Former lawyers convicted of providing illegal immigration advice


McCarthy: former solicitor chose to operate outside the law

McCarthy: former solicitor chose to operate outside the law

A former solicitor and barrister have both been convicted and sentenced by magistrates for the providing unregulated immigration advice and services.

They are the latest in a string of convictions for this offence.

Hossein Gharaie, 67, formerly a solicitor at Jones Gray Solicitors in London, pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates’ Court to five charges. He was sentenced this week to a 12-month community order and 250 hours of unpaid work, concurrent for each offence. He was also ordered to pay £1,681 in costs and a £60 victim surcharge.

Mr Gharaie was struck off the roll of solicitors in 2009 for a series of offences.

The chairperson of the bench said: “These offences were committed over a significant period of time, and it is your responsibility to be appropriately qualified.”

Immigration Services Commissioner Suzanne McCarthy said: “Mr Gharaie chose to operate outside the law, and without regard for the protection of his clients.”

Meanwhile, barrister Khalil Hosenbux, of Hubert Road, Rainham, Essex, was convicted of a single charge and handed a conditional discharge for 18 months. He was also ordered to pay compensation to the victim in the sum of £2,050, prosecution costs of £1,020 and a victim surcharge of £15.

Mr Hosenbux was also a regulated immigration adviser until his suspension on 15 May 2013 following disciplinary proceedings for professional misconduct brought by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). OISC described him as a “former” barrister and his name does not appear on the Bar Standards Board’s register of practising barristers.

OISC reported that Mr Hosenbux failed to abide by the suspension and continued to operate by submitting a Home Office application on behalf of a client, without disclosing that he was disqualified from doing so.

District Judge Roscoe said: “I accept that this case is different from those normally before the court. You did have qualifications and knowledge of this type of work, but the other side of that is that you should have known better.

“In your favour your early guilty plea and admissions to the OISC have been taken into consideration. This is just one offence and not a continuing course of fraudulent conduct although quite clearly, you shouldn’t have done it.”




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

13 November 2019

The October PII renewal: Why the market changed

Since the abolition of the Solicitors Indemnity Fund, the October professional indemnity insurance renewal season has always been a challenge, but this year most law firms saw their premiums go up.

Read More

Loading animation