Disciplinary outcome: Anuj Paudel
Determination by order of the Disciplinary Tribunal
In the matter of
Mr Anuj Paudel MAAT
Business name
ASP Wolverhampton Limited t/a Everest and Co Accountants; Crystal Tax Refund Limited
Membership number
20246866
Date
05 December 2025
Misconduct
- For an unknown period until on or around 12 February 2024 he failed to carry out any or any adequate client due diligence in respect of one or more clients.
- For an unknown period until on or around 12 February 2024 he failed to carry out an adequate risk assessment and ongoing monitoring in respect of one or more clients.
- For an unknown period until on or around 12 February 2024 he failed to carry out an adequate firm-wide money laundering risk assessment.
- For an unknown period up [to] or around 12 February 2024 he failed to carry out any or any adequate periodic review of his Anti-Money Laundering policies, procedures, and controls.
- On one or more occasion he failed to comply with paragraph 10 of AAT’s Clients’ Money Policy by receiving and/or holding client’s money in his firm’s office bank account.
- For an unknown period until on or around 12 February 2024 he failed to comply with paragraph 33 of AAT’s Clients’ Money Policy by failing to undertake and document an annual review of his firm’s compliance with its obligations under the Clients’ Money Policy.
- He acted in a manner likely to contravene the fundamental principle of objectivity enshrined in AAT’s Code of Professional Ethics by receiving short-term loans from one or more clients in order to help fund the operation of his firm.
Finding
AAT's Disciplinary Tribunal concluded that the case involved serious and sustained breaches over a significant period, affecting multiple clients and involving multiple contraventions. It considered that Mr Paudel demonstrated a lack of early insight and failed to act promptly, which were significant aggravating factors. However, the Tribunal also recognised meaningful mitigation, including eventual compliance, engagement with professional advice, previous good character, and admissions of wrongdoing. Personal circumstances were noted but carried limited weight.
Order
- The Disciplinary Tribunal determined that Mr Paudel should receive a severe reprimand and a fine of £8,000.00.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal decided it was appropriate to require Mr Paudel to pay costs in the amount of £12,450.40.
