All Headlines >>
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the offence took place in 2013, when Dr Surdila was not a registered veterinary surgeon.
However she pleaded guilty to the charge in 2019, by which time she was.
Dr Surdila testified that in 2010, she and her family owned a few beehives and applied for EU funding to help expand their operation into a business.
A requirement of the funding was that Dr Surdila and her sister belong to a licensed bee-keeping co-operative.
They joined their local co-operative, and paid a consultant to manage their funding application.
Three years later, their consultant switched Dr Surdila and her sister to a different cooperative, for reasons they did not understand.
After another three years or so, Dr Surdila's family decided to close the business because she was at university and the others had other commitments.
Dr Surdila later moved to the UK and joined a practice in Motherwell, Scotland.
Then, in 2019, when Dr Surdila had been in the UK for four years, it transpired that the second co-operative they had joined was unlicensed and they had therefore not been entitled to received funds from the EU, and would be prosecuted by the National Department of Anti-Corruption.
Meanwhile, the consultant they had paid to manage their funding application had died.
Dr Surdila stated that everything she had signed for the unlicensed co-op had been signed in good faith, but she was advised by her lawyer that as she had signed legally binding documents for the funding, and because the consultant had died, her only option was to plead guilty.
She was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, 60 days of community service and was required to pay 19,544.7 Romanian Lei (approximately £3,300) in damages.
Her lawyer advised her to appeal her sentence which was harsh considering the circumstances.
However, the appeal was postponed several times because of Covid-19 and was ultimately unsuccessful.
In concluding whether the conviction rendered Dr Surdila unfit to practise, Mrs Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Surdila’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that required a finding that she was unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon on public interest grounds”.
The Committee then turned to sanction and in reaching its decision, Mrs Way said: “This was a serious conviction with a significant sentence, involving an element of bad faith.
"The Committee considered it important to mark this behaviour in some way because Dr Surdila should have been more cognisant of what she was signing.
“The Committee noted that her offending behaviour took place a significantly long time ago, when Dr Surdila was young and inexperienced and before she had qualified as a veterinary surgeon.
"There had never been a risk to animals or the public, she had demonstrated significant insight into her failures and exhibited genuine remorse.
"The Committee was satisfied that it was highly unlikely she would ever commit such an offence again.
“In light of the lack of aggravating factors and the extensive mitigation in this case, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate and proportionate to reprimand Dr Surdila and to warn her of the need to ensure she reads and understands all documents that require her signature.”
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.