The Association of Chartered Accountants (ACCA) has said that they will be stopping remote exams for their candidates from March 2026, a step they say will crack down on cheating.  The only exceptions will be for those candidates taking exams in countries where there are no test centres at all, and for those who have applied for additional support considerations, which will be reviewed on a strict case-by-case basis.  But are remote exams really the risk people think they are?  We take a closer look at the realities of remote exams, as well as the unintended negative consequences of such a sweeping decision. 

Why Has ACCA Made This Decision? 

ACCA’s decision is not simply about whether remote exams can be secure, but about whether the organisation believes that their risk — and the perception of that risk — is acceptable for a professional qualification.  In high-trust professions like accountancy, confidence among employers, regulators, and the public is critical.  Even isolated incidents of malpractice can undermine that confidence.

Their decision also sits within the context of rising AI use globally, something which ACCA believes has led to an increase in cheating.  In a statement to the Financial Times, ACCA CEO Helen Brand said: “We’re seeing the sophistication of [cheating] systems outpacing what can be put in, [in] terms of safeguards.” 

And this is on top of extra regulatory pressures.  In 2022, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) stated that cheating in professional exams was a “live” issue at Britain’s biggest tier one audit and accounting firms.  This will no doubt have contributed to ACCA’s verdict, as they want to be seen as taking steps to diminish cheating by the FRC. 

While the decision may appear straightforward, the reality is far more complex.  Although there are legitimate concerns about how some remote exams are run and invigilated, ending ACCA’s remote exams will make assessments inaccessible for many candidates.

The Reality of Remote Exams 

It is understandable that awarding bodies default to in-centre exams as the safest option, particularly given they were the standard for decades.  However, security in assessment is not determined by location, but by the systems, controls, and expertise surrounding delivery.

So, what does a secure remote exam actually look like in practice?  Here are the steps we take to ensure integrity in our exams:

• Comprehensive Monitoring: Our remote invigilation platform, V3, allows invigilators to monitor candidates via webcam, screen share, and mobile app, giving full visibility of both the candidate and their screen throughout the exam.
• Pre-Exam Checks: Before starting, candidates complete a 360° room scan via the app to confirm the space is clear of other people or prohibited materials.  Any suspicious items — such as notes, smart devices, or extra monitors — must be removed, and any incidents are documented.
• Continuous Supervision: Candidates remain connected to invigilators throughout the exam via the app, which uses the front camera for monitoring.  Any prolonged disconnection will result in a report to the awarding body.
• Highly Trained Invigilators: Our invigilators are regularly updated on best practices and monitor a maximum of five candidates per session, often a closer ratio than in traditional exam halls.
• Additional Safeguards: Awarding bodies can add extra measures like strict break policies or lockdown browsers, which restrict access beyond the exam paper itself.

That said, not all remote exams meet these standards, with many falling far short when it comes to the necessary expertise and vigilance expected from invigilators.  But to say that they unanimously increase the risk of cheating is simply untrue — with the right technological measures put in place, and with well-trained invigilators working hard to prevent malpractice, there’s no reason a remote exam can’t take place securely.  And importantly… 

Stopping Remote Exams Will Not Stop Cheating! 

ACCA’s CEO Helen Brand has stated that while the awarding body has been working “intensively” to combat cheating (especially AI-driven attempts), “people who want to do bad things are probably working at a quicker pace”.  However, this raises an important question: why is this determination to cheat so often associated only with remote exams?  By Helen’s own logic, if somebody is intent on cheating, they will try to do it — regardless of whether it’s in-person or remotely.  

And there’s plenty of evidence to suggest candidates are trying to cheat using technology in test centre exams.  Just last year, a student in Japan was arrested when trying to enter a Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) venue while impersonating another candidate.  Police found a microphone hidden inside his facemask, as well as smart glasses connected to a mobile phone.  Similarly, last year, police caught a number of students at Indian secondary schools in Shimla and Chandigarh attempting to cheat in test centre exams using bluetooth devices.  

