Open-access content
Monday 2nd November 2015
Adjudication panel reports: Ms Margaret De Valois; Mr Adam Stanley
On 19 August 2015, the adjudication panel considered two unrelated cases of misconduct following two separately self-reported criminal convictions for drink-driving.
After due consideration, the panel determined that, in both cases, the nature of the offence of which the respective respondents had been convicted was such that the respondents had breached Principle 1 of the Actuaries' Code concerning integrity and that the respondents' behaviour and integrity had fallen below the standards defined in Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme.
In each case, the following sanction was imposed:
In recognition of his failure to abide by rule 1.19 of the Disciplinary Scheme, requiring disclosure of any conviction to the IFoA promptly, the following sanction was imposed against Mr Stanley:
The panel noted the reasons provided by the respondent for the delay. However, it considered the period was far too long and that it was in the public interest that the matter ought to have been reported promptly.
A copy of the panel's full determination, including reasons for its decision, can be found on the IFoA's website at bit.ly/1OwzKaa
Adjudication panel report: Mr Ian Conlon
On 19 August 2015, the respondent, Mr Ian Conlon, faced allegations of misconduct relating to the untimely manner in which he produced a report on pensions advice and communicated with those instructing him during divorce proceedings.
Based upon the evidence presented, including an admission by the respondent that the service he had provided had fallen below the standard expected, the panel found that the case report disclosed a prima facie case of misconduct. It imposed the following sanctions:
The panel considered that the respondent ought to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that he had benefited from a period of supervised practice, which had been accepted by him as a sanction for a previous finding under the Disciplinary Scheme and which had commenced after the date on which the above complaint had been made.
A copy of the panel's full determination, including reasons for its decision, can be found on the IFoA's website at bit.ly/1PawnHp
After due consideration, the panel determined that, in both cases, the nature of the offence of which the respective respondents had been convicted was such that the respondents had breached Principle 1 of the Actuaries' Code concerning integrity and that the respondents' behaviour and integrity had fallen below the standards defined in Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme.
In each case, the following sanction was imposed:
- a reprimand.
In recognition of his failure to abide by rule 1.19 of the Disciplinary Scheme, requiring disclosure of any conviction to the IFoA promptly, the following sanction was imposed against Mr Stanley:
- a fine of £100.
The panel noted the reasons provided by the respondent for the delay. However, it considered the period was far too long and that it was in the public interest that the matter ought to have been reported promptly.
A copy of the panel's full determination, including reasons for its decision, can be found on the IFoA's website at bit.ly/1OwzKaa
Adjudication panel report: Mr Ian Conlon
On 19 August 2015, the respondent, Mr Ian Conlon, faced allegations of misconduct relating to the untimely manner in which he produced a report on pensions advice and communicated with those instructing him during divorce proceedings.
Based upon the evidence presented, including an admission by the respondent that the service he had provided had fallen below the standard expected, the panel found that the case report disclosed a prima facie case of misconduct. It imposed the following sanctions:
- a reprimand; and,
- a fine of £7,000.
The panel considered that the respondent ought to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that he had benefited from a period of supervised practice, which had been accepted by him as a sanction for a previous finding under the Disciplinary Scheme and which had commenced after the date on which the above complaint had been made.
A copy of the panel's full determination, including reasons for its decision, can be found on the IFoA's website at bit.ly/1PawnHp
Filed in: