Revocation of CPA Certificate, via stipulated settlement.

Effective March 1, 2003

For purposes of settlement, Mr. Pado admits that on or about May 15, 2002, he pleaded guilty to the felony of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and that the resulting conviction was substantially related to the functions, practices, and duties of a Certified Public Accountant.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (a) and (c).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via proposed decision.

Effective May 1, 1998

While on probation, Respondent violated the terms of his probation in that he failed to obey all federal, state, and local laws, including all published rules, relating to the practice of public accountancy in California; file timely quarterly reports; and conduct all of his engagements in the state of California in accordance with applicable professional standards and Board Regulations.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050, 5055, 5100 (f) and (i). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 66, 87, and 89.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Three years probation. Probation terms include perform 100 hours of community service as approved by the Administrative Committee; complete specified professional education; resign from engagements presenting a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest; on a quarterly basis, submit written reports to the Board; and other standard terms of probation.

Effective July 29, 1994

For purposes of settlement, Respondent neither affirms nor denies that, as a partner of Parks, Palmer, Turner & Yemenidjian, the financial forecasts of a certain company were prepared in a grossly negligent manner.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (c).

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via stipulated decision.

Effective June 23, 2001

Respondent admits that while employed for a Company in private industry as a chief financial officer, he took checks that were mailed to the company for such items as rebates or closed bank accounts. He endorsed the backs of the checks with false names and then opened accounts using false names. Respondent defrauded the company of approximately $161,000.

Respondent was subsequently convicted on April 24, 2000, of fraud and theft through the use of the mail.

Respondent did not report his conviction to the California Board of Accountancy within 30 days of the conviction.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5063 and 5100 (a), (c), (f), (h), and (j).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with three years’ probation, via stipulated settlement.

Mr. Passero’s license is suspended for twelve months.

During and after completion of probation, Mr. Passero shall be permanently prohibited from engaging in and performing any attestation services, including audits. This condition continues until such time, if ever, Mr. Passero successfully petitions the CBA for the reinstatement of his ability to perform attestation services.

Mr. Passero shall pay to the CBA an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,000.

Mr. Passero shall complete 24 hours of professional education courses as specified by the CBA in addition to continuing education requirements for relicensing.

Mr. Passero shall reimburse the CBA $13,141.43 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Mr. Passero shall maintain an active license status with the CBA, including during any period of suspension.

Other standard terms of probation.

Effective October 27, 2012

Mr. Passero admits the truth of each and every charge and allegation in Accusation No. AC-2012-27.

Mr. Passero was grossly negligent and committed repeated negligent acts in an audit he performed for Quarter Horse Racing, Inc and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008. Mr. Passero’s audit workpapers failed to contain numerous necessary elements required of an audit engagement including a management representation letter, inquiry of the client’s lawyer, audit planning and procedures, and sufficient details to provide a clear understanding of the work performed and conclusions reached. Mr. Passero also failed to comply with the CBA’s requirements in making additions to his audit documentation after the audit report had already been issued to the client.

Mr. Passero also lacked independence in performing the audit since he was the Chief Financial Officer for Quarter Horse Racing, Inc and Subsidiaries during 2008 (until December 13, 2008). Mr. Passero also practiced public accountancy under the unregistered name of “Robert M. Passero, C.P.A., An Accountancy Corporation.”

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5060, 5097, 5100 (c), (e) and (g). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 58, 65, and 68.4.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via stipulated settlement.

Effective March 4, 1999

Respondent was convicted by the court on his plea of no contest in the Tulare County Municipal Court District of one felony count of violating Penal Code § 487 (a) grand theft by embezzlement, and ten felony counts of violating Penal Code § 475 (a), possessing completed checks with intent to defraud. These offenses are substantially related to the practice of public accountancy.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (a).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective September 23, 1998

Respondent was engaged and was paid $5,900 to perform an annual audit for a corporate client; however, she never issued a final audit report.
Respondent also failed to cooperate with the ensuing auditor, causing the corporate client to incur additional fees of $8,015.

