Rather than offering a standard immigration visa package, Oh created a wraparound package that obtained visas and matched them with jobs, ensuring his clients’ immigration needs were answered comprehensively.
Oh told the tribunal he advertised his services mainly through Facebook and vetted those who, in his professional opinion, had a fair prospect of getting a visa and a job in New Zealand.
Clients paid an initial non-refundable fee of $500, but no fees were paid until the client had obtained a visa, a job and started working, after which they were required to make regular payments over the next two or three years.
According to the decision, the nine complainants were charged between $26,000 and $77,000, more than double what was typically charged for a visa application.
In the case of the client charged $77,000, the tribunal found a visa would typically cost $32,000. All nine complainants obtained a visa and a job.
To develop this part of his practice, Oh told the tribunal he liaised with a chef training programme in Melbourne. His staff approached potential employers so he could find jobs for those clients who could get a visa.
The decision notes he acted for families, as well as individuals and also provided ancillary services to help clients settle into New Zealand.
“It seems that his comprehensive entrepreneurial scheme was unique (or nearly so),” the decision says.
Oh largely accepted the facts, but claimed he was the victim of nine clients, who took advantage of his unique immigration packages which, he says, were designed in their best interests and were billed reasonably.
The standards committee maintained that it wasn’t credible, submitting Oh’s fees were not fair and reasonable, and the terms of the agreements with the nine complainants were improper.
The committee said the complainants were vulnerable, and Oh exploited this by charging them excessive amounts and limiting their ability to query or complain about any aspect of the services provided to them.
The tribunal had to determine if the fees Oh charged the nine complainants were fair and reasonable or grossly excessive.
Loose and opportunistic
In its decision, the tribunal found that the evidence fell short of establishing that Oh’s fee structure was misconduct.
The tribunal noted that because the package was novel, it did not mean it was unethical.
“The clients all had the ability to search the internet and compare immigration services.
“Not all enquirers took up Mr Oh’s package … We do not characterise the clients as vulnerable to the extent suggested by the Standards Committee.
“In our view, each of the complainants received services of great value to them, upon terms that were attractive,” it said.
Instead, it assessed Oh’s conduct as moderately serious, noting that Oh’s inability or unwillingness to explain his fees “leads us to think that he charged a premium that he thought the market might stand, rather than assessing fees on a balanced and professional basis”.
“It strikes us as loose and opportunistic.”
The tribunal rejected an application from Oh to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he’d failed to disclose or explain his fee structure.
Oh was also charged over duties to clients, after admitting a charge of misconduct.
In its decision, the tribunal outlined the terms of the clients’ written agreements, known as a service agreement, that they entered into with Oh’s firm.
Among these, clients were barred from complaining to the Law Society, could only cancel their agreement within seven days of signing it, and risked being charged $85,000 if they breached the conditions.
They also had to work for the employer for at least two years or face a penalty of $1000 a month for the balance of the 24 months.
According to the decision, Oh couldn’t understand how and why his conduct was problematic.
“Some of the onerous terms appear designed to protect his own interests at the expense of his clients’ interests. Some appear designed to protect the interests of the New Zealand employers of his clients.
“Having designed a system, Mr Oh was at pains to preserve its integrity at the expense of his clients’ interests,” it said.
“We assess the gravity of this misconduct as serious.
“That does not mean we think strike off is a genuine option, but the need for reassessment and retraining is evident because these are grave gaps for an experienced practitioner to display,” the decision said.
A penalty hearing will be held next month.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.