[Skip to content]

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

Disciplinary tribunal panel - MR Radu Emil Prejban

REPORT OF A HEARING ON 28 NOVEMBER 2007 BEFORE A DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL PANEL OF THE INSTITUTE OF ACTUARIES MR RADU EMIL PREJBAN (‘The respondent’), an Institute student resident and practising in Bucharest, Romania. The charge was that the respondent had committed misconduct as defined in rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme 2004 of the Institute of Actuaries: “Misconduct means any breach of the bylaws of the Institute or any conduct by a member, whether committed in the UK or elsewhere, in the course of carrying out professional duties or otherwise, constituting failure by that member to comply with the standards of behaviour, integrity, competence or professional judgement which other members or the public might reasonably expect of a member, having regard to any advice, guidance, memorandum or statement on professional conduct, practice or duties which may be given and published by the Institute and to all other relevant circumstances.” The respondent was not present or represented at the hearing. The Institute’s investigating actuary was present and was represented by solicitor Ben Kemp, of Shepherd and Wedderburn. Dominic Spenser Underhill was the legal adviser to the hearing. The hearing The panel decided to proceed in the respondent’s absence, having satisfied itself for the purpose of rule 10.7 of the disciplinary scheme that he had been given reasonable notice of the hearing. It also decided, in accordance with rule 6.20 of the scheme, that this charge should be heard with the charge brought against Ciprian Pop because of the almost identical relevant facts of each case, and because it was not unfair to do so. The particulars of the charge In reaching its determination on fact and misconduct, the panel noted that the burden of proof rests with the Institute’s investigating actuary and applied the standard of proof set out in rule 1.4 of the Institute’s disciplinary scheme. The panel found proved, on the respondent’s own admission, that he: • Pursuant to paragraph 2.1 of the examination regulations of the Actuarial Profession was guilty of misconduct in connection with an assessment; • Had breached paragraph 2.1 of the Professional Conduct Standards (“PCS”) which, regarding a member’s duty to the public, provides that members “must maintain and observe the highest standards of conduct”; • Had breached paragraph 2.2 of the PCS that, regarding a member’s duty to the public, provides that a member “must not act in a manner which denigrates its reputation or impugns its integrity”. The misconduct was found where he, when sitting in September 2006 the professional examination Core Technical 2, as set by the Institute of Actuaries, had engaged in examination cheating by allowing a fellow student, who was also sitting the said examination, to copy from him. The panel determined by reason of the matters found proved that the respondent had been guilty of misconduct, as engaging in cheating in a professional examination is deemed to be misconduct within the definition in rule 1.6 of the disciplinary scheme, further constituting breaches of paragraph nine of the examination regulations, and paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the PCS as set out in the charge. Sanction The panel determined, under rule 6.23 of the disciplinary scheme, to impose the following sanction on the respondent: • Suspension from membership for a period of three years The panel’s reasons were as follows: 1. It is an essential prerequisite of membership of the Actuarial Profession that a member behaves with a degree of integrity that a member of the public might reasonably expect of him. The respondent engaged in examination cheating. This is unacceptable behaviour to members of the profession that study diligently and honestly for their examinations and to those that have passed their examinations. It is also an affront to the public that places significant trust in the profession to admit properly examined candidates, as well as in its individual members that are assumed to have passed their examinations in a proper and orderly way. 2. Cheating to obtain admission as a member of the profession is a serious matter and must be met with a sanction. The sanction would have been more severe than it is, were it not for the mitigating factors mentioned below. 3. In mitigation, while not accepting in any way that the respondent’s misconduct can be excused, the tribunal noted that there was no evidence of premeditation. The tribunal further noted that the respondent admitted his actions and had co-operated with the investigation of this charge. The respondent had also apologised for what he had done. Costs award The tribunal panel was not invited to make a costs award, and did not do so. William Abbott, FIA, Chairman of the panel 28 November 2007 The respondent did not exercise his right of appeal against this determination.