to disciplinary action under disciplinary bye-law 4.1a (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023 and from 1 June 2023).

Finding: Allegation found proved

Order:
Status as a provisional member withdrawn and ineligible to re-register for such status for a period of 2 years 
Pay costs of £9,000

This decision may be subject to appeal.

---

Tribunals Committee Tribunal summary of decision

Hilden Park Accountants Limited of East Sussex, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 26 June 2025.

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegation:

Allegations against Hilden Park Accountants Limited

1. Between 5 December 2012 and 26 February 2016, Hilden Park Accountants Limited issued unqualified audit opinions on the financial statements of ‘A’ Limited.  The audit reports stated that the audit was conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (‘ISA’), when it was not, in that the audit did not comply with ISA 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as the auditor failed to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence in relation to a loan payable amount for the following financial periods:

   1. year ended 31 May 2012, audit report dated 5 December 2012; and/or
   2. year ended 31 May 2013, audit report dated 28 February 2014 and/or
   3. year ended 31 May 2014, audit report dated 26 February 2015; and/or
   4. year ended 31 May 2015, audit report dated 26 February 2016.
   
   

   Hilden Park Accountants Limited is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 6.2a (effective from 29 September 2011, 24 July 2013 and 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016).




2. Between 5 December 2012 and 5 May 2017, Hilden Park Accountants Limited issued unqualified audit opinions on the group financial statements of ‘B’ Limited. The audit reports stated that the audit was conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (‘ISA’), when it was not, in that the audit did not comply with ISA 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ as the auditor failed to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence in relation to a loan payable amount for the following financial periods:

   1. year ended 31 May 2012, audit report dated 5 December 2012; and/or
   2. year ended 31 May 2013, audit report dated 3 December 2013 and/or
   3. year ended 31 May 2014, audit report dated 26 February 2015; and/or
   4. year ended 31 May 2015, audit report dated 26 February 2016; and/or
   5. year ended 31 May 2016, audit report dated 5 May 2017.
   
   

   Hilden Park Accountants Limited is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 6.2a (effective from 29 September 2011, 24 July 2013, 1 January 2016 and 3 October 2016 to 10 October 2017).




3. On or around 5 June 2018, Hilden Park Accountants Limited issued an unqualified audit opinion on the group financial statements of ‘B’ Limited for the year ended 31 May 2017. The audit report stated that the audit was conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (‘ISA’), when it was not, in that, the audit did not comply with ISA 500 ‘Audit Evidence’ because the auditor failed to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence in relation to certain liabilities.

   Hilden Park Accountants Limited is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 6.2a (effective from 11 October 2017 to 14 October 2018).

Finding: Proved by own admission

Order:
Severely Reprimanded
To pay fines of £28,000 and costs of £9,747

This decision may be subject to appeal.

---

Tribunals Committee Tribunal summary of decision

Mr Roger John Anderton of Ormskirk, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 24 June 2025.

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegation:

Between 15 December 2023 and 5 January 2024, Mr Roger Anderton FCA failed to provide the information, explanations and documents requested by letter dated 15 December 2023, issued in accordance with Investigation and Disciplinary Regulation 16.1. This was contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 8.

Mr Roger Anderton FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective from 1 June 2023).

Finding: Proved by own admission

Order:
Severely Reprimanded.
To pay fine of £2,550 and costs of £9,560.

This decision may be subject to appeal.

---

Disciplinary Committee Tribunal summary of decision

Mr Mohommad Shaikh of Croydon, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard the formal allegations on 6 June 2025.

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegation:

Between 13 December 2022 and 30 May 2024 Mr Mohommad Shaikh (FCA) failed to cooperate with the Practice Assurance Committee in carrying out its functions under the Practice Assurance Scheme, by not providing in full the information listed below requested in an email dated 3 August 2022, as requested by the PAC on 17 November 2022:

1. A completed Firm Wide Risk Assessment; and/or
2. Confirmation that Mr Shaikh would carry out an AML risk assessment, taking into account those risks identified in the firm-wide risk assessment and submit this to ICAEW; and/or
3. Provide to ICAEW a completed example of CDD (including risk assessment) for an existing client; and/or
4. Provide details of planned AML training that Mr Shaikh intends to undertake; and/or
5. Provide evidence from the ICO that Mr Shaikh is exempt from DPA registration and/or
6. Confirmation that Mr Shaikh would update his letters of engagement and that a revised copy would be issued to all clients and that he would provide copy of the updated letter of engagement to ICAEW.

Mr Mohammad Shaikh (FCA’s) conduct is contrary to Practice Assurance Regulation 12 (effective from 1 July 2019 to 31 May 2023 and 1 June 2023).

Finding: Allegations a–f found proved

Order:
Excluded from ICAEW Membership
To pay fines of £15,000 and costs of £8,750

This decision may be subject to appeal.

---

Tribunals Committee -Tribunal summary of decision

Miss Yashodhara Guharay ACA of London, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 4 June 2025

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegation

1A On any or all of the dates set out in Schedule A, Miss Yashodhara Guharay ACA completed a self-declaration form issued by her employer, ‘A’ LLP, in which she answered ‘no’ to the questions in Schedule A.

The answers given by her were dishonest because, in respect of the questions (i), (iii), (v) and(vi) she knew that she had received a final written warning from her former employer, ‘B’ LLP, on 13 August 2020, and in respect of the questions (ii), (iv) and (vii) she knew she was undergoing an investigation by the Conduct Department, ICAEW after being informed by letter dated 22 June 2021 and which concluded on 16 November 2022.

Miss Yashodhara Guharay ACA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective from 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023).

AND / OR

1B On any or all of the dates set out in Schedule A, Miss Yashodhara Guharay ACA completed a self-declaration issued by her employer, ‘A’ LLP, in which she answered ‘no’ to the questions in Schedule A.

The answers given by her lacked integrity because, in respect of the questions (i), (iii), (v) and (vi) she knew that she had received a final written warning from her former employer, ‘B’ LLP, on 13 August 2020, and in respect of the questions (ii), (iv) and (vii) she knew she was undergoing an investigation by the Conduct Department, ICAEW after being informed by letter dated 22 June 2021 and which concluded on 16 November 2022. This was contrary to subsection R111.2 (Integrity) of ICAEW’s Code of Ethics (effective 1 January 2020).

Miss Yashodhara Guharay ACA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective from 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023).

Schedule A

	Date	Document	Question	Answer given
i   ii	12 November2021	Annual Staff Declaration (Document 9)	In the last ten years have you been the subject of disciplinary procedures by a professional body or employer resulting in a finding against you? Are you currently undergoing any investigation or disciplinary procedures in respect of issues that would give rise to any ’yes’ answers to the *previous questions?*	No   No
iii     iv	26 November 2021	Part 1 New Staff Declaration Form (Document 6)	10.c ‘In the last ten years have you been the subject of disciplinary procedures by a professional body or employer resulting in a finding against you? 11. Are you currently undergoing any investigation or disciplinary procedures in respect of issues that would give rise to any 'yes' answers to questions in this ‘Fit and Proper’ section*	No   No
v	3 July 2022	Part 1 New Staff Declaration Form (Document 7)	10.c ‘In the last ten years have you been the subject of disciplinary procedures by a professional body or employer resulting in a finding against you?	No
vi   vii	27 October 2022	Part 1 New Staff Declaration Form (Document 8)	10.c ‘In the last ten years have you been the subject of disciplinary procedures by a professional body or employer resulting in a finding against you? 11. Are you currently undergoing any investigation or disciplinary procedures in respect of issues that would give rise to any 'yes' answers to questions in this ‘Fit and Proper’ section*	No No

 

