Skip to content

IAI Actuarial Core Principles · Business Management · Actuaries Act, 2006 and IAI governance

A member of the IAI is convicted by a court of an offence involving moral turpitude. Which statement best reflects how the Actuaries Act, 2006 treats such a situation?

A conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude can be a ground for disciplinary action, and the Institute may remove the member's name from the register after following due process. It is not limited to actuarial-work offences or subject to a ten-year wait.

  1. ANothing can be done because courts and the Institute operate separately
  2. BOnly the Central Government may remove the name, and only after ten years
  3. CThe member must be removed automatically within a day without any procedure
  4. DThe conviction is relevant only if the offence relates to actuarial work
  5. Such conviction can be a ground for action against the member by the Institute, which may remove the name from the register after due processCorrect

Explanation

The Act treats conviction for serious offences as a ground for disciplinary action, handled by the Institute following due process. It is not limited to offences connected with actuarial work, and no fixed ten-year wait or instant automatic removal applies. Court and professional proceedings can both operate.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Actuaries Act, 2006 and IAI governance shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Actuaries Act, 2006 and IAI governanceFree diagnostic mock

More Actuaries Act, 2006 and IAI governance questions