Page 447 - FINAL MASTER 616pp 20-6-19

• by falsifying documents for an accounting purpose, or
• using false or misleading documents for any purpose
A person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document. For the reasons referred to above we believe the accounting treatment of the refurbishment expenditure was calculated to mislead the leaseholders who were relying on it.
Where an offence is committed by a company under the TA 1968, section 17 with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or officer holder of the company, he as well as the company may be guilty of that offence, and may be prosecuted.
Following summary conviction a defendant is liable for a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or a fine or both. On conviction on indictment a defendant is liable to a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both. In addition to this, any officers of the company may face disqualification as a director.
Publication of False Statements
It is also an offence for a company officer to publish or agree to publish a written statement or account which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular with the intention to deceive members or creditors of the company. The MHML directors knew or ought to have known that the information provided in the Service Charge Accounts was misleading, false and deceptive. At all material time Mrs Hillgarth has been a member of the company.
Following summary conviction a defendant is liable for a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or a fine or both. On conviction on indictment a defendant is liable to a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both. In addition to this, any officers of the company may face disqualification as a director.
Provision of false information to an auditor
At the time of writing it is unclear to what extent the Auditor was aware of the false and/or misleading nature of the statements set out in the Service Charge Accounts, or whether he too was deceived by Mr Brown-Constable and/or any other MHML director. In the latter case, a person convicted of an offence of making a false statement to an auditor on indictment, is subject to a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or a fine or both. On summary conviction, a director of the company is subject to a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.
Auditors right to information
Again it remains unclear to what extent the Auditor was deceived in terms of the information provided to him. The Companies Act 2006, section 201 makes it an offence for a person to