Disciplinary Actions / License Restrictions
This list contains all enforcement decisions within the past seven years for those found to be in violation of the California Accountancy Act and/or California Board of Accountancy regulations: summaries for all licensees with license restrictions; and summaries of decisions older than seven years but occurring since July 1, 1993, for licenses revoked or surrendered.
The CBA may revoke or suspend a license, or impose probation on the licensee for violation of applicable statutes or regulations. The standard probationary terms, as well as case-specific probationary terms, are included in all cases of probation. The standard probationary terms are listed in the Manual of Disciplinary Guidelines and Model Disciplinary Orders.
For more information or details of prior enforcement actions, or for information regarding possible citations and fines, please contact the CBA at:
California Board of Accountancy
2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95815-3832
Attn: Enforcement Division
E-mail: enforcementinfo@cba.ca.gov
Telephone: (916) 561-1729
FAX: (916) 263-3673
Disciplinary Actions / License Restrictions Index
INDEX N
Nadlman, Arnold H. Corona Del Mar CA CPA 8676
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.
Effective December 18, 1999
Cause For Discipline
Respondent was convicted by a plea of no contest in the Los Angeles Superior Court of violating Penal Code § 487.1, felony grand theft. Respondent, while acting as financial advisor for a client, misappropriated $160,000 of the victim's money.
The judgment of conviction was subsequently affirmed by the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal and became final on August 26, 1999. Respondent further failed to report his conviction within 30 days to the California Board of Accountancy.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 1.5, Chapter 3, § 490, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5063, 5100 (a), (f), (h), and (j).
Related Documents:
Nakao, Jennifer Murray UT CPA 82141
CBA Actions
Revocation stayed with three years’ probation, via stipulated settlement.
Prior to accepting an engagement to issue any financial statement to a California entity, Ms. Nakao shall submit to the CBA or its designee for its prior approval a plan of practice that shall be monitored by another CPA or PA who provides periodic reports to the CBA or its designee about any financial statement reports issued by Ms. Nakao to any California entity. Ms. Nakao shall pay all costs for such monitoring.
Ms. Nakao shall at all times maintain an active license status with the CBA.
Ms. Nakao shall reimburse the CBA $6,561.31 for its investigation and prosecution costs.
Other standard terms of probation.
Effective October 27, 2012
Cause For Discipline
Ms. Nakao understands and agrees that the charges and allegations in Accusation No. AC-2012-19, if proven at a hearing, constitute cause for imposing discipline.
Accusation No. AC-2012-19 contains the following allegations:
On or about February 17, 2010, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) entered an Order Making Findings and Imposing Sanctions against Ms. Nakao, barring her from being an associated person of a registered public accounting firm for a period of one year. Ms. Nakao consented to entry of the Order without admitting or denying the findings therein.
The circumstances underlying the discipline are that Ms. Nakao was an associated person of the registered public accounting firm of Grant Thornton, LLP. In February 2002, Grant Thornton, LLP became the independent auditor for iMergent, Inc. Ms. Nakao began working on the iMergent audit from 2002-2003 as the engagement senior. She was promoted in 2003 and from 2004-2005, worked as the manager on the iMergent engagement. She remained a member of the iMergent engagement team until Grant Thornton, LLP was terminated as the company’s independent auditor in October 2005.
In the Order, the PCAOB found that Ms. Nakao violated certain PCAOB auditing standards in regard to auditing the financial statements of iMergent, Inc. for the year 2004, while Ms. Nakao was the manager of the iMergent engagement. Ms. Nakao 1) failed to ensure that the engagement team sufficiently tested management’s representations of its historical collection experience for Extended Payment Term Arrangements (EPTA) sales; 2) failed to ensure sufficient procedures were performed to test or assess the reasonableness of certain EPTA collection rates disclosed by iMergent in the footnotes to its Fiscal Year 2004 financial statements and its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and 3) failed to ensure the performance of sufficient procedures to assess the reasonableness of the June 30, 2004 allowance for doubtful accounts balance. The PCAOB found that most of iMergent’s 2004 revenue came from sales of software licenses to customers who were given 24-month EPTAs.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (h) and (l).
Related Documents:
Neal, Thomas Roger Union City CA CPA 74508
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.
Effective February 24, 2006
Cause For Discipline
Mr. Neal's license is subject to discipline for unlicensed practice in that his license was expired and in a delinquent status at the time he performed two audit engagements, and when he issued his auditor's reports and caused them to be filed with the Department of Social Services.
For the audits of both organizations, Mr. Neal was grossly negligent and did not comply with professional standards in the performance and reporting on the audit engagements. Mr. Neal failed to produce audit documentation in support of his audit opinions, and there is no evidence that the audit procedures were in fact performed.
