দীপ্ত নিউজ
Other

Solicitor Caught Offering Scheme to Evade Illegal-Worker Fine

Published:
Solicitor Caught Offering Scheme to Evade Illegal-Worker Fine

A solicitor was secretly recorded outlining a method to bypass a 45,000 pound illegal-working penalty during an undercover operation. Mohammad Alias Yousaf, operating as a Bradford-based legal professional known as Alias, spoke with a journalist posing as a mini-mart proprietor dealing with enforcement action for employing an unauthorized worker. In one, a Kurdish-speaking shop owner explained that, after having been issued with a penalty for employing an illegal worker, he had “tried two or three different places to get it sorted but nobody could resolve it”. He went on to say that “Mr Alias” had got the fine cancelled – showing a letter as evidence. Yeah, he then offered a fictitious example: “Say we put forward Karwan. Some had more than 20,000 views. Fine,” he said. “Then I think we should be able to find a way out of this, the solicitor sounded encouraged by this news. “OK. Someone who is paid to put their name on official documents, thereby masking the real owner of a business, what Alias appeared to be proposing was the use of a “ghost director” – in other words. Who hires a worker with no legal right to work, faces being fined, an employer in the UK. In 2024, the maximum penalty for knowingly employing illegal workers rose from £15,000 to £60,000. A total of 5,755 fines were issued for illegal working between 2021-2025, the Home Office has told us. And the amount collected would always be lower than the value of the fines, because of appeals or discounts for fast payment, the Home Office points out that not all fines issued in the past five years would have been paid during the same time period. Having originally asked for £500, and made a show of counting out the notes, but did not provide a receipt, alias seemed annoyed. In our secret recording of their conversation, Alias repeatedly asks Saman to confirm this, despite knowing there is a question mark over the mini-mart’s true ownership. Alias’s frustration appears to mount with each attempt.

Alias informed the potential client that the financial penalty could be avoided by locating someone overseas willing to falsely claim ownership of the shop. At least 150 million pounds is presently owed to the British government in uncollected penalties for illegal employment, based on Home Office figures obtained through journalistic inquiries.

In response to the investigation, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced a formal review examining how such monetary penalties are issued and administered. In an official statement, she expressed gratitude for exposing individuals who undermine established rules, noting that the review aims to ensure the authorities can address non-compliance and non-payment through all available mechanisms. External, watch the full film of Ed Thomas’s investigation here.

An anonymous law enforcement official indicated that many business owners treat the penalties with indifference, recalling instances where immigration fine notices worth up to 40,000 pounds were left abandoned in boxes on shop counters. When staff were asked if proprietors intended to settle the amounts, responses typically indicated it had no connection to them.

Alias initially drew scrutiny during a broader inquiry into unlawful employment and criminality connected to several High Street businesses.

His contact details appeared on social media promotions, including Kurdish-language Facebook pages, where shop owners discussed resolving employment penalties. Like this one, advertised Alias’s details (phone details blurred out), a number of social media videos.

Although videos highlighted his legal practice, Liberty Solicitors, Alias maintained he neither commissioned, paid for, nor approved the promotional material.

Undercover Interaction Details

  • Alias: Am I right in thinking that you are the owner of the shop and I’m going to write to them explaining that you’re the owner of the shop?
  • Saman: I’m not the owner of the shop, but I’m ready to transfer it to my name.
  • Alias: OK, but I’m going to be writing to them to explain that you’re the owner of the shop.
  • Saman: I am happy to do that yeah but also you do know, I am not the owner of the shop? And I’ve not even seen this shop before!
  • Alias: If you’re saying that to me, then I can’t do that. You understand? I can only do it if you’re telling me, you are the owner of the shop.

During the recorded consultation, Alias reassured the reporter that authorities might demand payment, but the matter would conclude without funds changing hands. Which we recorded, Alias told our reporter his services would cost 10% of the fine – in this case, £4,500 – and he would want money up front, during the call.

When asked about his experience, he stated he managed similar penalty cases regularly. Recordings of the meeting were reviewed by senior immigration lawyer Bryony Rest, who characterized the conduct as perverting the course of justice and suggested he face professional disbarment. Gone back to Iran?” he asked, anybody who’s gone back to Iraq.

Rest noted that late in the discussion, Alias’s demeanor shifted abruptly as suspicion apparently arose. He was captured stating he could not advance an untruthful version of events before advising the participants to determine shop ownership among themselves. However, Rest observed that Alias himself had initially proposed the dishonest narrative.

Following the meeting, Alias transmitted a sequence of messages appearing to rescind his assistance. During a subsequent telephone conversation, he reiterated his refusal to pursue a deceptive claim and promised to refund a 250 pound deposit. Although the funds remained unreturned, Alias stated that Liberty Solicitors made multiple attempts to give the money back.

Alias has firmly denied ever advising anyone to assign penalties to individuals unconnected to a business or to supply false information to the Home Office. He stated that his professional practice involves challenging penalties lawfully through established parliamentary routes, typically by arguing that the identified individual was never an employee.