daskier wrote:Without knowning the explicit details, I would say it's pretty harsh to assume Bollywood's owners risked it.
As far as I am aware, by talking to friends in the catering industry the rules were changed a few years ago, that even if you took someone on good faith (such as, they showed your proof that they are legally allowed to work here) and subsequently was found that the details are fraudulent, the fine still applies. If they can prove you employed someone illegal on purpose the penalty could include prison.
It was introduced I believe on the basis that, owners were using the excuse they were "duped".
The size of any penalty is dependant on how much the employer has done to "vet" their workers and co-operated with the UKBA - From the UKBA website:
"The size of a civil penalty depends on the type of eligibility checks that the employer has made on its workers, the number of times when we have issued a warning or imposed a civil penalty, and the extent to which the employer has cooperated with us. The civil penalty code of practice, which is one of our guidance documents on preventing illegal working, contains more information"...
This does give them the flexibility to take into account how much "duping" has been going on. You can bet that if a substantial fine is imposed that the employer has either known they were in breach, not completing sufficient checks and/or were "uncooperative" with the agency.