[Skip to content]

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

Disciplinary tribunals

07 FEBRUARY 2019 | THE ACTUARY TEAM

Ms Victoria Louise Jenkins (lapsed member)

On 21 September 2018 the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel considered a charge of Misconduct against Ms Victoria Louise Jenkins (the Respondent). It was alleged that the Respondent, during the 2015/2016 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) year, failed to demonstrate that she had undertaken the appropriate minimum amount of CPD or submit a written request for an exemption from the CPD Scheme, such actions being in breach of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ (IFoA’s) CPD Scheme 2015/2016 and the compliance principle of the Actuaries’ Code (the Code). It was also alleged that she failed to co-operate with the IFoA’s investigation in that  she failed to supply information, evidence and/or explanations as requested by the case manager, such actions being in breach of the Disciplinary Scheme rules.

The Panel found all parts of the charge proved. Further, the Panel found that all parts of the charge constituted Misconduct.

The Panel noted that the Respondent had always previously complied with the CPD requirements, and that it had found as a fact that the CPD had been undertaken. The Panel was of
the view that the attitude of the Respondent to these proceedings and to the IFoA had been unfortunate. However the Panel noted fully the representations made by and on behalf of the Respondent. Her account of having left her employment and not being able to access the records was accepted as consistent with the other information about leaving employment. While the Respondent had provided no evidence in support of her assertions about (for her) the traumatic changes in her work life at this time, the explanations were plausible and credible. The Panel accepted the Respondent’s statement that never again did she wish to practice and genuinely regarded her actuarial career as historical. The Panel did not find this to be evidence of a deep-seated attitudinal problem. The Panel decided that no sanction more severe than a Reprimand was proportionate.

A copy of the Panel’s full determination, including reasons, can be found at: bit.ly/1SDZC6c


Mr Makarim Adel Salman (lapsed member) 

On 8 October 2018, the Adjudication Panel considered an allegation of Misconduct against Mr Makarim Adel Salman (the Respondent). It was alleged that he failed to comply with the Continuous Professional Development (CPD) requirements of the 2016/2017 CPD reporting year in that he failed to record online the appropriate minimum amount of CPD, or submit a written request for an exemption, his actions being in breach of the integrity and compliance principles of the Actuaries’ Code (the Code). It was further alleged that he failed to engage with or respond to communications from the Membership Department of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) on the matter of CPD for the 2016/2017 CPD reporting year, his actions being in breach of the integrity, compliance and communications principles of the Code. 

The Panel noted that the Respondent accepted that he failed to comply with the CPD requirement and that when he did submit records they were deemed to meet the requirements. Nevertheless, the Panel was satisfied that this amounted to a breach of the CPD Scheme and a prima facie breach of the compliance principle of the Code. However, the Panel was not satisfied that it amounted to a prima facie breach of the integrity principle of the Code.

The Panel was satisfied that the Respondent failed to engage with or respond to communications from the IFoA’s Membership Department on the matter of CPD for the 2016/2017 CPD reporting year. The Panel considered that the Respondent’s failure to provide current email and postal addresses amounted to a prima facie breach of the compliance principle of the Code. However, the Panel was not satisfied that it amounted to a prima facie breach of the integrity principle of the Code. The Panel considered the communication principle of the Code was not relevant.

The panel determined that there was a prima facie case of Misconduct. It considered the nature and extent of the Misconduct and decided that while serious, the Respondent’s actions were unlikely to be repeated as he is no longer practising as an actuary. Taking into account the mitigating factors, and in the absence of any aggravating factors, the Panel decided that the appropriate sanction was a Reprimand.

A copy of the Panel’s full determination, including reasons for its decision, can be found at bit.ly/1SDZC6c  


Ms Anna Irina Beck Zlateva 

On 21 September 2018 the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel considered a charge of Misconduct against Ms Anna Irina Beck Zlateva (the Respondent). It was alleged that the Respondent, during the 2015/2016 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) year, failed to demonstrate that she had undertaken the appropriate minimum amount of CPD or submit a written request for an exemption from the CPD scheme, this being in breach of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ (IFoA’s) CPD Scheme and the integrity and compliance principles of the Actuaries’ Code (the Code). It was further alleged that the Respondent failed to co-operate with the IFoA’s investigation in that she failed to supply documents and/or further information when requested by the Case Manager, this being in breach of the Disciplinary Scheme rules.

The Panel found the charge proved, save for paragraph 3 of the charge which alleged a breach of the integrity principle of the Code. The Panel found that all the parts of the charge found proved constituted Misconduct both severally and collectively.

Given that the Respondent is a lapsed member of the IFoA, the sanctions available to the Panel were limited. The Panel considered that the extent of the failure to engage meant that the Respondent should have to explain to a Panel why, should she wish, she should be permitted to be re-admitted to the register. Accordingly the Panel determined to exclude the Respondent for a period of one year. As the Respondent has not worked as an actuary since 2011 the panel was of the view that this may be an outcome without consequence for the Respondent. The Panel considered that the public and the profession would consider that an unacceptable outcome. Accordingly the Panel also decided to impose a fine of £2,000.

A copy of the Panel’s full determination, including reasons, can be found at bit.ly/1SDZC6c