*	’Previous questions’ / ‘Fit and Proper’ section questions referred to above:
a)	In the last ten years have you made any Compromise Arrangement with your creditors or otherwise failed to satisfy creditors in full?
b)	Have you ever been declared bankrupt or been the subject of a Bankruptcy Court Order in the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland or elsewhere, or has a bankruptcy petition ever been served on you?
c)	Have you ever signed a trust deed for a creditor, made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or made any arrangements for the payment of a composition to creditors?
d)	Have you at any time pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of any offence? (There is no need to mention offences that are spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, offences committed before the age of 17 (unless within the last ten years) or road traffic offences that did not lead to a disqualification or a prison sentence).
e)	In the last five years have you been the subject of any civil action relating to your professional or business activities that has resulted in a judgement or finding against you by a court, or a settlement (other than a settlement consisting only of the dismissal by consent of a claim against it and the payment of its costs) being agreed?
f)	Have you ever been disqualified by a court from being a director, or from acting in the management or conduct of the affairs of any company?
g)	In the last ten years have you been refused or restricted in the right to carry on any trade, business or profession for which a specific licence, registration or other authority is required?
h)	In the last ten years have you been investigated about allegations of misconduct or malpractice in connection with your professional activities which resulted in a formal complaint being proved but no disciplinary order being made?
i)	In the last ten years have you been the subject of disciplinary procedures by a professional body or employer resulting in a finding against you?
j)	In the last ten years have you been reprimanded, excluded, disciplined, sanctioned or publicly criticised by any professional body to which you belong or have belonged?
k)	In the last ten years have you been refused entry to or excluded from membership of any profession or vocation?
l)	In the last ten years have you been dismissed or requested to resign from any office (other than that as auditor or during the normal course of business), employment or partnership (other than through redundancy)?
m)	In the last ten years have you been reprimanded, warned about future conduct, disciplined, sanctioned or publicly criticised by any regulatory body, or any officially appointed enquiry concerned with the regulation of a financial, professional or other business activity?
n)	In the last ten years have you been the subject of a court order at the instigation of either (i) a regulatory body; or (ii) any officially appointed enquiry concerned with the regulation of a financial, professional or other business activity?

Finding: Allegations found proved on own admission

Order: Severe Reprimand

Pay a Financial Penalty of £3,500

Pay Costs of £7,278.50

This decision may be subject to appeal.

---

Tribunals Committee Tribunal summary of decision

Mr Michael Edward Ball FCA of Surrey, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard formal allegations on 3 June 2025

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegations

Mr Michael Edward Ball – 074925

1.Mr Michael Edward Ball FCA, on behalf of his firm, ‘A’ Limited, prepared and certifiedservice charge accounts for ‘B’ Limited, for any or all of the years in Schedule A,which misstated the amount of monies held as cash at bank and on trust at HSBC.

Schedule A

1. 31 March 2016; and/or
2. 31 March 2017; and/or
3. 31 March 2018; and/or
4. 31 March 2019.

Mr Ball is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b effective 1 January 2016 to 2 October 2016.

Finding: Allegation found proved

Order: Severely reprimanded

Pay a financial penalty of £1,000

Pay costs of £6,000

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

Tribunals Committee summary of decision

Mr Peter Ian Marshall FCA of London, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard formal allegations on 20 May 2025.

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegation

1. Between 10 June 2022 and 13 September 2024, Mr Peter Ian Marshall FCA, failed to provide a substantive response to a professional enquiry email sent by Mr ‘A’ dated 10 June 2022, contrary to subsection R320.7 of ICAEW’s Code of Ethics (effective from 1 January 2020) in respect of:

   1. ‘B’ Limited; and / or
   2. Mr ‘C’.

   Mr Peter Ian Marshall FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023, and from 1 June 2023).

