Editor's Blog

MARA has made a decision to cancel the registration of an RMA after the Melbourne County Court found the agent guilty of ‘dishonestly influencing an officer of the Trades Recognition Australia” and has refused the agents request to delay its decision pending an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

On 19 February 2016, Opinder Pal Singh Sekhon, an RMA who has been providing migration advice for over 9 years was found guilty, following a trial by jury, of seventeen charges of dishonestly influencing a Commonwealth Public Official, contrary to section 135.1(7) of the Criminal Code.

The seventeen offences with which the Agent was charged involved the Agent seeking to dishonestly influence an officer of Trades Recognition Australia in contravention of section 135.1(7) of the Criminal Code.

Explaining its decision to cancel the Agent’s registration, the MARA decision record stated, “By dishonestly influencing an officer of Trades Recognition Australia, the Agent caused a Commonwealth Public Official to grant a positive skills assessment to a number of migration clients of the Agent. These clients were then assisted by the Agent to lodge with the Department applications for permanent residence visas using the skills assessment to satisfy a criterion for the visa.

“Based on the finding of guilt before the Court, and the nature of the conduct leading to the charges, I cannot regard the conduct of the Agent as accidental or inadvertent. The fact that the Agent was found guilty of seventeen counts of the offence demonstrates that the conduct was deliberate and repeated numerous times.

“The Authority finds that, as the Agent has been found guilty by a County Court jury on all charges which involve fraudulent or dishonest conduct, the Agent is not a person of sound moral principle, good character or honesty. The Agent displayed a very serious disregard for the law by providing false information to the Commonwealth so that third persons obtained benefits to which they were not entitled.”

The Agent, through his legal representative, submitted that the MARA should not make a decision on the Agent’s registration until the proceedings are finalised – including the application in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Agent’s legal representative stated that “the defence is of the view” that the trial Judge fell into error when she ruled against the defence in a “threshold preliminary pretrial interlocutory application” and directed that the trial proceed.

However, MARA rejected these submissions stating, “that the timeframe for any appeal (if lodged) is unknown and the prospects of success associated with any appeal are also unknown.

“On balance, the repeated, deliberate and serious nature of the Agent’s dishonest conduct and the findings of guilt necessitate that the interest of consumer protection should outweigh the interest of the Agent in seeking to delay a decision on his registration as a migration agent pending the outcome of his appeal.”