The CII wishes to make clear that, unless the case reported indicates otherwise, allegations and findings against members do not implicate those members' employers in any way.
Breach of CII code of ethics
John Setterfield FCII, Chartered Insurer, Bluefin Insurance Company, Stephenson House, 7-10 The Grove, Gravesend, Kent, UK
(order effective from 22 December 2015)
The respondent had been convicted of drink driving in 2011 and had failed to disclose his conviction to the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII). The CII case examiner invited the respondent to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondent agreed. The respondent was reprimanded and required to complete the CII online ethics course.
James Wert, Reading, Berkshire, UK (order effective from 23 December 2015)
The respondent has accepted that he was in breach of the CII code of ethics as he was the subject of a consent order lodged in the High Court, in which he accepted that he had taken documents and confidential information from his former employer without authority. Moreover, he had failed to disclose the offence and consent order to the CII. The CII case examiner invited the respondent to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondent agreed. The sanctions imposed were that:
a) The respondent was reprimanded
b) He was required to take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams or assessments
c) He was unable to apply for membership of the CII for three years.
Breach of examination and/or assessment regulations
Mark Nicklen Dip PFS, Cert CII (Life and Pensions), Marylebone,
London W1, UK (order effective from 12 February 2016)
The exam candidate was found to have spoken to the invigilator in a rude and discourteous way for a prolonged period of time and to have behaved in a manner that could be construed as threatening, which is in breach of the CII examination admission rules. The CII case examiner invited the respondent to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondent agreed. The sanctions issued were that the respondent:
a) Be reprimanded
b) Take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in future
c) Be banned from taking any exams at the London Euston Exam Centre without the prior written consent of the City and Guilds of London Institute
d) Be suspended from membership of the CII for a period of one year should any further "rude, discourteous or disruptive behaviour" be proven against the respondent within the following three years.
Muhammad Imran, IGI Insurance, Syed Maratib Ali Road, Gulberg, Lahore, Pakistan (order effective from 27 January 2016)
Imran Muhammad Aslam, IGI Insurance, Syed Maratib Ali Road, Gulberg, Lahore, Pakistan (order effective from 27 January 2016)
The above candidates were found to have plagiarised an assignment written by another candidate in breach of the assessment guidelines. The CII case examiner invited the respondents to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondents agreed. The sanctions issued were that the respondents:
a) Be reprimanded
b) Have their assignment and examination result disallowed
c) Be excluded from CII examinations and assessments for two years and take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in future
d) Would have no examinations, assessments or qualifications obtained during the period of exclusion considered eligible for CII recognition of prior learning for two years.
Ernestina Okrah, Metropolitan Insurance Company, Harper Road,
Adum, PO Box 1481, Kumasi, Ghana (order effective from 24 February 2016)
The above candidate was found to have plagiarised an assignment written by another candidate in breach of the assessment guidelines. The CII case examiner invited the respondent to approve and sign a consensual order under Rule 9.1 of the CII Disciplinary Procedure Rules 2015, to which the respondent agreed. The sanctions issued were that the respondent:
a) Be reprimanded
b) Have her assignment result disallowed
c) Be excluded from CII examinations and assessments for 18 months and take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in future
d) Would have no examinations, assessments or qualifications obtained during the period of exclusion considered eligible for CII recognition of prior learning for 18 months. The case examiner reduced the sanction that would otherwise have been applied in respect of offences c) and d) from two years in light of the respondent's early admission of the charge.
In relation to a finding that the respondent below had plagiarised an assignment written by another candidate in breach of the assessment guidelines, in line with the above sanctions a) to d), further sanctions were imposed on:
Patience Abrahams ACII, KEK Insurance Brokers (Africa) Ltd,
PO Box AN 6681, Accra-North, Ghana (order effective from 15 February 2016)
The respondent
e) Be excluded from enrolling on the CII Fellowship programme and/or applying to become a Fellow of the CII for 18 months
f) Be excluded from applying for Chartered status for 18 months
The case examiner reduced the sanction that would otherwise have been applied in respect of offences c), d), e) and f) from two years in light of the respondent's early admission of the charge.
Where the disciplinary panel or case examiner has decided to publish details of a disciplinary case ascribed (ie where an individual has been named), every care has been taken to identify members correctly. Please contact the CII if there is any doubt about the identity of a member who may have been the subject of disciplinary proceedings and in relation to whom a report has been published.