THE BOTTOM LINE
- Professional standards follow the person, not the title. A licensed professional (like an accountant) performing executive tasks such as approving invoices for their own company is still bound by their profession’s code of conduct. The “I was acting as a director” defense will not shield them from disciplinary action.
- Disciplinary and criminal proceedings are parallel risks. A professional body can use evidence from a criminal investigation to form its own judgment. Businesses and their leaders must manage these risks concurrently, as a final verdict in one forum is not required for the other to proceed.
- Intent to harm is not the only test for misconduct. Creating false documents, even for “administrative corrections” or within a family context, constitutes a severe breach of integrity. The act itself is enough to trigger career-ending sanctions, regardless of whether third parties were actually misled or harmed.
THE DETAILS
This case provides a critical reminder for licensed professionals serving in executive or directorial roles. The accountant in question argued that his actions—handling and paying invoices for his own companies—were performed as a director, not as a professional accountant, and should therefore fall outside the scope of disciplinary law. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal firmly rejected this argument. It ruled that activities related to the “principles of bookkeeping,” such as creating and processing invoices, inherently draw upon an accountant’s core professional competence. Consequently, these actions qualify as “professional services” and are subject to the stringent ethical and integrity standards of the accounting profession. This broad interpretation means that professional liability can extend to routine executive functions.
The case also highlights the perilous interplay between criminal and disciplinary proceedings. The accountant argued that the disciplinary board had unfairly relied on the findings of a parallel criminal court case that was not yet final. The Appeals Tribunal dismissed this, clarifying that the two legal tracks serve different purposes—one punitive, the other to uphold professional quality. While a disciplinary body must conduct its own independent assessment, it is entitled to use evidence and findings from a criminal file to inform its decision. The Tribunal confirmed the board had performed its own due diligence, including extensive questioning, validating the use of all available information to reach its conclusion.
Ultimately, the ruling was a stark condemnation of the accountant’s conduct over several years. This included processing numerous vague invoices for which no work was ever performed and disguising a loan as a business expense, later “correcting” it with another false invoice. The accountant’s defense that this was merely “sloppy” administration to fix an error within a family business context, without intent to mislead third parties, was deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal focused on the objective fact that false documents were knowingly brought into circulation, constituting a severe violation of the fundamental principles of integrity and professionalism. While the court reduced the subsequent ban from ten to five years, deeming it more proportionate for a first offense, it upheld the career-ending sanction of being struck from the professional register.
SOURCE
Source: College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
