What is your duty to co-operate with your regulator?

The Institute of Charted Accounts in England and Wales ('ICAEW') has recently imposed a severe reprimand, a £5000 fine and £6,473 costs on a member who failed to cooperate with them during the investigation process. The tribunal found that the member failed to provide information, explanations and documents requested by the ICAEW Conduct Department, including anti-money laundering policies, share documentation, and other requested materials. It was decided this breached the ICAEW’s Investigation and Disciplinary Regulation 16.1.
 

This finding serves as a reminder of the importance for members of accountancy bodies to co-operate with their regulator to the best of their ability as part of their overriding obligations. Joining a professional accountancy body entails agreeing to be subject to the regulatory authority’s disciplinary procedures. Therefore, co-operation can be required if you are being investigated yourself, but you are also obliged to co-operate in the disciplinary investigations of other regulated persons.

Failure to co-operate with a regulator can be perceived to be a serious breach of its code of conduct. It may, in itself, lead to disciplinary action, given that the provision of information when requested allows the regulator to fulfil its mandate of protecting the public. Where the failure relates to an ongoing investigation into the individual not cooperating, it will often be treated as an aggravating factor, compounding the seriousness of the original allegations and increasing the likelihood of a more severe sanction.

Regulation Backdrop
 

For the majority of accountancy regulators, the guidance on co-operation regime is largely consistent.

Typical co-operation obligations cover factors such as:

Mandating who is required to co-operate

The ICAEW Investigation and Disciplinary Regulations set out at Clause 16.1 that it is not only the responsibility of a fully regulated member of that regime to co-operate but also provisional members, defined as ‘relevant persons’. This provision applies regardless of whether the recipient of a co-operation request is the subject of the complaint or conduct matter.

The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (‘ACCA’) set out at Clause 3(1)(a) of their Complaints and Disciplinary Regulations that every relevant person is under a duty to co-operate with any investigating officer and any assessor in relation to the consideration and investigation of any complaint. A relevant person is defined as a member and other person (including individuals, firms and registered students) who has undertaken to abide by and be bound by, the Association’s bye-laws and the regulations made under them.

The Financial Reporting Council’s (‘FRC’) Accountancy Scheme sets out at Clause 14(1)(i) that every member, former member, member firm, former member firm and successor member firm shall at all times co-operate fully with the Executive Counsel and with any Tribunal appointed pursuant to this scheme.

Setting out a time frame for receiving a response to a request for co-operation

The Association of Taxation Technicians (‘ATT’) Professional Rules and Practice Guidelines set out at Clause 2.13.2 that a member must respond to correspondence without unreasonable delay. The guidelines go on to define ‘without unreasonable delay’ as within 30 days.

The ICAEW also set out in Clause 16.1 that the head of investigation may serve a notice on the member, firm, affiliate or relevant person requiring the supply of such relevant information within 14 days of the date of service of the notice (or such longer period as may be specified) in accordance with Disciplinary Bye-law 8.

The ACCA do not have a specified time for receiving a response to a request for co-operation. At Clause 3(1)(b) they mandate that any provision of information should be done promptly.

The FRC set out at Clause 14 of their Accountancy Scheme that when served with a notice to co-operate, every member, former member, member firm, former member firm or successor firm has a duty to comply with that notice within 14 days of the date of the notice, or such longer period as the Executive Counsel may allow.

Specifying what material or information may be included as part of a request for co-operation

The ACCA set out at Clause 3(1)(b) that the duty to co-operate includes providing such information, books, papers or records as the investigating officer or assessor may from time to time require.

The FRC set out at Clause 14(2)(ii) that any member, former member, member firm, former member firm or successor member firm when called upon by the Executive Committee, to provide copies of documents and other information relevant to the matter under investigation which are relevant to the matter under investigation and which are in the possession or under the control of the aforementioned parties.

The ICAEW in their Disciplinary Bye-laws, set out at Clause 8.2, that co-operation may include, but shall not be limited to, providing such information, explanations, documents and computer and other electronic records as the Conduct Department or a disciplinary committee considers necessary to enable them to carry out their duties or functions.

Describing the possible sanctions for a failure to co-operate

The ACCA set out at Clause 3(1)(c) that a failure or partial failure to co-operate fully with the consideration or investigation of a complaint shall constitute a breach of the ACCA’s regulations and may render the relevant person liable to disciplinary action.

The ICAEW set out at Clause 16.2 that if a member, firm, affiliate or relevant person fails to comply with a notice served by the Conduct Department in accordance with Clause 16.1 (above), the matter may be reported as an allegation to the Conduct Committee.

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (‘CIPFA’) sets out at Clause 9.2 of their Disciplinary Regulations, that failure to co-operate with an investigation shall constitute a breach of the regulations and may render the relevant person liable to disciplinary action.

