Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
HCPTS panel strikes Ismael G Lavares off
The occupational therapist stole an elderly inpatient's bank card and used it repeatedly for fraudulent cash withdrawals totalling £560.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 20 February 2025 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Ismael G Lavares, occupational therapist (Health and Care Professions Council OT49767).
Decision date: 20 February 2025 · Hearing started 6 February 2025 and ended 20 February 2025
In plain English
The HCPTS panel struck occupational therapist Ismael G Lavares off after his conviction for stealing a vulnerable hospital patient's bank card and repeatedly using it to withdraw money. The panel found deliberate financial abuse, no insight, remorse or remediation and a high repetition risk, making any lesser sanction insufficient.
Charges
Mr Lavares was convicted of stealing an elderly hospital inpatient's bank cards, cash and papers and fraudulently using the patient's bank card to withdraw £500 and £60 from ATMs.
Findings
The panel proved the conviction and found current impairment on personal and public grounds. The deliberate theft and repeated fraud abused a vulnerable patient's trust, caused financial harm and created a high risk of repetition. With no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation and no willingness to resolve matters, it ordered striking off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The dishonest conviction involved theft followed by multiple ATM frauds and stopped only when the ATM retained the card on a fourth occasion; the conduct abused professional position and trust and undermined public confidence; it was deliberate financial abuse for personal gain and he appeared to deflect blame onto nursing staff; no evidence of insight or remorse; no evidence of remediation; the vulnerable elderly inpatient suffered a £560 financial loss and expected his property to be safe.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.