Professional misconduct upheld for active company involvement without prior permission, but removal period was reduced for delay

Professional misconduct was upheld where the appellant's admitted role in operating bank accounts, arranging loans, signing cheques and handling paperwork showed substantial participation in the company's management rather than passive investment. The disciplinary record supported the finding that prior permission for such commercial engagement had not been obtained as required under the applicable regulations and schedule. The misconduct finding was sustained, but the sanction was treated as excessive in light of the long lapse of time since the 1987 conduct, and the period of removal from membership was reduced from six months to three months.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct for engaging in business activities and substantially participating in the management of the company without the required prior permission, and whether the period of removal from membership required interference.

Analysis: The appellant's admitted role in operating bank accounts, arranging loans, signing cheques and handling substantial paper work showed that he was not a passive investor but was materially involved in the company's affairs. The disciplinary record also supported the finding that the requisite prior permission for such engagement had not been duly obtained before undertaking the commercial role. On that basis, the finding of professional misconduct under the applicable schedule and regulations was sustained. However, taking into account the long lapse of time since the misconduct in 1987, the quantum of punishment was considered excessive.

Conclusion: The finding of professional misconduct was upheld, but the period of removal from membership was reduced from six months to three months.

---