Q4. Liu requested a Hearing Panel to appeal the Designated Officer’s proposed sanction. The Hearing Panel was convened by telephone and Hearing Panel members heard testimony from Liu and Yamasaki. Liu admitted that she had reviewed her notes, recognized her error and expressed remorse and a commitment to avoid violations of the Code and Standards in the future.

After deliberating in private, the Hearing Panel determined that Liu had violated the Code and Standards and upheld the Designated Officer’s proposed sanction. Subsequently, Liu requested a Review Panel, based on the premise that she was under extreme stress during the exam or she would never had attempted to cheat by reviewing her notes.

A Review Panel has the authority to issue all of the following decisions with respect to sanctions by Hearing Panels EXCEPT:

A)   refer the matter back for further review.

B)   reverse the Hearing Panel’s determination that a candidate or member violated the Code and Standards.

C)   not impose a sanction.

Q5. Throughout the investigation and appeal processes, Liu was concerned that her friends and colleagues would learn that she was under investigation and might be expelled from the CFA Program.

Which of the following circumstances would permit the CFA Institute Professional Conduct Program to disclose information about a professional conduct investigation to external parties?

A)   Criminal activity is uncovered.

B)   The Designated Officer receives a call from a journalist about a case under investigation.

C)   A complaining party wants to know what the Professional Conduct Program is doing to investigate his complaint.

答案和详解如下：

Q4. Liu requested a Hearing Panel to appeal the Designated Officer’s proposed sanction. The Hearing Panel was convened by telephone and Hearing Panel members heard testimony from Liu and Yamasaki. Liu admitted that she had reviewed her notes, recognized her error and expressed remorse and a commitment to avoid violations of the Code and Standards in the future.

After deliberating in private, the Hearing Panel determined that Liu had violated the Code and Standards and upheld the Designated Officer’s proposed sanction. Subsequently, Liu requested a Review Panel, based on the premise that she was under extreme stress during the exam or she would never had attempted to cheat by reviewing her notes.

A Review Panel has the authority to issue all of the following decisions with respect to sanctions by Hearing Panels EXCEPT:

A)   refer the matter back for further review.

B)   reverse the Hearing Panel’s determination that a candidate or member violated the Code and Standards.

C)   not impose a sanction.

Correct answer is B)

The Review Panel does not have the authority to reverse the determination of the Hearing Panel that a violation had occurred. The Review Panel, after reviewing the documents and testimony given at the Hearing Panel and additional written submissions by the covered person and the Designated Officer, may determine that there are exceptional or unusual circumstances that would make the sanction inequitable and may decide to reduce the sanction to be imposed. There is no further appeal once the Review Panel imposes a sanction.

Q5. Throughout the investigation and appeal processes, Liu was concerned that her friends and colleagues would learn that she was under investigation and might be expelled from the CFA Program.

Which of the following circumstances would permit the CFA Institute Professional Conduct Program to disclose information about a professional conduct investigation to external parties?

A)   Criminal activity is uncovered.

B)   The Designated Officer receives a call from a journalist about a case under investigation.

C)   A complaining party wants to know what the Professional Conduct Program is doing to investigate his complaint.

Correct answer is A)

Under Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure for Proceedings Related to Professional Conduct, the Designated Officer and Professional Conduct Program staff must maintain strict confidentiality regarding complaints, investigations, proceedings and records. Exceptions to the confidentiality policy will only be made in the following circumstances: (a) failure to disclose the findings has the potential to cause serious harm to the profession, (b) criminal activity is uncovered, (c) confidentiality is waived by the member or candidate, and (d) disclosure is required by law. However, if a public censure, timed or permanent suspension of membership and the right to use the CFA designation is imposed on a covered person, the CFA Institute may publish the covered person’s name and information about the violation. This information is usually published in the CFA Magazine for violations regarding professional practice and in the Candidate Bulletin for exam-related violations.

thx