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.
Continue Reading the Full Case
Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.
- Full allegations considered by the GPhC
- Panel findings and reasoning
- Outcome of the investigation
- Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
- Key professional learning points
Original Case Document
View the Full Determination Document
The original determination transcript is available to registered users.
- Download the official GPhC determination
- Full hearing transcript
- Detailed findings of fact
- Sanction reasoning
- Details of the pharmacy professionals involved