Respondent borrowed $6,000 from a tax client, but she repaid the loan with checks that could not be honored due to insufficiency of funds in her account. Additionally, during a period when her CPA license was expired, Respondent conducted the practice of public accountancy using a fictitious name that she had not requested nor received Board approval to use.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050, 5055, 5100(f) and (h). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 66 and 67.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective April 1, 2004

Between April 18, 2003, and May 20, 2003, Ms. Pekrul, while employed as a financial controller for a Nevada company, forged checks to herself and another individual. Ms. Pekrul cashed an amount exceeding $250,000 for her own personal use without the authorization from the company.

On or about July 30, 2003, Ms. Pekrul was convicted in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

Between September 18, 2002, to on or about January 16, 2003, Ms. Pekrul, while employed as a part-time bookkeeper for a Nevada law firm, embezzled an amount in excess of $35,000. Ms. Pekrul forged her employer's signature on checks from the firm's general and trust bank accounts and misused the firm's Office Depot account for personal purchases.

On or about July 23, 2003, Ms. Pekrul was convicted in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

Between February 1, 2001, and October 31, 2001, while employed as a controller for a Nevada Company, Ms. Pekrul forged checks written to herself from the company's payroll account. Ms. Pekrul also misused the company's credit card by making unauthorized purchases. Ms. Pekrul embezzled an amount of approximately $58, 884.74.

On or about January 6, 2003, Ms. Pekrul was convicted in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

Ms. Pekrul failed to report the convictions to the Board as required.

Business and Professions Code, Division 1.5, Chapter 3, § 490, and Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5063, and 5100 (c) and (g). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 58.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA license, via proposed decision.

Mr. Pena is required to reimburse the CBA $14,336.84 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Effective March 15, 2011

Accusation No. AC-2008-26 includes charges of gross negligence, fraud, dishonesty, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of funds, and practice without a permit. Mr. Pena was engaged by A.C. as her accountant in 2001. From December 12, 2002 through November 2, 2006, Mr. Pena breached his fiduciary responsibility by misappropriating $211,207.33 of A.C.'s funds for his own personal use and benefit without A.C.'s knowledge.

Mr. Pena was grossly negligent in tax preparation services for A.C. He failed to perform tax return services for tax years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, and failed to make estimated tax payments in tax years 2003, 2004 and 2005.

Mr. Pena's certificate to practice as a certified public accountant was not valid from March 1, 2003 through January 29, 2008, yet Mr. Pena continued to practice as a certified public accountant. Mr. Pena failed to comply with continuing education requirements from March 1, 2003 through January 29, 2008. Mr. Pena failed to notify the CBA of his change of address within 30 days of the effective date of the change.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5100 (c), (g), (i), (k), and 5050 (a). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 87.7.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective January 6, 1999

Mr. Pendleton was responsible for a client's trust account and was to pay all of the client's expenses from that account. Respondent embezzled $84,450 from this client's trust account and failed to pay the client's mortgage and property taxes totaling $31,620. In addition, Respondent provided the client with false cash flow statements.

Furthermore, Mr. Pendleton practiced public accountancy and used the title of CPA during a period in which his license was expired and failed to notify the Board of Accountancy in writing of his change of address.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050, 5055, 5100 (a), (h), (i), and (j). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 3.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with three years' probation, via decision after Non-Adoption of Proposed Decision.

Ms. Hedges' license is suspended for 180 days.

Ms. Hedges is required to reimburse the Board $6,000 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Other standard terms of probation.

Effective April 29, 2007

Also See:

Hedges, Mary Jane

Ms. Hedges engaged in the practice of public accountancy with an expired license during the period from May 1, 2003, through August 18, 2004.

Ms. Hedges failed to complete at least 80 hours of qualifying continuing education prior to the expiration of her CPA license on May 1, 2003, and May 1, 2005, and willfully violated the accountancy laws.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050 and 5100 (g). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 87 and 94.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

License revoked.

Effective November 17, 1993

During 1985, Respondent prepared two sets of 1983 and 1984 tax returns for one client. The second set of tax returns was not filed with the IRS but was specifically prepared to aid the client to qualify for a loan.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (c) and (h).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA certificate.

