[Skip to content]

Sign up for our daily newsletter
The Actuary The magazine of the Institute & Faculty of Actuaries
.

Disciplinary tribunal panel determination

3 August 2011

At a Disciplinary Tribunal of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, the Investigation Actuary laid the following charge of misconduct against Randhir Kumar and Prabhat Kumar (the Respondents), both former student members of the Institute of Actuaries. Separate determinations are available for each Respondent on the Profession’s website but as the charges, outcome and sanctions were identical, these have not been reproduced here individually.

That the respondent:

Being at the material time a student member of the Institute of Actuaries:

1. Colluded with a fellow student during the Core Technical 3 examination set by the Institute of Actuaries and sat by the Respondent in Delhi in April 2009;

2. In doing so, he breached the Institute of Actuaries’ Examination Regulations;

3. The actions at paragraphs 1 and 2 above were dishonest;

4. Such behaviour constitutes misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute of Actuaries, being conduct falling below the standards of behaviour, integrity, competence or professional judgment, which other Members or the public might reasonably expect of a Member.

Determination

The Respondents did not attend the hearing. The Institute was represented by Miss Julie Matheson of Kingsley Napley.

The Panel were satisfied that the Respondents had been served the Charge in accordance with the Disciplinary Scheme and had been given sufficient prior notice of the hearing and had elected not to participate.

The tribunal found the following facts:

The Panel found the allegations as outlined in the Charge above proved in the cases of both Respondents.

Determination:

The Panel found both the Respondents guilty of misconduct.

The Tribunal imposed the following sanction:

n That the Respondents be excluded from readmission to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries for a period of five years.

Reasons

The Panel’s reasons can be found in the separate determination reports available 
on the Profession’s website at 
http://tinyurl.com/6fwhwtt