Mr. Neal failed to respond adequately and in a timely manner to the Board's requests and subpoenas issued during the investigation of this matter. Mr. Neal failed to comply with continuing education requirements in that he engaged in the practice of public accountancy, but did not provide the requested documentation required to support the continuing education courses he claimed to have completed in support of his license renewal.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050, 5051, 5055, 5062, 5100 (c), (g) and (j). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 52, 58, 87, 89, and 94.
Related Documents:
Nefsky, Melvyn I. Los Angeles CA CPA 15025
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.
Effective January 7, 2007
Cause For Discipline
Mr. Nefsky was grossly negligent for failing to complete the 2004 individual and corporate tax returns that he was engaged to prepare.
In addition, Mr. Nefsky refused to return the documents to the clients for tax year 2004 as well as the clients' documents for over 20 previous years during which Mr. Nefsky had provided them with his services.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5100 (c) and 5037. California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 68.
Related Documents:
Ness, John Bruce San Diego CA CPA 48489
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.
Effective April 29, 2007
Cause For Discipline
For previous violations of the Accountancy Act and Board regulations, Mr. Ness' permit to practice public accountancy was revoked. However, the revocation was stayed, and a term of three years of probation was imposed.
The Accusation and Petition to Revoke Probation contains the following allegations of Mr. Ness' additional unprofessional conduct. From on or about December 2004, through on or about November 2005, Mr. Ness' client or former client made numerous requests for the return of books, records or other data that he provided to Mr. Ness for the purpose of preparing the client's tax returns. Mr. Ness failed to respond to any of the client's requests and failed to return any of his records. Mr. Ness failed to respond to the Board's inquiries and the Board's subpoena concerning the client's complaint.
Mr. Ness failed to comply with the terms of his probation by failing to comply with the rules relating to the practice of public accountancy and by failing to respond to the Board's inquiries concerning the above matters.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5037 (b) and 5100 (g). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 52 and 58.
Related Documents:
Ness, John Bruce San Diego CA CPA 48489
CBA Actions
Revocation stayed, with three years' probation, via stipulated settlement.
Sixty days suspension from the practice of public accountancy.
Mr. Ness shall return all documents relating to the tax engagement, including the 1999 tax returns prepared by Mr. Ness.
Mr. Ness shall use an engagement letter with each new client or engagement accepted during probation, and he shall provide copies to the Board or its designee upon request.
Other standard terms and conditions.
Effective December 22, 2004
Cause For Discipline
For purposes of settlement, Mr. Ness admits on March 10, 2000, he was engaged to prepare 1999 federal and state income tax returns. During this time, Mr. Ness' license to practice public accountancy was in an expired status.
In January 2001, Mr. Ness' client telephone Mr. Ness and requested his 1999 tax returns. Mr. Ness stated that he would mail them but failed to do so.
In April 2001, the client again telephoned Mr. Ness and requested that Mr. Ness send the tax returns and the supporting tax documentation. Mr. Ness refused.
Mr. Ness' actions constitute gross negligence, retention of client records, and practicing public accountancy with an expired CPA certificate.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5037, 5050, 5055, and 5100(c) and (f). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 52 and 68.
Related Documents:
Net Profit Tax Center FNP 1074
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA Certificate and Fictitious Permit, via stipulated decision.
Effective December 31, 2002
Also See:
Cause For Discipline
Robert Hazen agreed to the revocation of his CPA license and the fictitious name permit issued by the Board for his business, Net Profit Tax Center.
Pursuant to stipulated settlement, and solely for purposes of the Board's proceedings, Robert Hazen admitted that he diverted trust assets to his business and personal accounts and that in so doing, he breached his fiduciary duty and engaged in conduct constituting gross negligence.
Mr. Hazen further admitted that he had repeatedly failed to comply with his duty to respond to trust beneficiaries or their representatives.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5037(b)(2), 5100(c), (h), and (f). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 68.
Related Documents:
Ng, Wingto Aldous Diamond Bar CA CPA 63601
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA license, via default decision.
Effective March 3, 2013
Cause For Discipline
Accusation No. AC-2012-24 contains the following allegations:
Mr. Ng was grossly negligent and committed repeated negligent acts in the preparation and filing of individual and corporate tax returns for two separate clients. Mr. Ng failed to complete the required courses of continuing education in order to renew his CPA license. Mr. Ng practiced and advertised under the unregistered firm name of United Accountancy. Further, Mr. Ng failed to respond to CBA requests for documentation regarding client tax return preparation and license renewal deficiencies during the CBA's investigation.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5060, 5100 (c), (g) and 5156. California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 52, 87 and 94.
