The plot thickens in
the intriguing story of Greg Lay, the former accountant to Steve Vizard
who provided the fallen businessman’s get-out-of-jail-free card after
he refused to testify against Vizard on criminal insider trading
charges.

Until recently, Lay appeared to be avoiding any
negative repercussions from his refusal to cooperate with ASIC and the
DPP. But this week, his actions caught up with him. Lay yesterday
stepped aside from his role as national chairman of the accounting firm
Bentleys MRI and, as reported by The Australian
last week, is being investigated by the Institute of Chartered
Accountants Australia. The ICAA is investigating whether Lay has
discredited himself, the Institute or the accounting profession. An
answer in the affirmative could see him fined up to $100,000 and tossed
out of the Institute.

But we’re a bit confused. Nearly a month
ago Crikey asked the ICAA whether Lay, as a fellow of the Institute and
chairman of accounting firm Bentleys MRI, was bound to report fraud and
other legal acts, and whether he could lose his ICAA membership or be
disciplined by the ICAA. This was their response (as published in
Crikey Daily, 14 July):

Bill Palmer from the accounting body’s standards, ethics and corporate reporting department has told Crikey that the Financial Review‘s
article yesterday that claimed Lay had a “professional obligation” to
provide evidence of any dodgy dealings is “incorrect” and “misleading.”

The ICAA apparently has no power to compel its members to
report criminal behaviour – its guidelines on reporting fraud and other
illegal acts are “purely guidance notes.” And the organisation says it
would only take disciplinary action against a member if the member was
found guilty of illegal activities by a court of law.

After
trying unsuccessfully to speak to someone at the ICAA last week, Crikey
finally got through to its media rep Rebbecca Stewart today to ask what
had changed to prompt an investigation. Stewart told Crikey it sounded
like there had been a “miscommunication,” and that it was “clearly”
part of the ICAA’s role to investigate and discipline members who had
acted improperly in their profession. When asked what had prompted the
investigation, Stewart pointed Crikey to this page on its website on the matter, which states:

When the ICAA receives a complaint about a member’s
professional conduct, the member is provided with a copy of the
complaint and asked for a response. A copy of the response is then
provided to the complainant.

Where matters concerning a
member’s conduct come to the Institute’s attention that… require
further examination, such as a referral of the member to the CALDB, or
an adverse finding by that body, the member is requested to provide an
explanation and any background information that may assist the ICAA to
determine whether disciplinary action is justified.

Where formal
disciplinary action is taken, the complainant is advised of the
Professional Conduct Tribunal’s decision, including any sanctions
imposed, at the conclusion of the process.

Well that clears it all up nicely, then. Wonder who made the complaint?