2. Between 1 October 2022 and13 September 2024, Mr Peter Ian Marshall FCA, while engaged in public practice, failed to submit the ICAEW annual return of Peter Marshall FCA for the year ended 2022 in breach of:

   1. Practice Assurance Regulation 12 (effective 1 July 2019 to 31 May 2023 and 1 June 2023); and / or
   2. Regulation 2.5 of the Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Regulations (effective 1 January 2011).

   Mr Peter Ian Marshall FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 4.1c (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023, and from 1 June 2023).

3. Between 1 September 2023 and 13 September 2024, Mr Peter Ian Marshall FCA, while engaged in public practice, failed to submit the ICAEW annual return of Peter Marshall FCA for the year ended 2023 in breach of:

   1. Practice Assurance Regulation 12 (effective 1 July 2019 to 31 May 2023 and 1 June 2023); and / or
   2. Regulation 2.5 of the Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Regulations (effective 1 January 2011).

   Mr Peter Ian Marshall FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under DBL 4.1c (effective between 14 October 2019 and 31 May 2023, and from 1 June 2023).

Finding:
All allegations found proved

Order:
Indefinite withdrawal of Practising Certificate
Severely Reprimanded
Pay Costs of £240

This decision may be subject to appeal.

---

Tribunals Committee summary of decision

Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) of Surrey, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard the formal allegations on 15 May 2025.

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegations

1. Between 2 November 2021 and 22 September 2022 Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) failed to complete and return to ICAEW the information questionnaire and accompanying documents required to enable a Practice Assurance desktop review to be carried out.

   Mr Tse (ACA) therefore breached Regulation 12 of the Practice Assurance Regulations (effective from 1 July 2019 to 31 May 2023).

   Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective from 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023).

2. Between 1 January 2019 and 31 May 2023 Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) failed to submit the ICAEW annual return of ‘A’ as set out in Schedule A:

   Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) therefore breached:

   1. Practice Assurance Regulation 8 (effective from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2019); and / or
   2. Practice Assurance Regulation 12 (effective from 1 July 2019 to 31 May 2023); and / or
   3. Regulation 5 of the Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Regulations (effective from 1 October 2018 to 28 May 2020, from 29 May 2020 to 31 December 2020 and from 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2023).

   Schedule A

   1. Year ended 2 October 2018;
   2. Year ended 8 October 2019;
   3. Year ended 12 October 2020;
   4. Year ended 6 October 2021;
   5. Year ended 12 October
   
   

   Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective from 15 October 2019 to 13 October 2019 and from 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023).

3. Between 2 December 2023 and 15 October 2024, Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) failed to provide ICAEW with the registered address of his firm ‘A’. Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) therefore breached regulation 13(d) of the Practice Assurance Regulations (effective from 1 June 2023).

   Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective 1 June 2023).

4. Between 18 October 2022 and 12 September 2023, Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) failed to co-operate promptly and / or in full with the investigation of the allegations made against him, in that he failed to substantively respond to some or all of the correspondence from ICAEW’s Conduct Department, as set out below and in breach of Disciplinary Bye-law 10.7 (effective 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023) and Disciplinary Bye-law 8.1a (effective from 1 June 2023).

   1. Letter dated 18 October 2022; and / or
   2. Email dated 29 November 2022; and / or
   3. Letter dated 9 February 2023; and / or
   4. Email dated 12 September
   
   

   Mr Jimmy Tse (ACA) is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c (effective from 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023 and from 1 June 2023).

Findings on allegations
Allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 found proved

Order
Excluded from membership
Costs of £10,324

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

Tribunals Committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Ravi Kanani of Birmingham, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 6 May 2025.

Type of Member Provisional Member

Terms of Allegation

On or around 27 September 2022, Mr Ravi Kanani submitted his Kaplan ‘Bux’ ACA case study mock exam for assessment which plagiarised the work of a colleague, whose answer he had requested. In copying and submitting the work as his own when he knew it was not, this conduct was contrary to subsection R111.1 of ICAEW’s Code of Ethics - Integrity (effective 1 January 2020).

