I got reported but haven't received any letter yet, what should i do?

[Giovanni]

S2000magician wrote:
It is fair to treat all candidates the same. They can all be treated the same by presuming that they’re innocent, and they can all be treated the same by presuming that they’re guilty.
You’re taking “presumed innocent” as the only possible fair starting point. It simply isn’t.

Fair in this sense means fair in relation to the accused versus the accuser. It is custom in civilized societies as a defendant to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, based on the level of proof that is required in a given case (criminal vs civil, etc). For some reason that’s not okay with CFAI. What is even worse about it is that those who are proven innocent are still penalized by forcing them to register late and incur late fees (or barring them from registration).
Of course, they can make up whatever rules they like and you’re right - you can take it or leave it. But taking that attitude is not, in my view, consistent with the CFAI’s principles of improving ethical behavior in the finance profession. You don’t tell people to be ethical, promote a developed legal approach as desirable for a positive investment climate, and then don’t think through the ethical dilemmas tied into your own approach to enforcing ethics.
As for the comment by the person who suggested that the risks of letting one unethical person in makes it worth punishing several innocent candidates, I’d like to see them repeat those words if they ever get a PCI notice due to them stretching their neck inappropriately at the next exam, and then sit on edge for 9 months without a clue as to whether they passed or not.

 

[S2000magician]

Giovanni wrote:

S2000magician wrote:It is fair to treat all candidates the same. They can all be treated the same by presuming that they’re innocent, and they can all be treated the same by presuming that they’re guilty.
You’re taking “presumed innocent” as the only possible fair starting point. It simply isn’t.

Fair in this sense means fair in relation to the accused versus the accuser. It is custom in civilized societies as a defendant to be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, based on the level of proof that is required in a given case (criminal vs civil, etc).

Which is what I’ve been saying: you’re using this as the basis for how CFA Institute should behave, when it is involved in neither criminal nor civil law.

Giovanni wrote:For some reason that’s not okay with CFAI.

More to the point: for some reason you think that CFA Institute – which is involved in neither criminal nor civil law – has some obligation to follow that as a model. I’m merely saying that it has no such obligation. If you can make a case that it has, please do. You haven’t yet.

 

[Ivan Drago]

CFAI is free to be a bitch to us.
Because we pay them (not they pay us) and we accept the rules of the game set by them.
Discussing the rules of the game is very unproductive. You just accept them as you cannot change them. The whole thread reminds me of crying for fairness, which is rarely a case in this world.

 

[Giovanni]

S2000magician wrote:
More to the point: for some reason you think that CFA Institute – which is involved in neither criminal nor civil law – has some obligation to follow that as a model. I’m merely saying that it has no such obligation. If you can make a case that it has, please do. You haven’t yet.

From a legal standpoint, all associations and organizations have some tangency to federal/state/local law which govern behavior. You couldn’t, for example, create bylaws that would contradict the established laws of your region assuming they pertained to your kind of organization.
I’m pretty sure that what CFAI does is more likely than not legal. That is not my point. As the CFAI institute itself argues, just because something is legal doesn’t make it necessarily ethical. Since ethical behavior is such a big part of the CFAI’s purpose (what is right versus what is required by law), in my view it has a moral obligation to treat its candidates with a certain level of respect in suspected ethics violations cases, in accordance to what it itself promotes in its curriculum (common law system). In my view its current policies are not adequate and could use some review. Its not much to ask.
If we all say ‘CFAI can do what it wants’, we aren’t helping matters for ourselves. Those of you who have the charter may already have this problem in the past, but how would you feel if a truly ethical person who had every right to acquire the charter left the program because he/she was treated with disrespect? The sad fact is most people probably won’t simply because the charter in this day and age has a lot of value. But that doesn’t make it right.

 

[S2000magician]

Giovanni wrote:

S2000magician wrote:More to the point: for some reason you think that CFA Institute – which is involved in neither criminal nor civil law – has some obligation to follow that as a model. I’m merely saying that it has no such obligation. If you can make a case that it has, please do. You haven’t yet.

From a legal standpoint, all associations and organizations have some tangency to federal/state/local law which govern behavior. You couldn’t, for example, create bylaws that would contradict the established laws of your region assuming they pertained to your kind of organization.

Nobody is suggesting that CFA Institute can do anything illegal. You appear to be inferring things that aren’t there.

Giovanni wrote:I’m pretty sure that what CFAI does is more likely than not legal. That is not my point. As the CFAI institute itself argues, just because something is legal doesn’t make it necessarily ethical. Since ethical behavior is such a big part of the CFAI’s purpose (what is right versus what is required by law), in my view it has a moral obligation to treat its candidates with a certain level of respect in suspected ethics violations cases, in accordance to what it itself promotes in its curriculum (common law system). In my view its current policies are not adequate and could use some review. Its not much to ask.

Now you’re saying that it’s unethical to presume guilt until innocence is proven. Why is that unethical?

Giovanni wrote:If we all say ‘CFAI can do what it wants’, we aren’t helping matters for ourselves. Those of you who have the charter may already have this problem in the past, but how would you feel if a truly ethical person who had every right to acquire the charter left the program because he/she was treated with disrespect? The sad fact is most people probably won’t simply because the charter in this day and age has a lot of value. But that doesn’t make it right.

