The Accountancy Board seems more concerned in defending its members’ reputation than that of the profession it was set up by law to regulate in the public interest.

The Accountancy Profession Act assigns the board quite a few functions. Among them is “to deal, through disciplinary committees… with cases of professional misconduct and other disciplinary proceedings in respect of warrant holders or holders of a practising certificate including cases leading to the suspension or withdrawal of any warrant or practising certificate issued under this Act”.

But when its attention was drawn to the allegations made with regard to Nexia BT directors Brian Tonna and Karl Cini in the wake of the Panama Papers and leaked reports by the Financial Intelligence Unit, the Accountancy Board preferred to wait, in the process allowing the shadows on the profession to get darker and darker.

Its members got quite hot under the collar when, having formally asked the board last June to commence proceedings leading to the withdrawal of the two gentlemen’s warrants, Nationalist MEP David Casa accused the board of “dereliction of duty” over its failure to act.

“The board strongly objects to the words used… ‘dereliction of duty by accountancy watchdog’ / ‘Accountancy Board’s dereliction of duty’ and reserves all its rights with regard to such unfounded and totally gratuitous allegations,” they wrote in a letter to Times of Malta, which reported Mr Casa’s reaction.

When approached by this newspaper late last year, the reply was the board would await the outcome of magisterial inquiries before deciding whether to proceed against the two accountants.

“Since both auditors are under an ongoing magisterial criminal investigation in connection with allegations of money laundering and other criminal activities, the government has advised us to put on hold any investigation on our part until the related proceedings are over,” a board member told this newspaper. Given that the board was acting on government advice, bearing in mind that its members are appointed by the Finance Minister and recalling the manner in which both the administration and institutions behaved in the fallout of the Panama Papers and leaked FIAU reports, one is certainly free to express the view that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

The Accountancy Board’s inaction and, worse, its evident aversion to any sort of criticism, however harsh, which should be perfectly acceptable in a democracy where the rule of law and freedom of expression are respected in both word and practice, contrasts sharply with how the Malta Institute of Accountants reacted.

The institute was looking into the allegations involving Mr Tonna and Mr Cini even if not empowered to stop them from operating as accountants, though it could have withdrawn their membership. However, they resigned, thus halting the institute’s investigation.

“Accountants are the regulated gatekeepers of financial transactions. They have earned the reputation of being the most trusted business adviser, giving solid confidence to investors for the well-being of our economy. These alleged accusations need to be cleared, one way or the other, and with full force and haste,” the institute’s former president, Franco Azzopardi, had told The Sunday Times of Malta.

“Where are the regulators, law enforcers and the judicial system that are also part of our fabric of confidence to investors,” he had asked.

Perhaps the Accountancy Board may wish to explain.

This is a Times of Malta print editorial