BREACH OF EXAMINATION AND/OR ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS
Mohamed Husain formerly ACII, Misr Insurance Company, 7 Abdel Latif Boltia Street, Garden City, Cairo, Egypt
(order effective from 17 November 2016)
As Mr Husain declined to sign a Consensual Order with the CII, the complaint was referred to a disciplinary panel hearing, which took place on 26-27 September and 17 November 2016. The disciplinary panel unanimously upheld the complaint against the respondent and found that, on the balance of probabilities, he had plagiarised case studies, produced by another Fellowship applicant, as part of his Fellowship application and had submitted the plagiarised case studies without the other applicant's consent.
The panel ordered that the respondent a) be reprimanded, b) be excluded from CII examinations, assessments, submitting Fellowship applications and applying for recognition of prior learning for two years and six months, c) be required to take the CII online ethics course before attempting any CII exams, assessments, submitting Fellowship applications or applying for recognition of prior learning in the future, d) no examinations, assessments or qualifications obtained by the respondent during the period of exclusion would be eligible for CII recognition of prior learning for two years and six months e) be ineligible for membership for two years and six months, and f) be required to submit any future application for membership to the CII Membership Application Sub-Committee for scrutiny.
Mark Campbell Cert PFS, Aspen Insurance UK, 30 Fenchurch Street, London UK
(order effective from 27 January 2017)
The exam candidate had taken his mobile phone into an examination, which was in breach of the examinations admission rules. The CII case examiner had 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 and b) take the CII online ethics course before attempting any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in the future.
Kalpesh Patel Dip PFS, Berkeley Burke and Co, Regents Street, Leicester, UK
(order effective from 3 March 2017)
The exam candidate had taken unauthorised tax tables into an examination, which was in breach of the Examinations Admission Rules. The CII case examiner had 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 and b) take the CII online ethics course before attempting any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in the future. It was noted that although there had been a breach of the examination regulations, there was no evidence that the candidate had tried to gain an advantage in taking the exam.
BREACH OF CII CODE OF ETHICS
Richard Hill Dip PFS, Cert CII (FS), Hill and Co Financial Advisers, Newport, UK
(order effective from 15 February 2017)
The respondent had been convicted of drink driving. Although subsequently self declared, the respondent failed to advise the CII within a reasonable timeframe.
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 the respondent: a) be reprimanded and b) would have to take the CII online ethics course before attempting any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in the future.
Cian O'Brien, Grange Grove, London, UK
(order effective from 20 March 2017)
The candidate was found to have plagiarised an M92 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 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 his assignment result disallowed c) be excluded from CII examinations and assessments for 18 months and would have to take the CII online ethics course before taking any CII exams and assessments or applying for recognition of prior learning in future or applying to renew membership of the CII d) would not be eligible for CII recognition of prior learning for examinations, assessments or qualifications obtained by the respondent during the 18 month period of exclusion. The case examiner reduced the sanction which would otherwise have been applied in respect of the offence for c) and d) from two years in the light of the respondent's early admission of the charge.