The Charity Commission has met with trustees of the Southwark Muslim Women’s Association after its chief executive was jailed for the sexual abuse of three girls under the age of 14.

The regulator said it opened an operational monitoring compliance case due to concerns over the charity’s failure to report Zafar Iqbal’s conviction for the historic sexual offences and the reputational risk.

Under the Commission’s reporting serious incidents policy, trustees should report serious incidents as soon as they suspect them, even if the incident has already been reported to the police or another regulator.

The charity’s main funder, Southwark Council, was also unaware of the charges.

The Commission’s operational compliance report, published yesterday, said Southwark Council has recommended the charity’s funding is withdrawn and it is likely to close.

Iqbal, 67, who founded the SMWA in 1979, was sentenced to seven and a half years in jail in June after he was found guilty at Woolwich Crown Court of sexually abusing three girls, aged under 14. The abuse reportedly took place in the 1970s and 80s.

The Commission said that it met with trustees and found that they had been contacted by police in 2012 about the allegations of abuse.

They discussed the risk and agreed to allow Iqbal to come to the charity’s building in Peckham at evenings and weekends, which was within his bail conditions, the regulator said.

“We were assured by the trustees that no beneficiaries were placed at risk. The victims were not beneficiaries of the charity,” the report states.

But the Commission also found that Iqbal did not have up-to-date CRB checks as set out in its safeguarding policy.

It also found a conflict of interest because Iqbal had been responsible for submitting the charity’s annual return 2013, which requires trustees to say whether any serious incidents had occurred over the past financial year.

Iqbal also attended trustee meetings, which should not have been allowed, the Commission said.

The Commission points out that it is not a safeguarding authority and that its concern was whether the trustees had fulfilled their legal duties.

The charity had cooperated throughout the case and the trustees have been made aware of their mistakes, the report states.

The charity did not want to comment on the Commission’s compliance case.