Pharmacy Technician Suspended for Tax Credit Fraud Conviction

Date of Decision: November 4, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician

Allegations:

• Conviction for being knowingly concerned in a fraudulent activity by failing to declare cohabitation for the purpose of obtaining tax credits, contrary to section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002.

Outcome: Six-month suspension

GPhC Standards Breached:

• 6.1 Act with honesty and integrity to maintain public trust and confidence in your profession
• 6.5 Meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct.

Case Summary

Allegations

The registrant, a pharmacy technician, was convicted at a Magistrates’ Court for engaging in a prolonged act of dishonesty by failing to declare that she was cohabiting with a partner. This omission enabled her to receive tax credits fraudulently. Specifically, she was convicted of being “knowingly concerned in a fraudulent activity” contrary to section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002. The fraud spanned a period of nearly twenty months.

The registrant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a Community Order with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, a fine, a surcharge to fund victim services, and legal costs. A criminal case summary from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) was among the evidence reviewed by the Fitness to Practise Committee.

Findings

The panel was presented with a memorandum of conviction and corroborating documents confirming the registrant’s identity. It was clear that the conviction related to her and was not contested. The panel found the allegations proven and turned its attention to the implications for the registrant’s fitness to practise.

It was noted that although the DWP’s investigation covered a longer timeframe, the GPhC limited its consideration to the specific period outlined in the conviction. Importantly, the Council could not determine the total sum defrauded, though £53,570 was noted in case documentation.

The registrant’s actions were evaluated against Rule 5 of the GPhC Fitness to Practise Rules. The panel found that her behaviour:

• Brought the profession into disrepute,
• Breached core professional principles,
• Undermined trust in her integrity.

Although she had no previous disciplinary history and had referred her conviction to the GPhC, the panel found she had not demonstrated insight into her misconduct. Her engagement with the process was minimal; she had chosen not to attend the hearing and had not acknowledged the impact of her actions on public trust.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, both due to the seriousness of her conviction and the public interest in maintaining trust in the profession. The registrant had not shown any significant insight, remorse, or evidence of remediation. She had not apologized or demonstrated understanding of how her behaviour could damage the profession’s reputation.

The Committee concluded her integrity cannot be relied upon… She had not shown any awareness or understanding of the impact a public conviction for a serious offence of dishonesty could have on the profession of pharmacy.

The absence of evidence regarding compliance with her court-imposed penalties and the lack of an apology or comprehensive reflection compounded the panel’s concerns.

Sanction

After considering possible sanctions, the panel ruled out issuing a warning or placing conditions on the registrant’s practice, finding that such measures would be insufficient given the gravity of the conviction. The most proportionate response was a six-month suspension from the register.

This decision balanced the need to uphold public confidence with recognition of mitigating factors such as the registrant’s otherwise unblemished record and her employer’s strong support. The employer had described her as “an asset to the team” and stated that it would be difficult to replace her.

The suspension was considered necessary to reinforce that such behaviour is wholly unacceptable and to give the registrant time to reflect and demonstrate genuine insight. A review was ordered before the end of the suspension to assess progress in this regard.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Personal Conduct Affects Professional Standing: Misconduct outside of the workplace, especially criminal activity involving dishonesty, directly impacts professional fitness to practise. Pharmacy professionals are held to high ethical standards at all times.
2. Honesty and Integrity Are Fundamental: As emphasized by the GPhC’s Standard 6, public trust hinges on pharmacists and pharmacy technicians acting with honesty. Deviation from this principle, even in personal matters, can lead to regulatory action.
3. Insight and Remediation Are Crucial: Acknowledging wrongdoing, expressing remorse, and actively working to address the behaviour are critical steps for professionals facing allegations. Absence of such engagement may aggravate regulatory outcomes.
4. Importance of Engaging with Proceedings: The registrant’s decision not to attend or fully engage with the hearing was noted as a shortcoming. Active participation demonstrates accountability and can influence the assessment of risk and remediation.
5. Professional Support Is Not a Safeguard Against Sanctions: While employer testimonials may be considered, they do not mitigate the impact of serious misconduct. Regulatory bodies prioritize public protection and the integrity of the profession above all.

This case serves as a poignant reminder to all pharmacy professionals that actions inconsistent with the profession’s ethical framework, particularly those involving dishonesty, are taken seriously and can have career-defining consequences.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.