Related Documents:
Nguyen, Lien D. Anaheim CA CPA 50144
CBA Actions
Mr. Nguyen is permanently prohibited from performing audit, review, or compilation engagements under either of his licenses issued by the Board.
Effective December 20, 2002
Also See:
Violation(s) Charged
Nguyen, Michelle Vu Orange CA CPA 92316
CBA Actions
Revocation stayed with three years' probation, via stipulated settlement.
Ms. Nguyen shall pay the CBA an administrative penalty of $5,000.
Ms. Nguyen shall complete an ethics continuing education course within 120 days of the effective date of the Decision and Order.
Ms. Nguyen shall complete a Board-approved regulatory review course within 120 days of the effective date of the Decision and Order.
Ms. Nguyen shall maintain an active license status.
Ms. Nguyen is required to reimburse the CBA $5,500 for its investigation and prosecution costs.
Effective June 27, 2011
Cause For Discipline
On or about January 29, 2009, Ms. Nguyen was suspended from appearing or practicing before the United States Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) as an accountant. On September 28, 2007, the SEC filed a complaint against Ms. Nguyen in SEC v. Meridian Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-07-06335 DDP (SSx) (C.D. Cal.). On January 6, 2009, the court entered an order permanently enjoining Ms. Nguyen, by consent, from violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder. Ms. Nguyen was also ordered to pay a $15,000 civil money penalty.
The Accusation alleges that Ms. Nguyen failed to notify the CBA in writing within 30 days of her suspension from practicing before the SEC, failed to notify the CBA in writing 30 days of the opening of a formal investigation by the SEC, and failed to notify CBA in writing within 30 days of the notice from the SEC to a requesting Wells Submission.
Ms. Nguyen admits the truth of each and every charge and allegation in Accusation No. AC-2010-11, except for the charges set forth in the Third Cause for Discipline (Failure to Notify CBA of Suspension by SEC).
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5100 (h), (l), (g), and 5063 (a)(3).
Related Documents:
Nguyen Lien D., CPA Inc. Anaheim CA COR 4774
CBA Actions
Mr. Nguyen is permanently prohibited from performing audit, review, or compilation engagements under either of his licenses issued by the Board.
Effective December 20, 2002
Also See:
Violation(s) Charged
Nicholls, Marvin Louis City of Industry CA CPA 20478
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA license, via default decision.
Effective March 3, 2013
Cause For Discipline
Accusation No. AC-2012-21 contains the following allegations:
Mr. Nicholls was grossly negligent in the performance of an audit for the fiscal years that ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008. The audit reports issued by Mr. Nicholls failed to conform to professional standards. Mr. Nicholls failed to sufficiently document his audit to enable a reviewer to understand the nature, timing, extent, and results of the auditing procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions reached.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5062, 5097(b), 5100 (c) and 5100 (e). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 58.
Related Documents:
Nietzel, Paul Edmond Omaha NE CPA 67855
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA Certificate, via stipulated settlement.
Effective October 22, 1999
Cause For Discipline
Respondent admits that he subjected his license to disciplinary action on August 12, 1998. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an order which denied Mr. Nietzel the privilege of appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant.
Respondent admits that in 1994 and 1995, in connection with an initial public offering, he falsely labeled portfolio schedules, created false working papers, and impersonated an investor in a due diligence telephone interview conducted by a brokerage firm.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (i) and (g).
Related Documents:
Nipp, Jennifer Phoenix AZ CPA 78106
CBA Actions
Surrender of CPA license, via stipulated surrender.
Ms. Nipp shall pay the CBA $4,086.60 prior to the issuance of a new or reinstated license.
Effective June 27, 2011
Cause For Discipline
Ms. Nipp was disciplined by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and by another state. The circumstances are as follows.
On March 31, 2009, the PCAOB issued a disciplinary order against Ms. Nipp based on violations of the PCAOB accounting and auditing standards. Without admitting or denying the findings in the order, Ms. Nipp consented to the disciplinary order that barred her from being an associated person of a registered public accounting firm for at least two years. In its order the PCAOB found that Ms. Nipp, as a partner of a registered accounting firm, violated PCAOB auditing standards in connection with the audits of PacificNet, Inc.'s 2003, 2004, and 2005 financial statements.
On May 27, 2008, Ms. Nipp was disciplined by the Arizona State Board of Accountancy for violation of Accounting Laws of the State of Arizona. Without admitting the allegations contained in the order, Ms. Nipp consented to the order that put her certificate on probation for two years. In its decision and order the Arizona Board found that Ms. Nipp failed to adhere to professional standards in two separate audit engagements for two separate clients for 2005 financial statements.
