Pharmacist Suspended for 12 Months Following Criminal Conviction for Forging Bank Statement

Date of Decision: March 25, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Convicted of forging a bank statement to falsely claim residency in a council property.
Convicted of perverting the course of justice by continuing deceptive actions during a legal dispute over the property.

Outcome: Suspension from the register for 12 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
Standard 2 – Work in partnership with people
Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
Standard 6 – Behave professionally
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

The allegations in this case centre around the registrant’s criminal conviction for dishonesty unrelated to professional practice, but with significant implications for public trust in the pharmacy profession. The registrant, a pharmacist and business owner, attempted to fraudulently obtain a council tenancy by presenting a forged bank statement to the local authority, falsely claiming he had lived at his late grandmother’s flat. When the council initiated proceedings to repossess the property, the registrant further attempted to mislead the court, constituting perverting the course of justice.

These actions led to a criminal conviction, including a custodial sentence. Although not linked to his clinical or professional practice directly, the misconduct involved serious breaches of honesty and integrity—fundamental principles of pharmacy practice.

Findings

The Fitness to Practise Committee accepted the Certificate of Conviction as conclusive proof of the allegations. The registrant did not contest the facts and admitted to the wrongdoing.

The Committee found the following:

The registrant had “made full admissions before his trial” and had voluntarily repaid financial losses to the council, including costs associated with civil and criminal proceedings.
His motivation appeared to stem from emotional stress following bereavement and perceived familial pressure to keep the property in the family.
The registrant demonstrated insight, stating that his behaviour would be viewed by patients as disgraceful, and accepted responsibility for his actions.

The Committee acknowledged his efforts at remediation, including charitable volunteer work (20 hours per week at Marie Curie), literacy support during imprisonment, and withdrawing from pharmacy leadership roles. His sister assumed the Superintendent Pharmacist role, and a new Responsible Pharmacist was appointed in his place.

Despite these efforts, the Committee found the registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired, as the nature of dishonesty struck at the heart of the trust placed in pharmacy professionals. The behaviour was considered to have breached multiple elements of the GPhC’s professional standards.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee found that the registrant’s behaviour:

Brought the profession into disrepute,
Breached fundamental principles of pharmacy,
Raised serious questions about his integrity.

They noted:

“Dishonesty of the sort that there is here is a matter that bears on the fundamental principles of the profession.”

Dishonesty was viewed as inherently harder to remediate than clinical failings. Although the registrant had shown some insight and taken remedial actions, the public interest required a finding of impairment to uphold confidence in the profession and its regulation.

Sanction

The key consideration was whether the registrant should be removed from the register or whether a period of suspension was a proportionate response.

The GPhC’s representative argued that the nature of the conviction, particularly the charge of perverting the course of justice, warranted removal. However, the registrant’s counsel highlighted “exceptional personal mitigation,” remorse, and proactive remediation.

After weighing these arguments, the Committee opted for the maximum suspension period of 12 months rather than erasure. The decision was based on:

The misconduct, though serious, was unrelated to pharmacy practice.
The registrant’s efforts to make amends and demonstrate insight were genuine and substantial.
The risk of repetition was considered minimal.

As the panel concluded:

“We believe that a reasonable member of the public knowing the full facts would be satisfied that a lengthy period of suspension would be a satisfactory regulatory response.”

The Committee also noted that continuing professional service from competent individuals is in the public interest, provided that trust is not irrevocably compromised.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Honesty and Integrity Are Non-Negotiable: Even misconduct outside professional settings can significantly impair fitness to practise. Trust is the cornerstone of pharmacy and must be upheld at all times.
Dishonesty May Not Require Erasure—but Comes Close: Suspension can be appropriate when exceptional mitigation and evidence of remediation exist. However, such cases are rare, and most dishonesty-related convictions will lead to removal.
Insight and Remediation Matter: The registrant’s open admission of guilt, financial restitution, voluntary role changes, and community service played crucial roles in avoiding erasure.
Your Role Beyond the Dispensary: Pharmacists must maintain professional standards even outside clinical settings. Behaviour in private life that undermines public trust can be professionally devastating.
Fitness to Practise Includes Public Perception: The GPhC’s role includes protecting public confidence in the profession, not just addressing clinical competence or direct harm to patients.
Controlled Roles After Conviction: Interestingly, the registrant remained the responsible person for a wholesale export business under MHRA regulations—a reminder that regulatory thresholds differ across professional roles.

This case highlights how personal conduct, even when unrelated to clinical or pharmaceutical activity, can impact a pharmacist’s professional standing. Pharmacy professionals should reflect on their broader responsibilities to act with integrity in all areas of life.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.