Xerox auditor retains name suppression

THE names of the auditors of Fuji Xerox’s New Zealand subsidiary remain suppressed after an appeal hearing against a decision by an accountants’ disciplinary tribunal.

The disciplinary tribunal of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants had censured the accountant who led Fuji Xerox’s audit team, suspended him from practising for 12 months and ordered him to pay the tribunal’s costs.

NZICA’s Appeals Council has reserved its decision on whether to lift name suppression of both the accountant and his firm, but has said that if it does decide to lift suppression, it will give the accountant a 14day grace period in which to tell his family about the proceedings.

However, the council has lifted suppression of the name of the company concerned.

The accountant, who had been in charge of a team that audited Fuji Xerox’s New Zealand subsidiary between 2002 and 2016, had pleaded guilty to ‘‘negligence or incompetence in a professional capacity and that has been of such a degree it tends to bring the profession into disrepute’’ after a hearing last November.

Much of the appeal hearing, which was open to the media, hinged on whether the accountant had made an error of judgement and whether his offence was sufficiently serious to warrant both a 12month suspension and publication of his name.

The accountant’s barrister, Harry Waalkens QC, said repeatedly that an error of professional judgement was at the root of the case.

The disciplinary tribunal had been ‘‘completely wrong’’ to order publication of the names of the accountant and his firm because his offending had not been as serious as, say, theft, Mr Waalkens had argued.

He cited ‘‘observations in their own decision that make it as clear as anything that this isn’t at that level’’.

That decision, which has not been made public, described the case as ‘‘immensely sad’’ because the accountant had otherwise had a blameless 25year career.

He argued it should be sufficient for NZICA to publish the details of the case without naming the accountant to demonstrate that justice had been done.

Mr Waalkens argued that his client and his family did not deserve ‘‘the blaze of publicity’’ that would result if the council lifted name suppression and that he would never be able to practise as an auditor again.

Terry Sessions, representing NZICA, said during questioning by the council chairman, Les Taylor, QC, that it was the accountant’s failure to act, and not an error of judgement, that led to the findings against him.

‘‘No audit procedures were documented . . . it’s a matter of him failing to do what he was required to do.’’ — BusinessDesk