Effective September 7, 1996

Respondent performed an audit of American Capital Holding Corporation and its subsidiary, Union Pacific Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Ltd. (an offshore company). The assets of both companies were grossly overstated in regard to the recording of marketable securities. The offshore insurance company sold insurance to California consumers until June 10, 1991, when the California Department of Insurance issued an order that no more business should be placed with this non-admitted insurer. This order was directly related to the investment in marketable securities reported on the financial statements of the company. Respondent was charged with gross negligence in his performance of this audit. The deficiencies include the following: failure of audit working papers to document planning for the audit, failure of audit working papers to document the auditor's understanding of internal control structure and the assessed level of control risk; failure to perform analytical procedures; failure to exercise due professional care; failure to consider the entity's ability to continue as a going concern; failure to file a change of address with the Board for a period of more than eight months, even after notification from the Board.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100(c) and (f). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 3.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective September 6, 1996

The accusation filed against the Respondent alleged that the Respondent was grossly negligent in tax and accounting matters pertaining to seven separate clients. Specifically, Respondent accepted advance payment for services which were never performed. Respondent left California without completing the engagements for which he had been paid and failed to return client records necessary for the clients to have the services performed elsewhere. Respondent further withheld his location from his clients and the Board and its representatives during the course of the investigation.

Respondent had previously been ordered by the Board's Administrative Committee to complete 24 hours of continuing education. Respondent failed to complete the mandated continuing education and failed to attend a scheduled Administrative Committee Investigative Hearing.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5037(b), 5100 (c), (f), and (h). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 3 and 68.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with three years' probation, via stipulated settlement.

Mr. Porter shall waive all fees related to the June 30, 2005 audit of Inverness Public Utility District.

Mr. Porter shall complete 40 hours of additional continuing education courses in accounting and auditing as specified by the Board.

Mr. Porter shall annually provide the Board with a listing of all audit and review engagements planned for the subsequent 12 month period, along with the respective due dates. From the list, the Board will select five audit or review engagements whose work papers and final reports shall be reviewed by a qualified outside CPA approved by the Board.

All audit, review and compilation reports and work papers are subject to review by a certified peer reviewer approved by the California Society of CPA's.

Mr. Porter is prohibited from conducting audit engagements for governmental and non-profit entities, with the exception of not-for-profit home owners' associations.

Mr. Porter is required to reimburse the Board $12,163.75 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Other standard terms and conditions.

Effective February 23, 2009

Also See:

Porter & Company

Accusation No. AC-2008-11 contains the following allegations:

Respondents committed gross negligence and violated professional standards in performing audits of a governmental entity for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2005. Respondents issued unqualified auditor's opinions although significant portions of the financial statements and note disclosures did not comply with GASB 34. Additionally, Respondents failed to exercise due care in the June 30, 2005 audit since the net assets on the Statement of Activities did not equal the net assets on the Combined Balance Sheet.

Mr. Porter as well as an auditor working for Porter & Company were not qualified to perform governmental audits since they had not completed requisite continuing professional education specified by GAGAS.

During the investigation, Mr. Porter submitted to the Board additional audit report packages issued for other governmental entities for fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2006. The audit report packages for four of these entities contained departures from professional standards, including noncompliance with GASB 34, omissions from reporting standards, use of obsolete references in the independent auditor's reports, and other note disclosure deficiencies. Mr. Porter failed to exercise due professional care upon discovery of the deficiencies.

Mr. Porter agrees that if proven at hearing, the above allegations constitute cause for discipline.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5100 (c), 5062. California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1,
§§ 58 and 87(b).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate via default decision.

Effective November 4, 1996

In June 1995, an accusation was filed that included allegations that Respondent issued an audit report of a homeowners' association for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1991, which departed materially from generally accepted auditing standards. The following deficiencies were noted: Respondent used report language that was superseded by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 58, effective for audit reports issued on or after January 1, 1989; Respondent failed to properly present supplementary information; financial statements presented with Respondent's audit report did not include a statement of cash flows;
Notes to financial statements accompanying Respondent's report did not present the significant accounting policies of the homeowners' association.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (c).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with three years' probation, via stipulated settlement.

Mr. Porter shall waive all fees related to the June 30, 2005 audit of Inverness Public Utility District.

