Businessman who produced fake work visa jailed for nearly two years

A "narcissistic" businessman who defrauded the Commonwealth and faked a work visa for a migrant has been jailed for at least one year and 10 months.

Abel Kalpi Nand Prasad, 29, pleaded guilty to four Commonwealth fraud charges.

The court heard he also faked a work visa for an Indian citizen who had been living in Australia on a student visa.

Becoming a Registered Migration Agent (RMA) and helping others to achieve their dream of chasing new opportunities and life in Australia can provide a rewarding career – albeit a career that requires many hours of hard work and determination. 

Like nearly all sole traders and small business owners you are likely to be conscious of your cash flow, particularly considering the expense associated with establishing yourself as a RMA, as well as the costs of the continuous training that is required. So there’s no doubt you’ll want to make sure every dollar goes as far as possible.

That’s why we’ve compiled a list of 5 top tips to help you make the most of your business funds whilst still allowing your business to grow.

The case that is the subject of today’s article has immediate practical importance for anyone who ever handles, or might in the future assist a client, with an application for a Subclass 485 “Temporary
Graduate”  visa. 

The name of the case is Nguyen v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2016) FCCA 1523. It is a decision of Justice Burchardt and was handed down on 8 July 2016 and appeared on Austlii yesterday, 12 July. 

The question in the case was: “How should clause 485.223 of Part 485 of the Regulations be interpreted?” 

Ok everyone, it’s quiz time again! 

Who knows what PIC 4004 requires? 

No cheating is allowed, and no peeking onto Legend! 

It seems like one of the “hot topics” in migration law is establishing that the position for which a 457 visa applicant has been nominated is “genuine”. 

And it seems like the reason that this requirement has been so controversial is because it allows scope for a huge amount of subjective judgment on the part of a case officer, or, for that matter, the Tribunal, to determine what is genuine, and what is not. 

Is this one of those situations where the answer to the question of whether a position is genuine is: “I’ll know it when I see it?”