Tauranga accountant censured

Tauranga accountant Ian Stevenson has been censured by the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants and ordered to pay the $42,889 cost of his prosecution.

Ian pleaded guilty to three charges arising from a client complaint; dealing with client monies through his practice account rather than a trust account, withdrawing fees without authority and preparing accounts without due care and diligence.

The NZICA tribunal finds there is no evidence of funds lost or misappropriated.

The tribunal also acknowledges the issues Ian had in dealing with a client and co-trustee, who was hard to communicate with - refusing to provide residential or postal addresses and insisting on contact only by text message and fax.

A further charge relates to Ian failing to attend the Professional Conduct Committee’s final determination. At the hearing he accepted that he should have attended the final determination hearing notwithstanding at the time he believed his reasons for not attending to be valid.

“Mr Stevenson pleaded guilty to a technical breach of the trust account rules,” says his counsel Paul Mabey QC.

“He was in a difficult situation having regard to the attitude of his co- trustee. It was necessary for him to protect the trust assets for the beneficiaries and he had no alternative but to hold trust funds in his personal account for brief periods. The co-trustee refused to allow the trust to have its own account.

“The tribunal accepted that there was absolutely no dishonesty by Mr Stevenson or any misappropriation of funds. Every dollar was accounted for.

“His fault was to continue to represent a very difficult client who would not co-operate with him as co-trustee. He felt compelled to continue to represent the trust in the interests of the beneficiaries.”

The charges are that in his role as a Chartered Accountant in Public Practice and in relation to a complaint, Ian failed to comply with PS-2 (2003) or PS-2 (2008), as required by Rule 11 of the Code of Ethics, in that he:

Dealt with client monies belonging to A Trust through his BNZ Mortgage One account instead of a properly established trust account, in breach of paragraph(s) 7 and/or 14 of PS-2 (2003), and/or paragraph(s) 11(c) and/or 30 and/or 44 of PS-2 (2008).

That he withdrew fees and/or disbursements from funds belonging to A Trust, without written authority from Ms W (his co-trustee), in breach of paragraph(s) 30 and/or 32 of PS-2 (2003) and/or paragraph 50 of PS-2 (2008).

And that he failed to complete his professional duties as an accountant in preparing the financial information for the A Trust with the level of due care and diligence expected of a member holding a Certificate of Public Practice, in breach of the Fundamental Principle of Quality Performance and/or Rule 9 Due Care and Diligence.

The client’s name is suppressed.



Posted on 31-05-2012 14:52 | By

looks like Stevenson has given up his attempt to anonymously defend himself


Posted on 26-05-2012 08:58 | By

I assure you tonby1 - the motive will not be the lions


Posted on 25-05-2012 16:25 | By

and the last word is from whome?


Posted on 23-05-2012 13:47 | By tonyb1

He cant be all bad he is saving the lion’s

Pot calling kettle black

Posted on 23-05-2012 12:26 | By Phailed

Is there anything more hypocritical than someone calling themself "RORTSCAM" requesting someone calling themself "observer" to identify themself? Isn’t it the argument that’s important and the argument that should be judged, not the person making the argument? Perhaps it doesn’t even matter if a number of the many names posting here are by any chance related???

Weasel Words by nom de plumes

Posted on 22-05-2012 20:25 | By RORTSCAM

’observer’ I for one couldn’t give a brass razoo about Steveson’s good reputation or otherwise.What does greatly concern me is when tribunal decisions reported are deliberately distorted. WE ALL KNOW WHO STEVENSON IS BUT WE DON’T KNOW WHO YOU ARE? You have been requested to identify yourself so your credentials and bona fides can be verified but you have neglected to do so and that really says it all.


Posted on 19-05-2012 15:50 | By

Stevenson has developed his own reputation without any imput from me at all. This story illustrates just one aspect of it. Childish name calling is just that.


Posted on 19-05-2012 12:31 | By EYESPY

"observer" you and your mate have a dark and perverse sense of your own importance, after all who on earth would bother with bedbugs.Can I suggest some light reading to focus you - I think the title was Jackboot and the Florid Fokker a modern take on UFOs.


