Sham marriage: Solicitor used it as excuse to remain in the UK
A solicitor who arranged sham marriages as an immigration lawyer while “falsely representing” to the Home Office that his own marriage was genuine, has been struck off.
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) heard that Matthew Moghan Rajamoham Chellam, who pleaded not guilty, was convicted of immigration offences at Snaresbrook Crown Court and sentenced to eight years in prison.
The judge told him: “You spun a veritable web of lies and deceits. It was so obviously deceitful, misleading and downright false and yet you pursued this lie throughout the case.
“I regret to say, Mr Chellam, that reflects, in truth, your true personality, that you are prepared to lie, and lie under oath before a jury, and this from a lawyer who purports to abide by the more honourable ethics of the legal profession.”
The SDT heard that, following the conviction in 2016, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) “erroneously closed” its investigation pending an appeal by the solicitor. It was only reopened more than four years later, in October 2021, because Mr Chellam applied for a practising certificate.
The 45-year-old solicitor, a qualified lawyer in India, was admitted to the roll in England and Wales in 2013 after taking the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test and providing evidence to show that he was of suitable character.
The SRA said he did not attend his disciplinary hearing, he was not represented and had not engaged with the proceedings at all.
He was convicted of assisting unlawful immigration under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.
The judge, in his sentencing remarks, said the solicitor committed the offence “by means of sham marriages between otherwise illegal immigrants and EU nationals”.
This was “based on an exploitation of the relatively informal arrangements which apply to customary marriages and proxy wedding ceremonies in Ghana”, with a view to “abusing the UK immigration laws on the pretext that there was some kind of spousal connection”.
The judge said there was “sophistication” in Mr Chellam’s approach.
“In short, your business, your practice, was to provide clients with a template application, a package of false or fictitious documentary evidence and above all, and this must be stressed, the professional assurance to the Home Office that comes with applications submitted by solicitors and legal representatives.”
On the basis of this conviction, the SDT found that Mr Chellam “had made or caused to be made fraudulent applications to the Home Office for non-EEA [European Economic Area] residence cards”.
The solicitor was also convicted of five counts of providing immigration advice contrary to section 91 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1991.
The SDT found that between October 2012 and January 2013, before Mr Chellam became a solicitor, he had provided immigration advice and services when he was not qualified.
He was also convicted of seeking to obtain leave to remain in the UK by deception contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.
The SDT found he had sought to avoid his removal from the UK when his leave to remain ended “by falsely representing to the Home Office that he was in a genuine marriage to an EEA national”.
The judge ordered that the sentences for Mr Chellam’s further criminal offences – of 12 and 18 months’ imprisonment respectively – run concurrently with the eight years he received for the first one.
The tribunal said Mr Chellam’s misconduct was motivated by monetary gain and arose from “carefully planned actions including by using sham marriages with a view to abusing applicable laws” His level of culpability was “extremely high”.
His convictions received “nationwide media attention” and caused “tremendous harm to the reputation of the legal profession”.
Mr Chellam had “self-reported that he had been charged with criminal offences”, but he “had not made any admissions at an early stage and had instead actually concealed the misconduct until the jury’s unanimous verdict against him”.
There had been “no credible evidence of any insight, remorse or regret at any stage”.
There had been “some delay” in the SRA bringing the prosecution, but “that that delay had been caused primarily by the criminal proceedings”.
Mr Chellam was struck off and ordered to pay just over £4,000 in costs.
Leave a Comment