Ms. Nipp also failed to report the initiation of an investigation and subsequent discipline for accounting misconduct and violations of PCAOB auditing standards as required.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5100 (l), (d), and 5063(b)(5).
Related Documents:
Noyer, John Curtis Al Castro Valley CA CPA 24770
CBA Actions
Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.
Effective May 1, 1998
Cause For Discipline
On or about March 14, 1996, a citation was issued to Respondent. Respondent failed to comply with the citation and, as a result, Respondent was subject to discipline for unprofessional conduct.
Violation(s) Charged
Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (f). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 95.4.
Related Documents:
Enforcement Definitions
A formal document that charges violation(s) of the laws under CBA's jurisdiction including, the California Accountancy Act and/or CBA regulations by a licensee. The charges in the accusation are allegations. Allegations are not a final determination of wrongdoing and are subject to adjudication and final review by the CBA pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Cost Recovery
The licensee is ordered to pay the CBA certain costs of investigation and prosecution including, but not limited to, attorney fees.
Default Decision
The licensee failed to file a Notice of Defense or has otherwise failed to request a hearing, object, or otherwise contest the accusation. The CBA takes action without a hearing based on the accusation and documentary evidence on file.
Effective Date
The date the disciplinary decision becomes operative.
Probation
The licensee may continue to engage in activities for which licensure is required, under specific terms and conditions.
Reinstatement
A revoked license that is restored, not sooner than one year from the date of revocation, to a clear or inactive status after petition to and approval by the CBA. Reinstatement may include probation and/or terms and conditions.
Revocation
The individual, partnership, or corporation no longer is licensed as a result of a disciplinary action.
Stayed
The action does not immediately take place and may not take place if the licensee complies with other conditions (such as a probation term).
Stipulation
The matter is negotiated and settled without going to hearing.
Surrendered
The licensee has surrendered the license. The individual, partnership, or corporation no longer is licensed. The CBA, however, may impose discipline against a surrendered license in certain circumstances. Surrender may also require certain conditions be met should the former licensee ever choose to reapply for licensure.
Suspension
The licensee is prohibited for a specific period of time from engaging in activities for which licensure is required.
Disclaimer for Disciplinary Actions/License Restrictions Summary
The reports contained as part of this website represent summaries of those formal disciplinary orders issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) and its participating programs, boards, committees, and commissions, imposing suspension, revocation or other discipline. Enforcement proceedings that are resolved by dismissal of the accusation or otherwise result in no actual discipline of a license are not reported at this website.
Summary information on recent orders is prepared approximately thirty (30) days after the final decision date of an enforcement case. Therefore, although this website may presently lack any such report, some licensees will actually be named in accusations, or be subject to disciplinary orders. The lack of a summary for a particular licensed person does not mean that the licensee has never been the subject of an accusation or administrative discipline.
The brief summaries offered at this website are not intended as substitutes for the actual decisions and orders issued by the Department and its participating programs, boards, committees and commissions. Copies of those decisions and orders are available at no cost by writing to the designated address for each program or board.
Also, the actions reported here may not be final and may not reflect any judicial action to stay or modify the administrative order. You should not take any action based on information contained in these summaries without verifying the information and determining whether the administrative order has been stayed or modified by a court.
As used in this summary, the term "accusation" is a formal document which notifies a licensee of the agency's charges against the licensee, and that requests a disciplinary order. The licensee is entitled to contest the charges in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. An accusation is usually resolved by an agency decision following such a hearing or by an agency decision pursuant to a settlement agreement. Often there is a considerable period of time between the date of filing an accusation and the resolution of the accusation.
The term "suspended" means that the licensee is prohibited for a period of time from engaging in activities for which licensure is required, usually for a specified number of days or months. A suspension will usually be imposed in conjunction with a lengthy period of probation of one or more years.
The term "revoked" means that the individual, partnership, or corporation is no longer licensed as a result of an enforcement action. Revocation is not necessarily permanent. The revoked licensee has the right, one year or more after the revocation, to petition the California Board of Accountancy for reinstatement. Reinstatement of the revoked license must be approved by the CBA and may include probation and/or terms and conditions.
For a copy of these actions, please contact the CBA by mail, e-mail, telephone, or fax as listed below:
California Board of Accountancy
2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95815-3832
Attn: Enforcement Division
E-mail: enforcementinfo@cba.ca.gov
Telephone: (916) 561-1729
FAX: (916) 263-3673