Example sentences of "[been] found to [be] in " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Roger William Peters FCA of 433-437 Great West Road , Hounslow , Middx having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(d) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iii ) in that at Slough on or about 23 April 1991 an Interim Order was made in respect of his affairs under Section 252 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was reprimanded , had his Practising Certificate withdrawn and ordered to pay £1,000 by way of costs . |
| 2 | John Anthony Lane FCA of Far Hills , Grove Road , Tring , Herts having been found liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Leighton Buzzard between 13 July 1990 and 20 August 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from Chartered Accountants and having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(c) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in Leighton Buzzard between 17 October 1991 and 7 November 1991 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 17 October 1991 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning professional enquiries from Chartered Accountants was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £1,000 by way of costs . |
| 3 | John David Berman FCA of PO Box 1495 , 141 High Street , Barnet , Herts who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Barnet between 31 March 1990 and 1 May 1990 passed clients ' monies through his firm 's office account was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 4 | Robert Norman McNevin ACA and David Carty FCA both of 234 Manchester Road , Warrington having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they at Warrington between 10 June 1991 and 1 August 1991 passed clients ' monies through their firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally ordered to pay a fine of £500 and £250 by way of costs . |
| 5 | Charles Henry Lovell FCA and David Ian Whalley FCA both of Royal House , Market Place , Redditch , Worcs having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they at Redditch between 27 January 1991 and 19 July 1991 passed clients ' monies through their firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 6 | John Leslie Bill FCA , Nigel John Collins ACA , David Scott Fisher FCA , Ralph Edgar Rowledge FCA , Michael Ross Hart FCA , Malcolm Philip Hemming FCA and Gerry Paul Harborne ACA all of Griffin House , 18–19 Ludgate Hill , Birmingham having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that they at Birmingham between 31 January 1991 and 23 August 1991 passed clients ' monies through their firm 's office account were each reprimanded and jointly and severally ordered to pay a fine of £500 and £250 by way of costs . |
| 7 | ( FCA ) of having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he in London between 31 July 1985 and 28 February 1990 audited the accounts of a limited company , a company in which his wife was a shareholder and at various times an office holder , resulting in him not being free of any interest which might detract or be seen to detract from his professional independence and integrity was reprimanded and ordered to pay £600 by way of costs . |
| 8 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(b) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in London between 8 November 1990 and 3 March 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from chartered accountants in respect of a client and having been in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he in London between 7 January 1992 and 3 February 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 7 January 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning professional enquiries made by chartered accountants was reprimanded , fined £750 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 9 | 5. of , a firm having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.50 in that in Stockbridge between 1 June 1991 and 3 March 1992 the firm failed to pay its Investment Business Authorisation Fee for the year ending 31 December 1991 and having been in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) as applied by Investment Business Regulation 6.09 in that the firm at Stockbridge between 19 December 1991 and 28 January 1992 failed to provide information required of it by the Investigation Committee on 19 December 1991 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning the payment of its Investment Business Authorisation Fee for the year ending 31 December 1991 was reprimanded and ordered to pay £l , 000 by way of costs . |
| 10 | ( FCA ) of , who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Grimsby between 6 March 1989 and 15 July 1991 whilst Financial Director of a limited company misappropriated monies totalling an amount in excess of £90,000 was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £350 by way of costs |
| 11 | ( ACA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Iver , on or about 16 August 1991 , drafted a letter to be signed ‘ ( ACA ) ’ and permitted its use in circumstances which were not consistent with the good reputation of the profession of accountancy was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 12 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Ivybridge between 1 April 1988 and 30 April 1990 whilst Treasurer of an organisation failed to deal properly and promptly with the financial affairs of the organisation for which he was responsible by virtue of the said office and in that he on or about 9 February 1990 improperly drew a cheque on the account of an organisation to settle a liability not incurred by them was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £350 by way of costs . |
| 13 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(b) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in London on or about 23 April 1988 signed an audit report on the accounts of a limited company for the year ended 31 March 1988 which |
| 14 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Waltham Cross on or about 28 May 1991 drafted a letter of resignation as auditor of a limited company on behalf of his firm in terms not consistent with the good reputation of the profession of accountancy was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 15 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he in London between 9 January 1991 and 30 October 1991 , whilst a partner in a firm of chartered accountants , misappropriated monies in excess of £300,000 was excluded from membership of the Institute and ordered to pay £350 by way of costs . |
