Choosing Freedom Over Fear
This article will count 0.25 units (15 minutes) of unverifiable CPD. Remember to log these units under your membership profile.
Most accountants do not encounter unlawful conduct with certainty or drama. It usually arrives quietly: a transaction that does not make sense, an explanation that feels incomplete, or information that leaves lingering discomfort long after the numbers have been checked.
In those moments, the question is rarely whether something is wrong. The real question is what responsibility follows once the concern has been recognised.
Many practitioners assume that raising the issue and, if necessary, walking away is enough. In some cases, it is not. Understanding why requires clarity about confidentiality, professional boundaries, and the role NOCLAR plays in protecting both the public interest and the accountant.
Understanding Your Responsibilities When Unlawful Conduct Surfaces
Most professional accountants will encounter this moment at least once in their careers. It may be a transaction that does not align with expectations, an explanation that feels incomplete, or information that raises quiet but persistent concern. These situations are rarely dramatic. More often, they arrive subtly and leave the practitioner sitting with discomfort rather than certainty.
What makes these situations particularly difficult is not a lack of integrity. It is the absence of clarity about what, precisely, is expected next.
The NOCLAR framework exists to answer that question. It does not require certainty, proof, or confrontation. It requires a structured response once awareness exists.
In practical terms, the trigger is simple. The moment you become aware of information that suggests a client or employer may be acting unlawfully, the framework applies. That awareness may arise from documents, explanations, admissions, or patterns that do not make commercial or legal sense. You do not need to know whether a crime has been committed. You only need to recognise that lawful conduct can no longer be assumed.
Why These Situations Feel So Unsettling
Accountants are trained to be accurate, measured, and discreet. They are not trained to be investigators, law enforcement officers, or whistle-blowers. When potential unlawful conduct surfaces, the instinctive professional response is usually practical and restrained. The practitioner seeks clarification, raises the issue with the appropriate party, and, if the matter cannot be resolved, disengages.
In many professional contexts, that approach would be sufficient. When non-compliance with laws and regulations is involved, however, it may not be.
This is where NOCLAR changes the conversation. It shifts the question from “What feels safest?” to “What is professionally required once I know this?”
Confidentiality: Real, but Often Misunderstood
Professional accountants owe a duty of confidentiality to their clients and employers. This duty is fundamental to the profession. It supports trust, protects sensitive information, and underpins the working relationship between accountant and client.
What is often misunderstood is the nature of that duty. Confidentiality is an ethical obligation arising from professional standards. It is not the same as legal privilege. While this distinction may not matter in routine work, it becomes critically important when matters escalate.
In practice, confidentiality does not entitle a practitioner to ignore unlawful conduct, nor does it prevent disclosure where the law or professional standards require it. Confidentiality is not a shield against responsibility.
Why Confidentiality Is Not Legal Privilege
Legal professional privilege allows certain communications to be withheld from disclosure in legal proceedings. This protection applies to legal practitioners acting in that capacity. Accountants, even when providing tax, regulatory, or compliance advice, do not enjoy the same protection.
This does not mean that accountants operate without safeguards or that confidentiality is meaningless. It does mean that information may be subject to lawful disclosure when required. Understanding this distinction early allows practitioners to act deliberately rather than defensively.
A practical implication follows. When concerns arise, documentation matters. Recording what you have seen, when you saw it, and how you responded is not paranoia. It is professional self-protection.
Why the Response Framework Exists
The framework for responding to non-compliance with laws and regulations exists to support professional accountants, not to punish them. It provides a structured and proportionate way to deal with situations that are often emotionally charged and professionally risky.
In practical terms, the framework requires the accountant to do four things, in sequence.
First, the accountant must understand the matter sufficiently. This does not mean conducting a forensic investigation. It means reviewing available documentation, asking reasonable clarifying questions, and forming a grounded understanding of the issue.
Second, the matter must be raised with the appropriate level of management or governance. If the issue involves operational staff, it may be raised with senior management. If senior management is implicated, escalation must move to those charged with governance, such as the board or audit committee.