The FRC set out at Clause 14(3) that if at any time the Executive Counsel considers that there are grounds upon which a Disciplinary Tribunal could make an Adverse Finding that a member, former member, member firm, former member firm or successor member firm has failed to carry out any co-operation obligation outlined under paragraph’s 14(1) and 14(2), they will present a Formal Complaint to the Conduct Committee, who may direct that the Formal Complaint be presented to a Disciplinary Tribunal.

Recent Decisions 
 

Recent disciplinary decisions highlight that regulators treat breaches of these rules seriously.

The ACCA recently removed an ACCA Student, who wished to become an ACCA Certified Accounting Technician, from the Student Register of ACCA. The ACCA Student had been found to be dishonest in having knowledge that they had failed to achieve two of the required Performance Objectives and in the course of the investigation into those allegations, had failed to co-operate with the investigation by neglecting to respond to ACCA’s correspondence.

The FRC recently convened a disciplinary tribunal against a member of CIMA due to a failure to co-operate with a formal request for information from the FRC. The FRC were investigating allegations put forward by the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘SEC’), in relation to financial mismanagement at the member’s company. As part of the investigation, the FRC submitted a formal request to the member for information. The member declined to fully co-operate, with the consequence being that in addition to the SEC investigation, and the initial FRC investigation into the original set of allegations, a disciplinary process was enacted against the member personally, the result of which was a disciplinary tribunal held over the summer (the decision is currently subject to appeal). This case highlights the importance of co-operating with requests from a regulator, as mandated by the relevant code of conduct.

Benefits of cooperation
 

The FRC have noted an increase in “exceptional co-operation” across their 2025 Annual Enforcement Review, with firms going above and beyond their obligations by self-reporting breaches and volunteering additional information beyond that specifically requested. The FRC have defined co-operation as ‘Dealing timeously, properly and fully with requests by investigators, not placing inappropriate obstacles in the way of progress; or seeking without good reason to delay either the investigation or the disciplinary proceedings.’ In their 2023 Annual Enforcement Review, the FRC set out their complete expectations on co-operation, covering areas such as the provision of material in the form requested, complete, accurate and clear responses to written questions and self-reporting.

 In light of this trend, a failure to co-operate can begin to look like a much harsher breach, that could attract tougher sanctions, or even an entirely separate set of allegations, as in the above FRC case. Recently the FRC offered a 12.5% discount to a Big 4 firm due to their exceptional co-operation, on top of the 35% discount offered for admissions and early disposal under the FRC’s Audit Enforcement Procedure. This decision highlights the importance of cooperation (where possible) and its power as a mitigation tool when it comes to potential sanctions.

The ICAEW have also rewarded co-operation with a reduction in sanction outcomes. In January 2025, an ICAEW member was given a Severe Reprimand, a fine of £7,000 and ordered to pay costs to the ICAEW of £10,000. They had been found to have dishonestly submitted timesheets stating they had performed work on client matters when they had known this was not true. The starting point for sanction was Exclusion and a fine of £10,000.  However, their co-operation, which involved the member admitting all allegations against them once the allegations were served and co-operating with the ICAEW investigation, resulted in the reduction in sanction to Severe Reprimand from Exclusion and a lower fine.

Risks of over-disclosure
 

As set out above, co-operation with a regulator when requested can clearly be beneficial to the outcome of a regulated person’s disciplinary matter. Overall, a regulated person should endeavour to co-operate, to the best of their ability, with any reasonable request from a regulator.

While co-operation is important, members must of course consider each request carefully to assess whether any material they hold can, in fact, be disclosed. Often a request will be made for disclosure of information which has been provided to a member in confidence, or where documents requested may contain sensitive or personal information which may be protected by GDPR. Advice should be taken by members prior to any response being made to such a disclosure request to ensure that the member does not breach any employment or legal obligations in effecting disclosure.

There are also risks in going beyond what is required and over-disclosing. Members are not obliged to provide every piece of information they hold and doing so many inadvertently reveal matters the regulator was not initially investigating. This could lead to further scrutiny or initial breaches being identified. Each disclosure request should be scrutinised carefully to ensure that it is focused, specific, time-limited and related to the matters being investigated.  

There is a fine line between fulfilling regulatory obligations and exposing yourself to unintended consequences. The boundary is not always entirely clear. When approached by a regulator with a request for co-operation in a disciplinary investigation, members should seek advice on how to best co-operate, ensuring they meet their obligations without exposing themselves to unnecessary risk.

If you’d like to know more about how we can advise you on meeting your regulatory obligations, or have questions about co-operation please visit our defending accountants and accountancy firms page. You can also email a member of our team in confidence.