Judge fines trio who provided unregulated legal advice

Old Bailey: Conduct had devastating impact on some clients

Directors from two legal businesses which generated £2.5m in fees by providing unregulated immigration advice have been fined nearly £17,000 and ordered to pay over £28,000 in compensation.

Dan Romulus Dandes and Babbar Ali Jamil, directors at DDR Legal Services, and Zia Bi, director of Burlow & Spencer, were sentenced at the Old Bailey having previously been found guilty of six counts relating to 19 offences of providing unqualified immigration advice and/or services

Immigration is the only area of law which is not one of the reserved legal activities but is subject to a standalone regulatory regime that allows non-lawyers to practise in it, overseen by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC).

Romanian practitioner Mr Dandes – who claimed his qualification in the EU allowed him to operate DDR – used it as a consultancy and supervision business helping people set up immigration law ‘franchises’.

He said this meant law firms could circumvent regulation by the OISC or any other appropriate regulatory body as they were under Mr Dandes’ supervision.

However, Mr Dandes did not have the necessary UK qualifications to act in a supervisory role, so he was unqualified to supervise, and any advice given by an individual or firm under this scheme was unregulated and illegal.

Burlow & Spencer, one of the firms he allegedly supervised, was investigated after OISC received an unprecedented 95 complaints about the quality of its immigration advice. It ceased trading in 2019.

DDR claimed to have 18 licensees, who had processed nearly 67,000 applications and turned over almost £27m.

Mr Dandes received a £20,000 compensation order and £750 fine. Mr Jamil, who is currently believed to be out of the country, was fined £10,000 in his absence. Ms Bi was given a fine of £6,000 and an £8,745 compensation order.

Sentencing, Her Honour Judge Sarah Munro QC said: “The consequential loss and the impact on the complainants is far-reaching and in some cases devastating…

“All of the defendants were of previous good character. The mitigation in all cases is a genuine lack of knowledge that the criminal behaviour was in fact criminal. Both Ms Bi and Mr Dandes now accept that they were negligent and innocent people suffered as a result.”

At the trial in 2019, Mr Dandes told the court he provided advice to immigrants in the UK because he believed it was “100% legal”.

Asked whether he realised his colleague’s membership of the Bar in Romania was not valid for providing immigration services in the UK, Mr Jamil said: “I had no idea.”

As a result of their work, however, one of the complainants to OISC had to leave the UK permanently, another paid £7,000 in expenses to contest a failed application, others had to travel to Shanghai or Bangkok to submit applications which were bound to be rejected, and a couple who travelled for work were unable to leave the UK for two years while their documentation was sorted out.

John Tuckett, the Immigration Services Commissioner, said: “As the judge stated, these financial penalties will not be able to fully or properly compensate victims for the ‘severe consequences’ of the defendants’ actions, but we hope it will emphasise the importance of using a regulated immigration advisers.”

    Readers Comments

  • Jim Holloway says:

    The fines are a joke. The idea that the defendants didn’t know that they were operating illegally is ridiculous. The fact that Burlow & Spenser promoted themselves with dozens of spoof reviews across several review sites like Trustpilot is further evidence of their culpability.
    More concerning still is that Bull & Shit were allowed by OISC to continue operating for some 18 months after the nature of the scam was clearly explained to them. In that time, they took millions of pounds from vulnerable people, and destroyed thousands of cases by their poor advice and failure to act appropriately.

    The Home Office do not consider being duped by an openly trading outfit as an excuse, and no compensation or refund has been paid to any client as far as I am aware.

    The regulatory system is a disgrace.

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.


Commercial real estate: The impact of AI and climate change

There is no doubt climate change poses one of the most complex challenges for the legal industry; nonetheless, our research shows firms are adapting.

Empathy, team and happy clients

What has become glaringly obvious to me are the obvious parallels between the legal and financial planning professions, and how much each can learn from the other.

Training the next generation lawyer

Since I completed my training and qualified over 10 years ago, a lot has changed. It’s. therefore imperative that law firms adapt and progress their approach to training and recruitment.

Loading animation