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

Ms. Vance shall maintain an active license status.

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

Ms. Vance is required to reimburse the Board $13,989.50 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Other standard terms of probation.

Effective August 30, 2009

Ms. Vance admits the truth of the charge and allegation related to general unprofessional conduct described in the Board's Accusation as her actions of accessing, obtaining, and using confidential tax information of someone who was not her client, without authorization and in violation of law. Ms. Vance also admits that the other charges in the Board's accusation, if proven at hearing, would be grounds for discipline.

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

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective December 26, 2008

Mr. Vandervort, after being engaged to prepare personal tax returns, failed to complete and provide returns for two tax clients for the year ended December 31, 2006, and for one client for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Mr. Vandervort did not return client income tax records to the three clients despite their repeated requests by telephone and written correspondence.

Mr. Vandervort prepared and signed a corporation income tax return for the year ended December 31, 2006, during a period in which his license to practice public accountancy was expired.

Mr. Vandervort did not respond within 30 days to written inquiries from the Investigative CPA.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5037, 5050, 5100 (c), (g), and (i). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 52 and 68.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

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

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

Mr. Van Haaster is required to reimburse the Board $6,500 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Other standard terms and conditions.

Effective October 26, 2008

Accusation No. AC-2008-16 contains the following allegations:
On September 21, 2007, Mr. Van Haaster pled guilty to violating Penal Code section 115 (Offering False Instrument for Filing), a felony, and Government Code section 87100 (Public Official/Financial Interest), a misdemeanor. Mr. Van Haaster was sentenced to three years formal probation; ordered to serve 30 days in county jail, to be served on consecutive weekends; perform 500 hours of community service; and pay a restitution fine of $9,000.

The circumstances that led to the felony conviction occurred in 2002 while Mr. Van Haaster was a Murrieta City Council member and required to file a Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest, with the City Clerk of Murrieta. He failed to disclose on the Form 700 a loan he received from a source doing business in the City of Murrieta, a loan payment he received from a source doing business in the City of Murrieta, and a financial interest he had in his daughter's daycare business located in the City of Murrieta.

The circumstances that led to the misdemeanor conviction are that in 2004, while Mr. Van Haaster was the Mayor of Murrieta, he voted on road improvements near a property in which he and his daughter had a financial interest.

Business and Professions Code, Division 1.5, Chapter 3, § 490, and Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5100(a) & (j).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

License revoked.

Effective September 14, 1994

On October 6, 1993, Respondent was convicted in San Diego County Municipal Court for violation of Revenue and Taxation Code § 19405 (filing a false tax return), a felony, and violation of Penal Code § 487.1 (grand theft of personal property), a felony.

Business and Professions Code, Division 1.5, Chapter 3, § 490 and Division 3, Chapter 1, §, 5100 (a). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 99.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate.

The Stipulation specifically states that, in the event Respondent seeks reissuance of CPA Certificate No. 38312 in the future, he will be responsible for reimbursement of all investigative costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the Board as a result of prosecution in this matter.

Effective September 7, 1996

Respondent further admits that grounds exist to discipline his license as relates to the conduct alleged within the subject Accusation.

The Accusation includes allegations that Respondent performed an audit for Westmont Securities Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1988, which included extreme departures from ordinary standards of practice in the accounting profession. In particular, the auditor's report did not contain the language required for auditor's standard reports on financial statements of a single year; the audit work papers contained no documentation that the audit was properly planned, that there was proper study and evaluation of internal control, or that adequate substantive testing was performed. The audited financial statements did not contain a statement of cash flows, and the notes to financial statements omitted various disclosures required by generally accepted accounting principles.

In addition to the foregoing, the Accusation alleges that Respondent breached his fiduciary duty to a client by sending a letter to the client's insurance company requesting payment to himself on the client's claim. Respondent's objective in so doing was to obtain compensation for uncollected accounting fees. The Accusation additionally charges Respondent with retaining the records of said client.

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

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective April 1, 2004

On or about July 10, 2003, an order was instituted against Mr. Veen in the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Administrative Proceeding, wherein Mr. Veen was suspended from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant.

Mr. Veen failed to notify the California Board of Accountancy within 30 days of the suspension entered against him by the SEC.

The order included the SEC's allegations that from at least 1996 to on or about 1998, Mr. Veen, as the Chief Financial Officer of Aura Systems, Inc., knew or was reckless in not knowing that Aura materially overstated its revenue for 1997 and 1998, and he provided Aura's independent auditors with false documents during the year-end audit.

Further, the SEC alleged that on or about January 19, 1999, Mr. Veen signed and caused to be filed with the SEC, a false third quarter report of NewCom. Mr. Veen knew or should have known that the report materially overstated earnings and revenue, and created false sales numbers.

Mr. Veen agreed to the entry of the SEC's order without admitting or denying the charges.

Business and Professions Code, Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5063, 5100(c) and (j), and 5200 (g) and (h).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective October 25, 2002

Ms. Veerkamp was engaged by a client to prepare his 1999 and 2000 federal and state individual income tax returns. Ms. Veerkamp had previously performed such engagements for this client. Ms. Veerkamp gave repeated assurances that she would prepare the client's returns but failed to do so.

