Which of the following is least accurate regarding reasons for imposing a summary suspension upon covered persons? A) Failure to return the annual professional conduct statement. B) Disbarment under securities laws. C) Misdemeanor charge for the possession of illegal narcotic substances. Your answer: A was incorrect. The correct answer was C) Misdemeanor charge for the possession of illegal narcotic substances. A single misdemeanor conviction for possession of illegal narcotics is not grounds for a summary suspension. So, if I am busted with possession of illegal substances, CFA’s cool with that?
misdemeanor charge definately sounds like a strict NO-NO under the standards I (D) - Misconduct, i would be busted too if the above scenario is true.
But A and B were directly related to CFA and securities markets, so you know those couldn’t be the “least accurate”
CFAI says, “have a toke on us”
I agree, but for me…the “least” worst situation is failing to return some document as opposed to getting busted for drugs. Wouldn’t you agree too? So, according to the question, if the CFA institute has someone who hasn’t returned the document and another guy who got busted for narcotics (both are charterholders), the latter goes scot-free and the former’s gets a summary suspension imposed on him? I realise this is a silly thing to be discussing especially when they are tons of other imp. stuff to learn, but this kind of stuff just makes me wonder.
schweser is always poor in ethics questions.
No wonder they got the bernie madoff dude on the q-bank.
any felony charge and you will lose your charter.
BiPolarBoyBoston Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > any felony charge and you will lose your charter. seriously? How about a car accident?
they covered this, its under professionalism. if u get caught drunk driving and get a felony you might get one of those investigation and lose your charter.