Third, the accountant must assess the response. This includes evaluating whether the response is timely, serious, and appropriate. Independent investigation, legal advice, and corrective action indicate adequacy. Dismissal, delay, intimidation, or superficial explanations do not.
Fourth, and only where the response is inadequate, the accountant must consider whether further action in the public interest is required, including reporting to an appropriate authority.
At no point does the framework require the accountant to prove illegality. It requires the accountant to respond responsibly once awareness exists.
The Importance of Following the Sequence
The framework is deliberately sequential. Each step builds clarity, context, and protection for the practitioner. It begins with understanding and discussion, moves to assessment, and only then contemplates escalation.
Each step creates a professional record of how the accountant acted once the issue became known. That record is critical. It demonstrates judgment, restraint, and compliance with professional standards.
Stopping too early, even with good intentions, can leave matters unresolved and expose the practitioner to risk, particularly if harm later emerges.
Why Quiet Withdrawal Can Be Misinterpreted
In practice, many accountants choose to disengage when concerns remain unresolved. This decision is often taken in good faith and with a strong sense of integrity. However, disengagement alone does not address the underlying non-compliance, nor does it demonstrate how the accountant responded once the risk was identified.
From a professional perspective, resignation or withdrawal without documented escalation may appear as avoidance rather than compliance. Following the framework ensures that concerns are raised, assessed, and recorded before disengagement occurs.
This is not about blame. It is about protection.
When Reporting Becomes Necessary
The framework does not require reporting in every case. It does require reporting to be considered where non-compliance is serious, where harm may be substantial, and where internal responses are inadequate or absent.
In those circumstances, reporting is not a breakdown of the professional relationship. It is the fulfilment of a professional obligation. Importantly, disclosures made in good faith through appropriate channels are recognised and protected in law.
The key practical question is not “Am I allowed to report?”
It is “Can I justify not reporting, given what I know and how management has responded?”
NOCLAR as a Professional Safeguard
When properly understood, NOCLAR is not about confrontation or accusation. It is about clarity, consistency, and protection of both the public interest and the professional accountant.
It replaces uncertainty with structure.
Fear with process.
Instinct with judgment.
Rather than asking practitioners to act bravely, it asks them to act methodically.
A Practical Reality for Practitioners
For business accountants and practitioners, particularly those in small or independent practices, these situations often feel deeply personal. Client relationships matter. Reputation matters. Income matters. For many practitioners, these decisions carry real family and community consequences.
That is precisely why a clear and principled framework is essential. It removes the burden of isolated personal judgment and replaces it with professional process.
Putting the Framework into Practice
Understanding the framework conceptually is not enough. Practitioners need to recognise what these steps look like when applied in real situations.
What follows are practical scenarios designed to illustrate how the framework operates in everyday professional life. These are not extended case studies. They are recognisable moments that answer the question many practitioners ask themselves: “What does this look like when it is actually happening to me?”
Step One: Recognise When the Line Has Been Crossed
NOCLAR is triggered the moment you become aware of information that suggests unlawful conduct, not when you have proof. You do not need a confession, a court finding, or a forensic report. You need information that no longer fits within lawful or ethical boundaries.
Practical example:
You are reviewing client transactions as part of your normal professional work and notice a R450,000 payment described as “market development services – Angola.” There is no contract, no deliverables, and no commercial explanation. When you ask for clarification, the financial director quietly admits that the payment was made to “speed up government approvals” and asks you not to repeat this to anyone.
At that moment, the issue is no longer judgment or suspicion. A bribe has been admitted. NOCLAR is triggered.
Your first practical action is not confrontation. It is documentation. Pause and record what you have seen and heard. Note the date, the amount, who said what, and what documentation exists or is missing. This is not an investigation. It is professional self-protection.
Step Two: Understand Enough, But Do Not Investigate
Your job is not to prove illegality. Your job is to understand enough to raise the matter responsibly.
This means securing copies of invoices, bank records, and contracts, or confirming their absence, and documenting conversations as accurately as possible while they are still fresh.
Practical example:
An in-house accountant notices repeated sales to a customer at forty percent below market price. There is no signed contract, and payments are received from multiple bank accounts. The finance manager becomes defensive when asked for documentation.
