After tax evasion, a pharmacist may still be a pharmacist

After tax evasion, a pharmacist may still be a pharmacist

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Administrative court Aachen: still reliable for pharmacists

A pharmacist convicted of tax evasion can still do his job. Even if he was prohibited from operating his own pharmacy because of its unworthiness, the withdrawal of the license is not automatically justified, judged on Thursday, January 10, 2018, the administrative court of Aachen (Az .: 5 K 4827/17).

In a specific case, the tax office had determined during an audit in a pharmacy in Düren that from 2009 to 2012 the pharmacist had used manipulation software. The district court of Aachen had therefore sentenced him to a ten-month suspended sentence for tax evasion amounting to around 238,000 euros. He was also charged with the incorrect declaration of investment income and the deliberate submission of false tax returns.

The criminal conviction had consequences. The pharmacy operating license was withdrawn. The responsible regulatory authorities had also withdrawn the pharmacist's license.

The administrative court of Aachen confirmed on July 6, 2018 that the pharmacy operating license had been withdrawn (Az .: 7 K 5905/17). The pharmacist had committed violations of the law for several years and displayed an "excessive pursuit of profit". There are “personal deficits with regard to legal compliance” of the man, so that similar behavior can also be expected in the future. The ruling is not yet final because of the application for approval of the appeal.

The lawsuit against the revocation of the license was now successful before the administrative court. The plaintiff was not guilty of any conduct on the basis of his unworthiness or unreliability for the practice of the pharmacy profession. The withdrawal of the license is an "extreme measure", which would not be justified here in view of the crime committed. The circumstances of the individual case are decisive.

Here the pharmacist had indeed violated his commercial law and property law obligations. However, there is no evidence of misconduct regarding the relationship of trust between the pharmacist and the patient or customer. There was also no damage to the public health system.

The plaintiff also ended the use of the "Mogelsoftware" on his own initiative and participated in the investigation. fle

Author and source information

Video: Advice for Provisionally-Registered Pharmacists (August 2022).