| 16 | ( FCA ) of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 6.03 in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1989 and 12 March 1991 sent business letters relating to its investment business without bearing the legend ‘ Authorised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to carry on investment business ’ contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.02 and in that the firm at Shipley between 9 September 1988 and 1 October 1989 entered or required its Principal to enter into an association or arrangement with a person which might result in the defendant being constrained or induced to refer or introduce a client to a person who was not an independent intermediary with a view to that person giving investment advice contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.03 and in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1986 and 31 October 1989 failed before recommending or effecting for a client a transaction in units in an authorised unit trust or a recognised collective investment scheme , to take reasonable steps to establish that other more advantageous or suitable policies or units were not available contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.11 and in that the firm at Shipley between 1 November 1989 and 16 October 1991 having given advice to a client which was such that when acted upon it resulted in commission being received by the defendant , failed to notify the said client in writing of the amount and terms of such commission as soon as that information was available , contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.32 was reprimanded , fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 17 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that he at Peterborough between 21 June 1991 and 1 October 1991 passed clients ' monies through his firm 's office account was reprimanded , fined £l , 000 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 18 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in High Wycombe between 31 March 1989 and 14 June 1991 it failed to notify clients in writing of the amount and terms of commission received as a result of advice given to those clients and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 5.03 in that in High Wycombe between 31 March 1989 and 14 June 1991 it failed to give notice to its Bank that all money standing to the credit of its Investment Business Client Bank Account was to be held by the firm as a trustee or agent within the terms of the regulation was reprimanded , fined £l , 000 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 19 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that between 6 July 1983 and 9 September 1991 when joint liquidator of a limited company failed timeously to submit accounts to Companies House was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 20 | ( FCA ) of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( i ) in that at Ware between 30 April 1978 and 1 October 1984 his firm audited the accounts of a limited company when his wife held shares in that Company was reprimanded , fined £1,000 and ordered |
| 21 | ( FCA ) of , having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Southport between 1 January 1982 and 24 May 1990 failed to deal properly and promptly with the affairs of a former client and in that he in Southport between 25 May 1990 and 15 August 1990 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from registered accountants in respect of a former client and having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(d) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iii ) in that he in Southport between 6 November 1991 and 29 June 1992 failed to satisfy a judgement of the County Court in the sum of £539.40 was ordered to have his Practising Certificate withdrawn with effect from 31 October 1992 and to pay £100 by way of costs . |
| 22 | ( FCA ) of , having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he in Southport between 1 January 1982 and 24 May 1990 failed to deal properly and promptly with the affairs of a former client and in that he in Southport between 25 May 1990 and 15 August 1990 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from registered accountants in respect of a former client and having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(d) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iii ) in that he in Southport between 6 November 1991 and 29 June 1992 failed to satisfy a judgement of the County Court in the sum of £539.40 was ordered to have his Practising Certificate withdrawn with effect from 31 October 1992 and to pay £100 by way of costs . |
| 23 | FCA of having been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(b) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) in that he at Chertsey between 25 March 1991 and 3 September 1991 failed to deal properly and promptly with the affairs of a limited company and a former client and in that he at Chertsey between 3 September 1991 and 3 March 1992 failed to deal properly and promptly with professional enquiries from chartered accountants in respect of a limited company and having been in breach of Bye-law 76(c) in force at the material time and liable to disciplinary action under Bye-law 76(a) ( iv ) in that he between 13 January 1992 and 14 February 1992 failed to provide information required of him by the Investigation Committee on 13 January 1992 in exercise of its powers under Bye-law 80(a) concerning the affairs of a limited company was reprimanded , fined £l , 500 and ordered to pay £l , 000 by way of costs . |
| 24 | FCA of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to carry out a review of its compliance procedures in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to warn clients of the extent to which they may be exposed to risk in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 , when the firm gave advice to clients such that , if acted upon , it would result in commission being received , it failed to inform those clients of that position in writing in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to issue engagement letters in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to ensure that it had adequate records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 25 | of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulations 1.16(a) and 1.17 in that in Grimsby between 30 September 1990 and 1 October 1991 the firm handled Investment Business Clients ' monies when not authorised to do so was reprimanded and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 26 | of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1992 , before recommending or effecting for clients transactions relating to investment , the firm failed to give adequate risk warnings to those clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to send engagement letters and agree them with clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to keep proper client records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 27 | FCA of who had been found to be in breach of Bye-law 76(a) ( ii ) , in that |