Mr. Porter shall complete 40 hours of additional continuing education courses in accounting and auditing as specified by the Board.

Mr. Porter shall annually provide the Board with a listing of all audit and review engagements planned for the subsequent 12 month period, along with the respective due dates. From the list, the Board will select five audit or review engagements whose work papers and final reports shall be reviewed by a qualified outside CPA approved by the Board.

All audit, review and compilation reports and work papers are subject to review by a certified peer reviewer approved by the California Society of CPA's.

Mr. Porter is prohibited from conducting audit engagements for governmental and non-profit entities, with the exception of not-for-profit home owners' associations.

Mr. Porter is required to reimburse the Board $12,163.75 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Other standard terms and conditions.

Effective February 23, 2009

Also See:

Porter, Gary Allen

Accusation No. AC-2008-11 contains the following allegations:

Respondents committed gross negligence and violated professional standards in performing audits of a governmental entity for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2005. Respondents issued unqualified auditor's opinions although significant portions of the financial statements and note disclosures did not comply with GASB 34. Additionally, Respondents failed to exercise due care in the June 30, 2005 audit since the net assets on the Statement of Activities did not equal the net assets on the Combined Balance Sheet.

Mr. Porter as well as an auditor working for Porter & Company were not qualified to perform governmental audits since they had not completed requisite continuing professional education specified by GAGAS.

During the investigation, Mr. Porter submitted to the Board additional audit report packages issued for other governmental entities for fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and June 30, 2006. The audit report packages for four of these entities contained departures from professional standards, including noncompliance with GASB 34, omissions from reporting standards, use of obsolete references in the independent auditor's reports, and other note disclosure deficiencies. Mr. Porter failed to exercise due professional care upon discovery of the deficiencies.

Mr. Porter agrees that if proven at hearing, the above allegations constitute cause for discipline.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5100 (c), 5062. California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 58 and 87(b).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with three years’ probation, via stipulated settlement.

Mr. Price’s license is suspended for four months.

Mr. Price shall reimburse the CBA's investigative and prosecution costs including costs of probation monitoring not to exceed $50,000. The current investigative and prosecution costs of $29,163 shall be reimbursed within 30 days of the date the CBA's decision is final. Any costs owed, exclusive of costs of probation monitoring, shall be reduced by any payments made by co-Respondents to Accusation No. AC-2012-32, KMJ/Corbin & Company, LLP and Kendall Merkley.

Mr. Price shall maintain an active license, including during any period of suspension.

Respondent shall comply with all requirements imposed by the SEC and shall report such compliance with the CBA.

Other standard terms of probation.

Effective March 3, 2013

Also See:

KMJ / Corbin & Company, LLP

Merkley, Kendall Glade

Accusation No. AC-2012-32 contains the following allegations:

On or about September 13, 2010, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an Order which censured Respondent KMJ/Corbin & Company, LLP (KMJ); suspended KMJ Partner Respondent Kendall Merkley from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant for three years and required Merkley to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of certain federal securities laws; and suspended KMJ Partner Anthony J. Price from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant for two years. Respondents consented to the entry of the SEC order against them without admitting or denying the findings therein.

The SEC Order stated in pertinent part: "While supervising and conducting KMJ's audits and reviews of Home Solutions of America's (HSOA) financial statements for 2004, 2005, 2006 and the periods ended March 31 and June 30, 2007, Merkley (except as to 2007) and Price failed to adhere to PCAOB Standards and Rules. In summary, Merkley and Price failed to: (i) obtain sufficient competent evidential matter regarding bonuses, revenues, and cost of revenues with respect to KMJ's 2004, 2005, and 2006 audit engagements; (ii) comply with PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 3, Audit Documentation; (iii) adequately plan the audit and properly supervise assistants in connection with the 2006 engagement; and (iv) conduct reviews of interim financial information in accordance with PCAOB Standards and Rules. Additionally, Merkley caused KMJ to issue inaccurate audit reports in that he should have known that KMJ's audit reports were false because they incorrectly represented that the audits were conducted in accordance with PCAOB standards and that HSOA's financial statements were prepared in conformity with GAAP."

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (h) and (l).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with three years' probation, via stipulated settlement.