At this stage, the accountant does not conduct a forensic investigation. Instead, they request the executed contract, ask who authorised the pricing, document the responses received, and preserve copies of the bank records already available.
Evasive answers are not obstacles. They are information.
This is also the stage where seeking confidential legal advice may be appropriate, not to report yet, but to understand exposure, obligations, and protection should the matter escalate.
Step Three: Escalate to the Right Level, Not Just Any Level
NOCLAR requires escalation to those charged with governance, not simply to the most senior person willing to listen.
If the financial director is implicated, escalation must move beyond them. If the chief financial officer is involved, escalation must reach independent governance structures.
Practical example:
An accountant raises concerns with the chief financial officer about circular transactions and shell entities. The response is that the business is “complex,” accompanied by a warning not to interfere.
That response itself is a red flag.
At this point, escalation to the audit committee or independent board members is not optional. It is required. When raising the matter, the language should remain factual and unemotional. A documented response should be requested. Silence or verbal reassurance is not sufficient.
Step Four: Assess the Response, The Turning Point
This step determines whether your responsibility ends or escalates.
An adequate response includes independent legal or forensic investigation, preservation of evidence, serious engagement with the issue, and consideration of disclosure obligations.
Practical example:
The board appoints independent legal counsel, suspends implicated executives, preserves records, and initiates an internal investigation. In this case, the accountant’s role may end here. Governance has assumed responsibility.
An inadequate response looks very different. It may include denial without investigation, delay, instructions to “drop it,” intimidation, or superficial internal reviews conducted by those implicated.
If the response is inadequate, the framework requires consideration of further action. This is not a matter of courage. It is a matter of compliance.
Step Five: Decide Whether Reporting Is Required
Reporting becomes necessary when the conduct is serious, harm may be substantial, and governance fails to act. Bribery, fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering fall squarely within this category.
Practical example:
Despite clear evidence of irregular transactions, the board takes no action and warns the accountant about “reputational damage” if the matter is pursued. The conduct continues.
At this point, the accountant must consider external reporting. Depending on the facts, this may involve SARS, the Financial Intelligence Centre, SAPS, the Hawks, or the relevant professional body.
You are not required to report everything. You are required to report something when silence would enable ongoing harm.
Step Six: Protect Yourself Before You Disclose
Before any external disclosure, documentation is critical. Record when you became aware of the issue, what steps you took, who you spoke to, what responses you received, and why you believe reporting is necessary. Retain copies of evidence and confirm applicable whistle-blower protections.
Disclosures made in good faith are protected in law. Disclosures made casually or emotionally are risky.
Many accountants fail at this stage not because they acted unethically, but because they acted without structure.
Why “Just Walking Away” Is Not Enough
Resignation feels clean. Disengagement feels safe. Neither, however, explains how you responded once you knew.
NOCLAR exists to demonstrate that you recognised the risk, raised it responsibly, assessed the response, and escalated only when justified. It protects the public interest, and it protects you.
NOCLAR Is Not About Courage, It Is About Control
This framework does not ask you to be brave. It asks you to be methodical. It replaces fear with sequence, uncertainty with documentation, and isolation with professional backing. When followed properly, it provides freedom rather than exposure.
The Reality for Business Accountants
For CBAPs and small practice owners, these moments are deeply personal. Clients matter. Income matters. Reputation matters.
That is exactly why a clear, practical framework matters. You should never have to choose between your livelihood and your integrity if you know the steps.
A Measured Conclusion
Most accountants do not struggle with integrity. They struggle with uncertainty about where confidentiality ends, when escalation is required, and how far responsibility extends.
Understanding the distinction between confidentiality and legal privilege, and applying the NOCLAR framework as intended, allows practitioners to navigate these situations with confidence rather than anxiety. Walking away may feel like the safest option in the moment. Following the framework ensures that it truly is.
Join CIBA and We’ll Help You Navigate These Moments with Confidence
CIBA supports business accountants in applying professional standards practically and safely. We help you understand your obligations, escalate concerns appropriately, report when required, and protect your career while acting in the public interest.
Professional standards explain what is required.
CIBA helps you understand how to apply them well.
Join CIBA and never face these decisions alone.
