Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
EU Settlement Scheme course now available FREE to members
Lawyers who earned millions from unregulated immigration advice fined £45,000

Lawyers who earned millions from unregulated immigration advice fined £45,000

Three lawyers convicted in 2019 of providing unregulated immigration advice worth millions have been ordered to cough up over £45,000 between them in fines and compensation.

Dan Romulus Dandes, Babbar Ali Jamil and Zia Bi were sentenced at the Old Bailey on 5 January 2021 for their roles in a sham supervision scheme rumbled by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. The scheme, run by Dandes and Jamil under the name DDR Legal, purported to allow immigration advisers to operate without OISC regulation but was in fact illegal.

Dandes was ordered to pay £20,000 in compensation to victims and a £750 fine. Jamil was fined £10,000. Bi, who availed of the sham supervision scheme, was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £8,745 in compensation. Her company, Burlow and Spencer, generated fees in excess of £2.5 million before being shut down.

The regulator has been investigating DDR Legal for years. The company claimed to have identified a loophole under which it could, in effect, supervise multiple immigration advisers on behalf of the OISC, rather than them having to register directly. A DDR Legal advertising pack told potential customers “you don’t need to worry about technology, regulations, licenses, or OISC registration”.

The company charged “licensees” £3,000 up front and took 20% of their turnover, according to an archived version of its website. In return, it promised that advisers could set up an immigration advice business with “no experience needed” and the potential for “unlimited earnings”. Its advertising pack gave the example of £3,500 profit for handling an asylum case.

By the time its owners were convicted, DDR Legal claimed to have “18 licensees with a combined turnover of £27 million”. We asked the regulator how many other firms took advantage of the scheme and what, if any, action has been taken against them. The OISC advised us to submit a Freedom of Information request.

Passing sentence at the Old Bailey, judge Sarah Munro QC said that “both Ms Bi and Mr Dandes now accept that they were negligent and innocent people suffered as a result”. Jamil didn’t turn up and was fined in his absence.

OISC chief John Tuckett said that the trio had “acted outside the law by providing immigration advice illegally and putting the lives of many vulnerable people at risk”.

CJ McKinney

CJ is Free Movement's deputy editor. He's here to make sure that the website is on top of everything that happens in the world of immigration law, whether by writing articles, commissioning them out or considering submissions. When not writing about immigration law, CJ covers wider legal affairs at the website Legal Cheek and on Twitter: follow him @mckinneytweets.

There are comments on this article.

Only members can view and comment on articles, as well as many other benefits.

Explore membership now
X
Not yet a member?

Get unlimited access to articles, a thriving forum, free e-books, online training materials with downloadable training certificates, and much more.

Worried about preparing an immigration application yourself?

Try our Full Representation Service, provided by Seraphus Solicitors.

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Clear, transparent fees
  • Fees fixed for each stage of your application or appeal
  • Personal client web access page and messaging system
  • Online payments, document upload & video calls
  • Expert representation
Shares