Our colleagues in the Assessment Security Research Group recently wrote a paper entitled ‘Devices of Deception’ which takes an in-depth look at some of the latest technological advancements being marketed towards exam candidates as ways to cheat.  These devices — which include smart glasses and miniature microphones — can all be used to cheat during test centre exams as well as remotely.  If anything, the fact that most people’s concerns are around remote exam risks shows that in-person exams have become a blind spot when it comes to modern cheating methods.  

And crucially, while in-centre exam cheating is happening at scale, the data we have is sparse — often deliberately so.  Many awarding bodies keep reports of test-centre cheating to a minimum, fearing that acknowledging the problem could damage their reputation.  This creates a distorted picture where remote exams are portrayed as the main risk, while the reality is that cheating is a threat in any setting.

VICTVS CEO, Ben Clayson, says: “Cheating is not a problem exclusive to remote exams: it’s a challenge across all assessment formats.  The solution isn’t to remove remote exams, but to strengthen security measures and innovate.  It is only by doing this that we can protect integrity without sacrificing accessibility.”

If ACCA’s concern is that determined candidates will always find new ways to cheat, then eliminating remote exams does not remove that threat — it merely relocates it.

Stopping Remote Exams Negatively Impacts Students  

Concerns around cheating have dominated the conversation about remote exams so much that people are overlooking their benefits. 

Remote exams are often the only way many people living in isolated or far-off regions can take their exams.  While ACCA’s policy allows remote exams for those in countries without test centres, this overlooks the reality that many individuals still face significant travel barriers — even within countries that do have centres.  One Reddit user wrote on the ACCA subreddit: “I am in Perth, Australia [and] my closest center is 4.5 hours flight away, i hope they listen to my case for letting me keep my remote exam”.   

It is reasonable to assume that most candidates living far from a test centre won’t be able to spend hours travelling to their exam, let alone cover the associated costs.  As a result, many may be unable to sit their test and gain their qualification, potentially jeopardising their career.

Remote exams also make assessments more accessible for those with extra needs.  Working in a home environment can be immensely beneficial to those with mental health disorders, such as anxiety or depression, or even conditions such as autism.  This is because their home is a known space where they can take the assessment without the distraction of others around them.  Those with visual or hearing impairments can also benefit from taking their assessment in a location of their choosing, with personal computers they can optimise to their own specific requirements.  

While ACCA has stated that candidates with additional needs will be supported through adjustments at exam centres, this approach assumes that in-centre delivery is a fair starting point for everyone, rather than one delivery method among many.  For many candidates — particularly those with anxiety, autism, or mobility issues — it is not.  And whilst candidates will be able to request additional adjustments, it is unclear how lenient ACCA will be with these requests.

Final Thoughts 

ACCA have said that they have made the decision to stop remote exams in order to “protect the hard work” of students everywhere.  But what about protecting those students who can no longer afford to travel to take their exam?  Or those who struggle in a test centre environment?  For these candidates, the change introduces significant barriers that risk limiting access and fairness.

ACCA’s decision gives little weight to the fact that technological cheating risks, including those involving AI, still exist in in-person exams.   As shown above, candidates are more than happy to try their luck bringing smart glasses or other hidden devices into exam centres.  Cheating doesn’t simply stop because candidates are sitting in an exam hall. 

Integrity and accessibility should not be competing priorities.  We have seen first-hand how secure remote exam platforms, combined with expert invigilation, can make remote exams as low-risk as their in-person counterparts.  Additional safeguards, such as lockdown browsers and continuous candidate monitoring, further strengthen exam integrity without removing flexibility.

If awarding bodies remain hesitant to offer remote exams for all assessments, a practical compromise could be to reclassify certain exams as lower-stakes and allow only these to be taken remotely.  Many candidates — such as accountants — are required to sit multiple exams alongside demonstrating their professional competence in the workplace.  As exams are not the only measure of capability, some inevitably carry less weight than higher-stakes assessments, such as medical school exams.  The reality is that not all exams are equally significant, even if organisations are reluctant to acknowledge this.

Ultimately, ACCA has made a decision which unfairly penalises their candidates, while secure remote exam options are readily available.  Protecting trust in qualifications does not require limiting access to them.  If ACCA truly values its global student base, it must adapt and embrace modern exam solutions, ensuring opportunity is never limited by geography or circumstance.