Mr Ravi Kanani is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective bye-laws from 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023).

Finding:

Allegation proved on own admission

Order:

Severely Reprimanded. To pay a fine of £700-00 and costs of £2,300-00.

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

Tribunals Committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Bruce Harvey John French of Brigg, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard the formal allegations 1 May 2025

Type of Member Member

Terms of Allegations

   
1. Between 30 December 2015 and 9 February 2021, Mr Bruce French FCA failed to ensure that his firm, ‘A’ had complied with the following:

   
1. The Money Laundering Regulations 2007 (effective 15 December 2007 until 25 June 2017) as follows;

i. Regulation 7 in that he did not apply customer due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring and risk assessment and management, in relation to his clients, Mr ‘D’ and ‘E’ Limited.

AND/OR

   
2. The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (effective from 26 June 2017) as follows:

i. Regulation 27 in that he did not apply customer due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring and risk assessment and management, in relation to his clients, Mr ‘D’ and ‘E’ Limited.

Mr Bruce French FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective from 24 July 2013, from 1 January 2016, from 3 October 2016, from 11 October 2017, 15 October 2018 and from 14 October 2019 to 30 June 2023).

   
2. Mr Bruce French FCA failed to act with professional competence and / or due care in the preparation of the unaudited financial statements submitted to Companies House as set out in Schedule A for ‘E’ Limited in that:

   
1. the accounts had been prepared on verbal assurances only from the director, Mr ‘D’, and had not been prepared using the company’s accounting records; and / or

	Accounting Period – year ended	Accounts prepared in accordance with	Approved by Mr ‘D’	Submitted to Companies House
i	31 March 2016	Small companies regime (FRSSE effective January 2015)	23/12/2016	28/12/2016	and / or
ii	31 March 2017	Micro entities provisions (FRS105 effective 1 January 2016)	31/12/2017	31/12/2017	and / or
iii	31 March 2018	Micro entities provisions (FRS105 effective 1 January 2016)	28/12/2018	31/12/2018	and / or
iv	31 March 2019	Micro entities provisions (FRS105 effective 1 January 2016)	27/12/2019	31/12/2019

 

Mr Bruce French is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b (effective from 1 January 2016, from 3 October 2016, from 11 October 2017, 15 October 2018 and from 14 October 2019 to 31 May 2023).

Finding:

Allegation 1 proved
Allegation 2 a – proved

Order:

Severe Reprimand, £1000 fine and £4000 costs. The Tribunal also made a training requirement for money laundering. Pay costs of £1,000

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

Tribunals Committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Mahendra Maganlal Pattni FCA of Harrow, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribuanls Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 17 April 2025.

Type of Member Member

Terms of Allegations

On 22 November 2018, Mr Mahendra Pattni FCA signed a modified audit opinion, on behalf of ‘A’, on the financial statements of ‘B’ for the period ended 31 March 2018, which stated that 
the audit Had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) when:

5. a) he failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the balance and in year movements of the ‘C’, in breach of International Standard on Auditing (UK) 500 ‘Audit evidence’;
   b) he failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about whether the opening balance of the ‘C’ contained misstatements that materially affected the financial statements for the period ended 31 March 2018, in breach of International Standard on Auditing (UK) 510 ‘Initial audit engagements – opening balances’.

6. On 27 September 2019, Mr Mahendra Pattni FCA signed an unmodified audit opinion, on behalf of ‘A’ on the consolidated and individual company financial statements of ‘B’ for the year ended 31 March 2019 which stated that the financial statements had been prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as adopted by the European Union when:

a) the financial statements did not contain disclosures in relation to prior period restatements made to the individual company financial statements of ‘B’, in breach of paragraph 49 of International Accounting Standard 8 ‘Accounting policies, changes in accounting estimates and errors’;
b) ‘B’ did not perform an impairment assessment of the group’s capitalised development costs and / or goodwill, in breach of paragraph 10 of International Accounting Standard 36 ‘Impairment of Assets’;
c) the group’s software development costs were amortised before the asset was available for use, in breach of paragraph 97 of International Accounting Standard 38 ‘Intangible Assets’.

