Original complaints against accountant valid

THREE appellate court judges have dismissed an appeal by accountant Chandricka Seeteram of a judge’s ruling which cleared the way for a disclplinary tribunal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Trinidad and Tobago (ICATT) to investigate his role in the audit of the Hindu Credit Union (HCU) mere months before it collapsed.

In a 26-page ruling last week, appellate court judges, Justices Peter Jamadar, Andre des Vignes and Judith Jones, who delivered the ruling, dismissed Seeteram’s appeal in part.

According to Jones, some of the alleged breaches claimed by ICATT against Seeteram extended beyond the scope of the complaint made against him.

Those alleged breaches which fell outside the scope of the complaint have been excised and cannot be pursued by ICATT.

The disciplinary charges against Seeteram arose out of a complaint made by ICATT member Mariano Browne, on October 24, 2012. His complaint was based on testimony at the commission of inquiry into the collapse of CL Financial’s insurance arm, CLICO, and the HCU.

An investigations committee of ICATT was established, and referred the complaint of breach of rules of professional conduct to a disciplinary committee after it found that a prima facie case had been made out for disciplinary action.

Seeteram challenged the establisought to have the court quash the decision of the committee to convene a disciplinary tribunal to examine his professional conduct.

At the commission of inquiry, Seetaram, in 2012, testified that he failed to disclose a $150 million consolidated loss at an annual general meeting; concealed a $31 million loss among “prior adjustments” in the 2005 accounts; back-dated audited accounts and rushed preparing accounts — represented as fully audited accounts — upon the request of former HCU president Harry Harnarine.

He later denied he cooked the books, but blamed a typist for a crucial oversight on the HCU books.

Seetaram was the auditor appointed to look into HCU’s accounts following its collapse.

In her ruling, Jones held,” ...Allegations that the financial statements did not account for the subsidiaries’ losses; that the statements and the audit report did not disclose that the HCU had exceeded the maximum permitted liability and that it was lending to non-members; and that he failed to perm due diligence on the HCU auditor or carry out additional audit work or engage another valuator to corroborate the appreciation in the value of the HCU investment properties relate to the allegation of “pulling wool over the member’s eyes,” withholding critical information and not disclosing the HCU’s financial weaknesses.

“These, therefore, are within the four corners of the Browne complaint and are valid charges arising out of the complaint.”

ICATT was represented by Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, Anil Maraj and Sasha Bridgemohansingh while Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes and Jason Mootoo appeared for Seeteram, who intends to challenge the appellate court’s decision at the Privy Council.