Dr Irfan Ullah Khan has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Medical Council's fitness to practise committee.
The committee said it would recommend to the full Medical Council that he be censured.
The finding was made in respect of four out of six allegations in relation to cheating in medical exams.
The committee said the actions amounted to conduct that can be considered disgraceful or dishonourable.
Earlier, the inquiry heard that the Co Roscommon-based doctor qualified in medicine in Pakistan in 2003.
It was claimed that he cheated in an exam for membership of the Royal College of Physicians UK in January 2011 and in another exam in September 2009.
Software used by the Royal College of Physicians UK found an unusual shared pattern of correct answers in multiple-choice questions with another candidate sitting beside Dr Khan.
The inquiry heard that Dr Khan was also identified as part of an anomalous pair in an exam in 2009.
At that time, he was also sitting beside a candidate with an unusually high number of shared correct answers.
It is alleged that Dr Khan procured answers from a candidate's exam paper or colluded with a candidate to cheat.
Dr Khan had denied that he was guilty of any negligence and that the issue has no bearing on his ability to care for patients.
Kevin Brophy, solicitor for Dr Khan, said his client could not afford to employ a computer expert to challenge the findings of the anomaly software system.
Mr Brophy also said Dr Khan had already been penalised by the Royal College of Physicians UK and has recently been offered a post as a registrar in a hospital.
He told the inquiry that the two other candidates in the matter were never questioned. He said they could be the guilty parties yet he, Mr Brophy, was prevented from contacting them.
Mr Brophy said the computer system did not say who copied from whom.
He asked for no further penalty to be imposed on Dr Khan, adding that the consequences of a negative finding would be severe.
JP McDowell, solicitor for the Medical Council's chief executive, told the inquiry that the evidence before the hearing is statistical and there is no corroborative evidence.
He said the case of cheating was proven beyond reasonable doubt when one examined the statistical probability of two candidates having so many shared correct and incorrect answers in multiple choice question exams in 2009 and 2011.