Nobody’s said that “CFA [Institute] can do what it wants”. We agree that CFA Institute should treat its candidates, charterholders, and members (covered persons) fairly. You believe that that requires that it presume that its covered persons are innocent until proven guilty. I maintain that that is not necessary.
If you’ve learned CFA Institute’s Standards of Professional Conduct, then you should be well aware that they discourage not only actual evil (cheating, conflicts of interest, whatever), but the appearance of evil (anything that might appear to compromise your objectivity, integrity, and so on). It seems to me that their policy in handling cheating accusations is consistent with their view that even the appearance of cheating can be an ethical violation
I, for one, don’t see much benefit in furthering this discussion.

 

[jqian]

CFAI is operating and having same attitude much like US border service agency: arrogant, ridiculous
They say you are a bad person, then you are bad. Period, no arguement.

 

[Giovanni]

S2000magician wrote:
Nobody is suggesting that CFA Institute can do anything illegal. You appear to be inferring things that aren’t there.

And you appear to be inferring things I didn’t say (I was responding to your claim that the CFAI doesn’t have criminal or civil law applying to it, which technically isn’t true). I never said it was illegal, though if one wanted to, one could try to explore this subject further. But that is not what I am asking to do.

Quote:
Now you’re saying that it’s unethical to presume guilt until innocence is proven. Why is that unethical?

I already explained that, and wouldn’t want to retype everything. Besides I don’t think a debate on that subject would be productive given your stance on the matter.

Quote:
If you’ve learned CFA Institute’s Standards of Professional Conduct, then you should be well aware that they discourage not only actual evil (cheating, conflicts of interest, whatever), but the appearance of evil (anything that might appear to compromise your objectivity, integrity, and so on). It seems to me that their policy in handling cheating accusations is consistent with their view that even the appearance of cheating can be an ethical violation

The problem with ‘appearance’ is that it is highly subjective. People with no intention whatsoever of cheating, who in good faith observe rules and regulations, can ‘appear’ to be cheating simply because someone says so. I can say that you appear to be unethical even though you are fully ethical, and then make you suffer consequences that would equate to you being unethical. Does that strike you as fair? If so, then I guess we have a differing opinion, and your opinion would contradict the model created by the legal system that I respect which serves to protect people from frivolous accusations.
Again, its one of those things that’s easy to comment on until it happens to you. Just read the posts of distraught CFA candidates who have been suspected of cheating for no good reason. If they were truly guilty I don’t think they’d bother to take the time to post about it on a forum (esp. since doing so anonymously is not going to score them any points). The situations have bordered on the absurd. My heart goes out to these people - they honestly prepared and could have been treated better, especially after the fact of their innocence was established.
All I’m suggesting is giving accused candidates more respect, make them whole if they are cleared, and institute tighter controls to prevent dishonesty. An ethical organization should want to do that.

 

[Gottasay]

Sorry to be ironic, but aren’t we doing here exactly what we’d like the CFAI not to do - condemning them before examining their actions?
First of all, it’s not really our place… Secondly, we don’t yet know how they will handle zerobeta’s case, and we’re all rooting for him/her to be OK. Unless anyone has experience with a similar case, it may be wise to stop pouring salt on that wound.
Let’s face it, we don’t know how the Institute handlles those situations, other than to know that they take them seriously, as they should. I don’t know about you guys, but for all the threads I’ve read, I don’t recall hearing about someone getting unjustly punished for something they absolutely didn’t do (being investigated is one thing, consequences another).
Based on everything we know about the Institute, they are deliberate and conscientious. They may make the occasional error like every institution known to man, but they seem to work very hard on minimizing them - hard enough that I for one would give them the benefit of the doubt. I’ve only had very limited interactions with their staff (correcting an entry, clarifying a rule) but they were always courteous and reasonable - much more so than a number of proctors as far as I can tell.
zerobeta, I hope the proctor transmitted your ticket as ‘evidence’. He did his job and followed the rules (a bit too literrally, one could argue) but ultimately it’s up to the CFAI to make a determination, and given how innocuous your writing was, your ticket itself is your best defense IMHO.
Best of luck to you, try not to worry too much, and let us know how it goes!

 

[S2000magician]

Giovanni]

wrote:Nobody is suggesting that CFA Institute can do anything illegal. You appear to be inferring things that aren’t there.

And you appear to be inferring things I didn’t say (I was responding to your claim that the CFAI doesn’t have criminal or civil law applying to it, which technically isn’t true).

I didn’t say that CFA Institute has no criminal nor civil law applying to it; I said that they have no criminal nor civil jurisdiction.

 

[S2000magician]

Giovanni wrote:Again, its one of those things that’s easy to comment on until it happens to you.

Now it sounds as though you believe that I’m hypocritical.

Giovanni wrote:Just read the posts of distraught CFA candidates who have been suspected of cheating for no good reason.

How do you determine that there’s “no good reason”? We hear only one side of the story here.

 

[Giovanni]

S2000magician wrote:

Giovanni wrote:Again, its one of those things that’s easy to comment on until it happens to you.

Now it sounds as though you believe that I’m hypocritical.

I didn’t say hypocritical. My point is that once you have your charter and you sweated all three exams without a hitch, its easy to look back at others who have encountered challenges you didn’t and say ‘sorry, rules is the rules’.
Fortunately I haven’t run into any issues myself outside of a note on a trivial passport issue (which would not have delayed my exam results), but I can empathise with those who have been unfairly accused of cheating. I think there’s nothing more hurtful than after spending 300+ hours and honestly taking the exam to have your results withheld and potentially voided, wouldn’t you think?

Quote:
How do you determine that there’s “no good reason”? We hear only one side of the story here.

There have been people who have shared details of their investigation on various forums, including actual scanned copies of CFAI letters. You’re free to do your own research if you are interested.