7. On 27 September 2019, Mr Mahendra Pattni FCA signed an unmodified audit opinion, on behalf of ‘A’, on the consolidated and individual company financial statements of ‘B’ for the year ended 31 March 2019 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) when:

a) he failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about:

i. the value of investments held in ‘D’ as included in the individual company statement of financial position of ‘B’;
ii. the prior period restatements made in respect of the value of investments held in ‘C’ as included in the individual company statement of financial position of ‘B’

In breach of International Standard on Auditing (UK) 500 ‘Audit evidence’;

b) he failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about:

i. the consolidation adjustments made to the group’s opening balances;
ii. the opening balances of the group’s capitalised software development costs

In breach of International Standard on Auditing (UK) 510 ‘Initial audit engagements – opening balances’;

c) he failed to include an ‘Other Matter(s)’ paragraph in the audit report to state that the consolidated corresponding figures were unaudited, in breach of International Standard on Auditing 710 (UK) ‘Comparative information - corresponding figures and comparative financial statements’.

8. On 27 February 2021, Mr Mahendra Pattni FCA signed an unmodified audit opinion on behalf of ‘A’ on the amended financial statements of ‘B’ for the year ended 31 March 2019 which stated that the audit had been conducted in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) when he failed to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence about whether the retained earnings balance in the consolidated financial statements and/or the company financial statements was free from material misstatement following the prior period adjustments made.

This was in breach of International Standard on Auditing (UK) 500 ‘Audit Evidence’.

Therefore, Mr Pattni FCA is liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1b for all the above complaints

Finding: All allegations proved on own admission

Order: Severely Reprimanded

To pay costs of £18,818.20

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

Tribunals Committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Indranil Sinha [ACA], of Croydon, United Kingdom

A tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 4 April 2025

Type of Member Member

Terms of allegation

1. On 25 August 2023, at Croydon Magistrates Court, Mr Indranil Sinha ACA was convicted of the following indictable offences:
   1. On or Before 21 April 2021 at Croydon in the Borough of Croydon made indecent photographs, namely 529 Category A images of a child contrary to Sections 1(1)(a); and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978; and
   2. On or Before 21 April /2021 at Croydon in the Borough of Croydon made indecent photographs, namely 672 Category B images of a child contrary to Sections 1(1)(a); and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978; and
   3. On or Before 21 April 2021 at Croydon in the Borough of Croydon made indecent photographs, namely 3561 Category C images of a child contrary to Sections 1(1)(a); and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978; and
   4. On or Before 21 April 2021 at Croydon in the Borough of Croydon was in
      possession of a prohibited image of a child contrary to sections 62(1) and 66(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009; and
   5. On 4 November 2020 at Croydon in the Borough of Croydon distributed an indecent photograph, namely 1 Category B image of a child contrary to sections 62(1) and 66(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Mr Indranil Sinha is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1e (effective from 1 June 2023).

Finding:

Allegation found proved on own admission

Order:

Excluded from membership of ICAEW
Pay costs of £1,000

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

Tribunals Committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Graham Michael Wildin (FCA), of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

A Tribunal of the Tribunals Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 26 and 27 March 2025

Type of Member Member

Allegation

1. Between 26 April 2020 and 12 August 2022 Mr Graham Michael Wildin failed to comply with an Injunction Order granted in the High Court (QB Division, Planning Court, Cardiff) and made on 16 November 2018, and in doing so failed to comply with R115.1 of the Code of Ethics, Professional Behaviour (effective from 1 January 2020)

Mr Graham Wildin is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1a (effective from 14 October 2019)