Respondents' licenses are suspended for 90 days.

Mr. Price shall take and pass with a score of 90 percent or better a Board approved ethics examination.

Mr. Price shall complete and provide proper documentation of 24 hours of continuing education courses.

Respondents shall maintain an active license status.

Respondents are required to reimburse the Board $12,964.99 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Other standard terms and conditions.

Effective June 25, 2009

Also See:

Price Reuben E & Company Accountancy Corporation

Mr. Price admits that he was suspended from practice by the Office of Professional Responsibility, Internal Revenue Service, US Department of the Treasury (OPR) for a period from May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2005. The circumstances leading to the imposition of the suspension involved the OPR's allegations regarding the untimely filing of, or failure to file, Mr. Price's personal tax returns. In addition, Mr. Price admits that he did not report the IRS suspension within 30 days of his knowledge of the event to the Board as required.

Mr. Price admits that on behalf of Reuben E. Price & Co. (Firm), the Firm was censured by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) based upon its findings concerning the Firm's violation of Section 10A(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). In its Order, the PCAOB found that the Firm failed to take prompt and appropriate steps in response to indications that an issuer audit client, may have committed an illegal act. The circumstances were that the issuer audit client included a document in its 2003 Form 10-KSB filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission which falsely claimed was an audit report issued by the Firm.

Mr. Price admits that he was the lead partner on the audit engagement and that Mr. Price is the sole shareholder of the Firm. Further, during periods of delinquency of Mr. Price's CPA permit and the Firm's Corporation registration, Mr. Price admits that both Respondents practiced public accountancy without valid permits.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050, 5100, 5100 (g), (h), and (l).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with three years' probation, via stipulated settlement.

Respondents' licenses are suspended for 90 days.

Mr. Price shall take and pass with a score of 90 percent or better a Board approved ethics examination.

Mr. Price shall complete and provide proper documentation of 24 hours of continuing education courses.

Respondents shall maintain an active license status.

Respondents are required to reimburse the Board $12,964.99 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Other standard terms and conditions.

Effective June 25, 2009

Also See:

Price, Richard Allen

Mr. Price admits that he was suspended from practice by the Office of Professional Responsibility, Internal Revenue Service, US Department of the Treasury (OPR) for a period from May 1, 2002 to April 30, 2005. The circumstances leading to the imposition of the suspension involved the OPR's allegations regarding the untimely filing of, or failure to file, Mr. Price's personal tax returns. In addition, Mr. Price admits that he did not report the IRS suspension within 30 days of his knowledge of the event to the Board as required.

Mr. Price admits that on behalf of Reuben E. Price & Co. (Firm), the Firm was censured by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) based upon its findings concerning the Firm's violation of Section 10A(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). In its Order, the PCAOB found that the Firm failed to take prompt and appropriate steps in response to indications that an issuer audit client, may have committed an illegal act. The circumstances were that the issuer audit client included a document in its 2003 Form 10-KSB filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission which falsely claimed was an audit report issued by the Firm.

Mr. Price admits that he was the lead partner on the audit engagement and that Mr. Price is the sole shareholder of the Firm. Further, during periods of delinquency of Mr. Price's CPA permit and the Firm's Corporation registration, Mr. Price admits that both Respondents practiced public accountancy without valid permits.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050, 5100, 5100 (g), (h), and (l).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via stipulated settlement.

Respondent may petition the Board for reinstatement of his revoked license no earlier than two years from the effective date of the decision.

Respondent is required to reimburse the Board $8,084 for its investigation and prosecution costs, prior to filing a petition for reinstatement.

Effective March 4, 2001

Respondent admits that while serving as a controller in private industry from March 1997 to July 1999, he unlawfully embezzled funds from his employer in excess of $150,000.

Respondent was convicted by a plea of nolo contendere in the Sacramento County Superior Court to violating Penal Code § 504, (embezzlement by public or private official), and Penal Code §§ 12022.6 (a)(2) and 1203.045, (taking, damaging, and destroying property exceeding $150,000).

Respondent was sentenced to two years and four months in state prison, required to make restitution of $258,469 to the victim.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, § 5100 (a).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision