“Scam” Pharmacist Removed from GPhC Register After Conviction for Fraud Totalling Over £500,000

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist after his conviction for fraud offences totalling over £500,000.

Between September 2018 and June 2019, he:

1. Falsely claimed he had purchased a US pharmacy and required loans to resolve legal issues.
2. Fabricated a testicular cancer diagnosis to gain financial assistance for supposed medical treatment.
3. Defrauded a pharmaceutical company by submitting fake invoices for warehouse construction and a wholesale licence.

The fraudulent activity was uncovered when discrepancies in payments were identified and Person A began investigating the pharmacist’s claims.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Business Ventures:
   • The pharmacist lied about investing in a US pharmacy, tricking Person A into giving him £288,200.
   • The court described the pharmacy business as a “ruse” to extract money fraudulently.
2. Deception About a Life-Threatening Illness to Obtain Money:
   • He told Person A that he had testicular cancer while on a charity trip to Egypt.
   • He fabricated MRI scans, medical letters, and treatment documents to support his lie.
   • Person A transferred £127,150 to cover treatment costs, unaware that it was all a complete fabrication.
3. Submission of False Invoices for a Pharmacy Warehouse:
   • The pharmacist requested over £121,000 for fake expenses, including:
     • £46,800 for a non-existent warehouse “tablet room”.
     • £40,000 for a fraudulent wholesale licence application.
     • £34,500 for furniture that was later discovered to have been bought for only £2,500.
   • The deception was uncovered when an investigation revealed that no construction had taken place and that invoices were falsified.
4. Court Conviction and Sentencing:
   • The pharmacist pleaded guilty to all three counts of fraud and was sentenced to 21 months in prison.
   • The judge stated:“The appropriate punishment for a fraud of this scale can only be immediate custody.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC ruled that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

• Severe dishonesty and abuse of trust over an extended period.
• Deliberate deception for personal financial gain.
• Bringing the profession into disrepute.

The committee found that:

“Feigning cancer to deceive someone into funding non-existent treatment is conduct that would shock the public and bring the profession of pharmacy into disrepute.”

Furthermore, the committee noted that:

• The pharmacist showed limited remorse or insight into the gravity of his actions.
• There was no substantial restitution to the victims, despite his claims that he intended to repay them.
• He continued to present himself as a trustworthy professional, even after his conviction.

The committee concluded that his level of dishonesty was so extreme that no sanction other than removal would be appropriate.

Sanction:

The committee imposed removal from the GPhC register, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • Fraud spanning over 10 months, with multiple layers of deception.
  • Use of a fake cancer diagnosis to manipulate a victim into giving money.
  • False business investments and fake invoices submitted for personal financial gain.
  • No significant effort to repay the victims.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • The pharmacist attributed his behaviour to a gambling addiction and provided evidence of rehabilitation.
  • He had completed a treatment program for gambling addiction.
  • He had previously been a competent pharmacist with no clinical concerns.

However, despite these mitigating factors, the committee ruled that:

“The Registrant’s convictions, and the behaviour underpinning them, are fundamentally incompatible with him remaining on the register.”

An interim suspension was imposed immediately, preventing him from practising before final removal.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding professional integrity, financial honesty, and regulatory consequences of criminal behaviour.

1. Severe Dishonesty Will Almost Always Result in Removal:
   • The GPhC has zero tolerance for financial fraud and deception.
   • Even if a pharmacist’s clinical practice is not in question, serious dishonesty is incompatible with professional registration.
2. Personal Issues Do Not Excuse Criminal Behaviour:
   • The pharmacist blamed his fraud on a gambling addiction, but the GPhC ruled that this did not justify or mitigate his actions.
   • Addiction and financial problems must be addressed ethically and professionally.
3. Feigning Illness for Financial Gain is an Egregious Breach of Trust:
   • The committee considered lying about a cancer diagnosis as one of the most severe aspects of the case.
   • Exploiting trust in this way is fundamentally incompatible with the values of pharmacy professionals.
4. Fraud Involving Pharmacy Business Ventures Can Impact Registration:
   • The pharmacist used his professional status to gain credibility for fraudulent investments.
   • Misusing a pharmacy licence for financial scams brings disrepute to the entire profession.
5. Regulatory Bodies Will Prioritize Public Confidence Over Individual Circumstances:
   • The pharmacist attempted to argue that he had rehabilitated and should be allowed to continue practising.
   • However, the committee ruled that maintaining trust in the profession was more important than his personal circumstances.