Finding:
Allegation found Proved

Order:
Exclusion
Fine £10,000.00
Costs £29,001.50

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

Tribunals Committee tribunal summary of decision

Mr Chung Wah Tang of Causeway Bay, Hong Kong

A tribunal of the Tribunal Committee made the decision recorded below having heard a formal allegation on 06 March 2025

Type of Member Member

1. Between 11 July 2023 and 28 July 2023, Mr Chung Tang FCA failed to provide the information and documents requested by letter dated 11 July 2023, issued in accordance with Investigation and Disciplinary Regulation 16.1, contrary to Disciplinary Bye-law 8.1.

Mr Chung Tang FCA is therefore liable to disciplinary action under Disciplinary Bye-law 4.1c as follows:

Disciplinary Bye-laws effective from 1 June 2023

4.1 A member, affiliate or relevant person shall be liable to disciplinary action under these Disciplinary Bye-laws in any of the following cases, regardless of whether they were a member, affiliate or relevant person at the time of the event(s) giving rise to that liability:

c. if they have committed a breach of the bye-laws, or of any regulations, statutory regulations or the IDRs or have failed to comply with any order, direction or requirement made, given or imposed under them.

Finding:

Allegation proved on Mr Tang’s own admission.

Order:

Severe Reprimand

Fined £1400

Pay costs of £5159

This decision may be subject to appeal

---

 

This section lists all disciplinary and regulatory decisions published in the last five years. If you have any questions about decisions that are not listed here, please call +44 (0)1908 546 293.

Disciplinary decisions made under ICAEW's bye-laws must be published unless there is a decision by a committee not to do so.

Once a report has been removed from this page, details of cases may still be available on other websites or in search results.

2025

 

• 2 July 2025
• 11 June 2025
• 4 June 2025
• 7 May 2025
• 2 April 2025
• 18 March 2025
• 5 March 2025
• 7 February 2025
• 7 February 2025
• 5 February 2025
• 5 February 2025
• 8 January 2025

2024

• 28 December 2024
• 4 December 2024
• 28 November 2024
• 28 November 2024
• 21 November 2024
• 12 November 2024
• 6 November 2024
• 5 November 2024
• 2 October 2024
• 20 September 2024
• 4 September 2024
• 7 August 2024
• 6 August 2024
• 19 July 2024
• 17 July 2024
• 9 July 2024
• 3 July 2024
• 5 June 2024
• 8 May 2024
• 1 May 2024
• 25 April 2024
• 3 April 2024
• 21 March 2024
• 6 March 2024
• 19 February 2024
• 7 February 2024
• 3 January 2024

2023

• 6 December 2023
• 1 November 2023
• 25 October 2023
• 4 October 2023
• 4 October 2023
• 11 September 2023
• 6 September 2023
• 4 September 2023
• 4 September 2023
• 2 August 2023
• 27 July 2023
• 17 July 2023
• 13 July 2023
• 13 July 2023
• 5 July 2023
• 20 June 2023
• 20 June 2023
• 20 June 2023
• 20 June 2023
• 15 June 2023
• 7 June 2023
• 23 May 2023
• 3 May 2023
• 6 April 2023
• 5 April 2023
• 1 March 2023
• 1 February 2023
• 11 January 2023
• 4 January 2023

 

2022

• 7 December 2022
• 23 November 2022
• 14 November 2022
  
• 2 November 2022
• 5 October 2022
• 7 September 2022
• 3 August 2022
• 6 July 2022
• 1 June 2022
• 4 May 2022
• 6 April 2022
• 2 March 2022
• 21 February 2022
• 2 February 2022
• 20 January 2022
• 20 January 2022
• 5 January 2022

 

2021

• 1 December 2021
• 3 November 2021
• 28 October 2021
• 6 October 2021
• 7 September 2021
• 1 September 2021
• 19 August 2021
• 4 August 2021
• 7 July 2021
• 6 July 2021