In order for Ms. Veerkamp to perform the terms of the engagements, the client provided financial documentation to Ms. Veerkamp. The documentation entrusted to Ms. Veerkamp was, and at all times remained, the property of the client. The client made multiple demands, both written and oral, upon Ms. Veerkamp for her to return the financial documentation belonging to him, or to complete the engagements. Ms. Veerkamp failed to return the client's documentation and did not complete the terms of the engagements. The client was assessed penalties as a result of Ms. Veerkamp's failures.

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

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of CPA Certificate, via default decision.

Effective October 24, 1997

Reinstated May 6, 2003

Also See:

David Villanueva & Co.

Respondent was alleged to have committed gross negligence for extreme departures from professional standards in his performance of two review engagements.

In addition, Respondent practiced public accountancy with an expired permit, failed to maintain records in support of claimed continuing education hours, and practiced using the plural designation "Accountants" when he was a sole practitioner.

Business and Professions Code, Division 1, Chapter 1, § 118 (b), Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5050, 5062, and 5100 (c) and (f). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, §§ 66, 87 (a), and 89 (d).

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Surrender of PAR Registration, via stipulated settlement.

Effective April 22, 2005

Also See:

Guerrero, Cesar Estrada

Accusation No. AC-2003-29 includes charges that the partnership of Villanueva & Guerrero CPA's was grossly negligent and failed to comply with professional standards in its audit of the financial statements of the Torres-Martinez Tribal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program for the year ended September 30, 2001. The accusation further charged the firm, with gross negligence in its audits of National Hispanic University and Vallecitos CET, Inc., each for the financial year ended June 30, 2001. For the sole purposes of settlement, the partnership understands that at a hearing, a factual basis for the charges in the Accusation could be established and that those charges, if proven, would constitute cause for discipline of the partnership license.

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

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation of Practice Privilege Registration, via decision after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

Mr. Vinson shall pay the CBA in the amount of $25,774.04 for its investigation and prosecution costs.

Effective September 1, 2012

The decision, which was issued after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, included the following causes for discipline:

Mr. Vinson committed gross negligence, and repeated acts of negligence and willfully violated professional standards for issuing an Audit Report on September 2, 2008, for Lin-Ros Best Home Care, Lin-Ros Best Home Care No. 2, and MVM Home. The auditor’s report failed to conform to professional standards for an attestation and audit engagement and contained extreme departures from generally accepted auditing standards and regulatory requirements. Mr. Vinson failed to properly plan the audit and did not have an audit strategy or audit plan in his working papers. Mr. Vinson failed to set a materiality level for audit risk and failed to document his consideration of fraud in his working papers. Mr. Vinson issued an audit report for the above noted engagement that failed to conform to professional standards.

Mr. Vinson secured his Practice Privilege Registration by knowing misrepresentation of a material fact, or by knowingly omitting to state a material fact in his application for the practice privilege. Mr. Vinson is licensed as a CPA in the State of Texas. Mr. Vinson has not practiced in the State of Texas and does not have an office or any clients in the State of Texas. Mr. Vinson has been employed by the City of Los Angeles as an accountant since 1995 and resides in West Covina, CA. CBA rules require that an applicant for a California Practice Privilege must have a principal place of business that is not in the State of California. Mr. Vinson failed to satisfy this requirement and therefore was not eligible to receive his California Practice Privilege Registration on July 21, 2008.

Business and Professions Code, Division 1.5, Chapter 3, & 498; Division 3, Chapter 1, §§ 5062, 5096.3 (a), 5100 (b), (c) and (g). California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Division 1, § 58.

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision

Revocation stayed with five years' probation (to run concurrently with the suspension), via stipulated settlement.

Ms. Vlcek's license is suspended for three years.

Ms. Vlcek shall complete four hours of continuing education in ethics within 100 days prior to termination of probation.

Ms. Vlcek shall reimburse the CBA in the amount of $4,179.66 for its investigation and prosecution costs, to be made within 60 days from the effective date of the decision.

Other standard terms of probation.

Effective December 26, 2012

First Amended Accusation No. AC-2012-50 contains the following allegations:
In November 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case entitled In the Matter of Martha W. Vlcek, CPA, Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-14625, entered an "Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice" suspending Ms. Vlcek from appearing or practicing before the Commission. The ground of suspension was and is that in Securities and Exchange Commission, plaintiff, v. Steven M. Des Champs and Martha W. Vlcek, defendants, United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:08-cv-01279-KJD-GWF, a "Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief as to Defendant Martha W. Vlcek" was entered permanently enjoining her, among other things, from further violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction arose from Ms. Vlcek's employment as an accountant of Bally Technologies, Inc. Ms. Vlcek was also ordered to disgorge $10,849.00 representing profits gained as a result of Ms. Vlcek's wrongful conduct. Ms. Vlcek was also assessed a civil penalty of $30,000.00 and prejudgment interest of $3,509.00.

The Securities and Exchange Commission alleged, among other things, that from the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, Ms. Vlcek fraudulently recognized revenue on bill and hold transactions, made misleading disclosures and omissions regarding revenue recognition, and made materially false statements to Bally Technologies' outside auditors when she represented the transactions were proper under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

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

Related Documents:

Accusation and Decision