DHA lodged complaint against RMA. To what extent should RMAs: obtain instructions directly from clients, instead of 3rd parties; undertake checks to verify the authenticity of documents; compare different signatures to confirm documents were signed by the same person? Should RMAs alert DHA or MARA to frauds? Can metadata be used to determine whether RMA misled MARA? If MARA asks for copies of "any" correspondence, does it mean only any "relevant" correspondence? If client asks for an RMA to call back later, does this constitute instructions?
To avoid doubt, we are not expressing an opinion on the conduct of the practitioner or anyone else nor on the OMARA’s decision. This article is a mere extract of only some aspects of a decision and should not be interpreted in any other way.