Architect Who Embezzled £160,000 from Dementia Suffering Sister Banned
A Senior Architect's Exploitation of a Vulnerable Sister
A senior architect, David Bell, has been struck off the register for his unethical actions involving the misuse of his sister’s funds. Over a period of three years, Bell embezzled £160,000 from Janet Mann, who was under his power of attorney due to her dementia diagnosis. This money was used to fund a luxurious lifestyle that included holidays to Cuba and the United States, beauty treatments, dental care, and restaurant visits.
Bell, in his 60s and with over 45 years of experience as an architect, admitted that his motivation for stealing was based on opportunity and acknowledged that he had made a mess of things. His actions led to a conviction at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, where he was spared jail time but received a 225-hour community payback order and a compensation order of £160,998.
Background and Circumstances
Ms. Mann, described as a wealthy individual with numerous assets, moved back to Scotland after living abroad following her husband’s death in 2011. She was later diagnosed with dementia and classified as an adult with incapacity. Bell and his wife were granted power of attorney, giving them full control over her finances.
In 2018, Bell contacted Edinburgh City Council for assistance with his sister’s care fees, which led to an investigation into the financial support request. The investigation revealed that Bell and his wife had used Ms. Mann’s money for inappropriate expenditures, including beauty treatments, dental care, holidays, and purchases abroad. He even took out a loan using her funds to support his business.
The couple surrendered their power of attorney in December 2019, and the case was passed to Police Scotland. Bell was charged with embezzlement and pleaded guilty in May 2025. One account showed a significant turnover in funds, with £976,151.61 transferred out and more than £1 million transferred in between October 2012 and April 2018.
Legal Consequences and Professional Repercussions
Bell used his sister’s fortune to make payments to major retailers like Costco, John Lewis, and Debenhams, as well as for beauty therapy and dental work. Representing himself at the Architects Registration Board (ARB) tribunal hearing, Bell claimed his offense only involved family matters and did not affect his professional work or clients. He stated that his sister had suffered no harm and was well looked after, arguing that his actions were not about integrity or dishonesty but rather a failure in managing her assets.
He also mentioned that some of his clients had declined to work with him after his conviction. However, Bell admitted that his motive for stealing was opportunity, which coincided with other personal issues. He started with small amounts, which escalated over time, but he always intended to repay the stolen money.
Impact on the Profession
The ARB found that Bell’s actions damaged the profession’s reputation due to the element of dishonesty and the abuse of his position of trust. The tribunal noted that his stealing was repeated and persistent over three years, until he was discovered. It also found that Bell showed little remorse and did not consider the impact of his conviction on public perception of the profession.
Martin Winter, chair of the tribunal, stated that while there was some evidence of insight, it was limited. He emphasized that Bell’s understanding of the consequences of his behavior was largely confined to personal impact, rather than recognizing broader implications. The tribunal concluded that Bell was impaired by his conviction and needed to be struck off to protect the profession’s reputation.
Final Verdict
Mr. Winter highlighted that Bell’s role as power of attorney was initially not dishonest, and his intention was to assist a family member after a long period of distance. However, he admitted to making a mess of things, evident from his conviction. The conduct involved an offense against a vulnerable person, and the public would be appalled if an architect convicted of such an offense could continue practicing. Although the offense was opportunistic, it was not spontaneous and lasted at least three years, involving a substantial sum of money.
Post a Comment