Member of Council Kathryn Morgan was one of a select group asked to test the IFoAs new website, launched this month. Here she gives her opinion on the usability of the site and its look and feel
Anthony Hugh Carus FIA
At a Disciplinary Tribunal Panel hearing on 24 June 2014, the investigation actuary laid the following charge of misconduct against Anthony Hugh Carus (the respondent).
Being at the material time a Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries:
1. In November 2012, when contacted by the complainant, a solicitor representing a business (in sequestration) and the trustee in sequestration in legal proceedings against the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), you prepared a report in those legal proceedings which was not expected by the complainant, and you thereafter:
(a) contacted the FSA to inform it that a draft report you had created in relation to the ongoing legal proceedings was in existence;
(b) your actions were intended to cause embarrassment to the complainant;
(c) in doing so, you acted in a vexatious and/or malicious way.
2. In your actions at 1(a) - (c) above, you failed to maintain and observe the standards of conduct expected of a member, in breach of principles 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Actuaries' Code and, in any event, constituting misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, being conduct falling below the standards of behaviour, integrity, competence or professional judgement which other members or the public might reasonably expect of a member.
In respect of charge 1(a), the respondent had accepted, on reflection after the event, that it had not been appropriate for him to have contacted the FSA and had admitted that to have done so had been a mistake.
The panel found that, in the circumstances of this case, the communication which the respondent had with the FSA constituted misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme.
In respect of charges 1(b) and 1(c), the panel did not find these charges proven from the evidence which had been submitted, and so these charges were dismissed.
The panel imposed the following
sanctions in respect of charge 1(a) which it had found proven:
costs: the panel determined that the respondent should make a payment of £5,000, inclusive of VAT, towards the costs of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries.
Balakrishnan Subramaniam Iyer (student)
At a Disciplinary Tribunal Panel hearing on 1 July 2014, the tribunal considered charges that the respondent had cheated on the Institute of Actuaries of India CA1 examination and that his behaviour had been dishonest.
The panel found the facts proven on the respondent's admission.
In respect of the charge of dishonesty, the panel also found that charge proven by applying the legal test of dishonesty to the evidence submitted.
The panel found that the respondent's actions were in breach of Principle 1 of the Actuaries' Code and, in any event, constituted misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme.
As a result of the finding of misconduct, the panel imposed the following sanctions:
suspension from membership of the IFoA from 1 July 2014 to 3 August 2015.
costs: having considered the conduct of both parties to the case, and taken into account the respondent's submission on costs, the panel considered it appropriate to make an award of costs of £5,104.20 against the respondent and to require that they be paid by no later than 31 December 2014.
Full reports on the above cases, including the panel's reasons, can be found on the IFoA's website at www.actuaries.org.uk