Posted on 19-05-2012 09:28 | By

number 3 spot on "most commented" and climbing


Posted on 18-05-2012 14:21 | By

what you going to do eyespy? - send some tattoed bouncers around? - where have i heard that story before. Meantime the ranking grows in the "most commented" list


Posted on 18-05-2012 12:53 | By

this overwhelming "support" of Mr Stevenson is touching. Quite happily a tea room entertainment.

Mental Delusions ?

Posted on 18-05-2012 07:49 | By EYESPY

Well ’fair justice’ and ’observer’ you seem to have a little vendetta going on here.Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good dose of vitriol but a word of warning tread very carefully.


Posted on 17-05-2012 11:48 | By TERMITE

I think you are on the wrong page, could I suggest the tea leaf reading page perhaps?


Posted on 16-05-2012 14:47 | By

happy to wait and see it unfold as it will thanks


Posted on 16-05-2012 14:42 | By PLONKER

You don’t seem to be able to answer the obvious questions of others for some reason. Are you a beneficiary or a trustee?

Who is the actual transgressor.

Posted on 16-05-2012 14:35 | By Investigator

Sorry to say no "victum’ or victim in this case only clients and they would probably be the Trust and the Trust Beneficiaries.The co- trustee involved is probably the person with the different agenda to Stevenson and I wonder what that might have been. ?


Posted on 16-05-2012 09:28 | By

wow - how many signin ID’s do you have !


Posted on 16-05-2012 00:52 | By TERMITE

So you know who then was the victum here then? how about you spill the beans on it and while you are at it read Hot_ice to. All of this looks like slander to me from the back row from the shadows. Come out of the closit my son and show us what you have got.


Posted on 15-05-2012 19:30 | By hot_ice

easy to post innuendos and sow malicious seeds from a hidden position. Any chance of manning up and stating some"FACTS" and dates to watch for? Or will you be the bully behind the bike shed?


Posted on 14-05-2012 12:43 | By

I am someone who has had very similar experience to what the victum in this case has had


Posted on 14-05-2012 11:39 | By

$43,000 is a "tut tut" - not to mention the criminal lawyers fee. ?

Observer tell us your secret who are you ?

Posted on 14-05-2012 09:56 | By POCO O POCO

Stevenson is to be applauded for protecting trust assets and minor beneficiaries interests.A censure is little more than a "tut tut" you technically broke the rules to defend a principle. Ethically Stevenson should be praised for his stance not criticised.

fair justice

Posted on 14-05-2012 09:54 | By fair justice

sad to think clients trust and pay for white collar crime and do these accountant,lawyers and even government officals feel that if one does it and gets away with it,they can follow suit.They definitely should be more accountable and only paid for results.anyone can say client difficult but in who’s eyes.


Posted on 13-05-2012 07:14 | By

must have been pretty worried to employ the towns best and most expensive criminal lawyer - that alone says something !

No comment

Posted on 11-05-2012 13:04 | By Ian Stevenson

It is appropriate that I do not engage in comment on this matter other than to note the most important part of what is noted in the article above: - "He was in a difficult situation having regard to the attitude of his co-trustee." and that "The tribunal accepted that there was absolutely no dishonesty by Mr Stevenson or any misappropriation of funds. Every dollar was accounted for." This in fact the essence of it.

Not Stevenson

Posted on 11-05-2012 10:07 | By Surfwatch

I am not Stevenson, but I am a Chartered Accountant from another centre.


Posted on 10-05-2012 12:56 | By

I know that both PLONKER & Surfwatch are Ian Stevenson trying desperately to save something from this

fair justice

Posted on 10-05-2012 12:34 | By fair justice

others also have been waiting 4 this to happen-where is the justice

Some clients can be difficult

Posted on 10-05-2012 10:41 | By Surfwatch

No Doubt he had considerable issues with this client and I have seen many of these types of clients. However rather than dealing with the client himself he should have resorted to taking it to the court. I wouldnt want to have been in his position, at the time he probably felt that his course of action was the best.


Posted on 10-05-2012 10:34 | By PLONKER

Looks like a very tricky situation, I hope the beneficiaries appreciate the effort to protect their money.


Posted on 10-05-2012 09:04 | By

I was waiting for this - it had to happen and there is a lot more to come

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

Should the speed on SH2, between Katikati and Bethlehem, be reduced to 80km/h?