The International Accreditation Forum (IAF) has refused to investigate allegations of criminal tax fraud by one of its members, the US-based accreditation body United Accreditation Foundation (UAF).
For nearly a decade, the UAF has claimed that it is a US not-for-profit company and filed its original articles of incorporation in Delaware claiming “exempt” status. Despite this, the IRS has no record of the UAF in its tax except database, and the company has never published its annual tax returns as required under US law. It appears that despite having 45 listed clients on its website, the UAF has never paid US taxes.
Alternatively, if the company is operating as a private for-profit corporation, it is not required to publish its tax returns. However, the UAF could then be found to violate US Federal Trade Commission regulations against fraud, for falsely claiming to be a not-for-profit charity since 2014, when it is not.
UAF actually operates out of India and is run by Parveen Sadana. Sadana has refused to process a complaint filed directly with UAF on the matter.
In response to a complaint filed with the IAF, which is tasked with overseeing IAF member bodies such as UAF, Victor Gandy refused to launch a probe, telling Oxebridge to file the matter instead with the Asia-Pacific Accreditation Cooperation (APAC), which operates out of Australia. Gandy did not provide a justification for requiring an Australian company to investigate a US company for potential violations of US tax law. Instead, Gandy claimed to be processing the complaint in accordance with the “IAF PR1 Procedure,” but then handed the matter off to APAC since that procedure indicated to do so. In the end, IAF did not process it at all.
IAF has a history of claiming that its internal procedures are trump laws. In disregarding international sanctions against Russia, the IAF Chair Emanuele Riva cited “IAF procedures.”
Oxebridge demanded that a handoff to APAC not be allowed, as APAC and its CEO, Graeme Drake, previously colluded to have UAF entered into the IAF membership while blocking prior complaints alleging fraud. Oxebridge alleged that any handoff to APAC would be a conflict of interest. Gandy ignored this and handed the matter over to Drake at APAC.
Drake then responded that he would not process the complaint at all until certain forms were filled out. Oxebridge has refused to do so since it does not recognize APAC’s authority in matters pertaining to US law.
This leaves the matter essentially blocked as it pertains to the ISO accreditation scheme. IAF member bodies routinely cite labyrinthine “procedures” to avoid carrying out corporate and legal responsibilities.
Oxebridge has now filed complaints with the Delaware Dept. of Justice and Attorney General, as well as the Attorney General’s office in Virginia, where UAF claims to have an office. Oxebridge is asking the parties to investigate UAF for tax fraud, and the IAF for a complicit role in that scheme. UAF has already been reported to the IRS and FTC.
