A recent BBC News undercover operation has exposed a network in East London facilitating fraudulent asylum claims, with a barrister offering detailed instructions on how to deceive the Home Office. The investigation found individuals coached asylum seekers to pose as gay, atheist, or political dissidents, charging fees up to £3,000 for fabricated evidence. "Everyone is being successful, God willing," one adviser reportedly stated, underscoring the perceived effectiveness of the scheme.
The undercover reporter, posing as a Bangladeshi student seeking to remain in the UK, met Zahid Hasan Akhand in an East London office near Mile End Road in early April. Akhand introduced himself as a barrister. He outlined three primary routes for the reporter: claiming persecution based on sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or political views.
Akhand offered his legal services for £1,500. This fee included application preparation, interview coaching, and mock interviews. This initial consultation revealed a systematic approach to deception.
Akhand then discussed the additional costs for creating necessary supporting documentation. He estimated these would range between £2,000 and £3,000. He suggested he could connect the reporter with individuals specializing in producing such evidence, "if you cannot find any other way." The type of proof varied significantly depending on the chosen asylum path.
A tailored approach was essential. For those choosing the atheist route, Akhand advised making provocative social media posts insulting Islam or the Prophet Muhammad. "Religious clerics will start making comments threatening to kill you," he explained. "Then you will see that your evidence has been created." He also proposed introducing the reporter to atheist organizations in the UK and Bangladesh that operate online blogs or magazines. For a fee, posts could be made there.
AI tools, such as ChatGPT, could even draft these entries. The process extended beyond online activities. Akhand suggested attending events organized by groups for former Muslims and speaking out publicly. "This is not the age of posts anymore," he reportedly said. "It is the age of live videos." He outlined a specific narrative for the Home Office: the reporter became an atheist after arriving in the UK, not before.
He later offered an alternative. The reporter "could have written under a pseudonym if you were in Bangladesh." Akhand stated there was "no way to know who is an atheist and who is not…You just told me that you are not an atheist, which means you are not an atheist. But there is no system to check these things." This reveals a critical vulnerability.
The political route, Akhand noted, was considerably more difficult. It required establishing a legal case against the applicant in their home country. This was a complex and time-consuming endeavor.
He steered the undercover reporter towards a simpler option. "Much easier," Akhand claimed, was pretending to be gay. "Because they will not dig too much into your past story." He contrasted this with political and atheism claims, describing them as public matters. Establishing them was "a bit difficult." He offered to "connect you with people we know who do these things." Evidence for a fake gay claim included memberships in various clubs and a fabricated partner. This partner would provide a corroborating letter.
Akhand assured the reporter, "If you go to those associations, you will not get caught out. Most of the people there are not gay." This direct admission underscores the calculated nature of the deception. When questioned about past successful cases where claimants were known to be faking their sexual orientation or religious beliefs, Akhand expressed confidence. "Everyone is being successful, God willing," he replied, according to BBC News. "If you listen and get the evidence arranged properly, it will be successful." He instructed the reporter to decide between atheism or gay grounds.
A "full outline" would follow. Here is the number that matters: The £1,500 legal fee and the additional £2,000-£3,000 for fabricated evidence represent a significant financial outlay. Individuals in precarious situations bore these costs.
Such fees highlight the commercialization of an asylum system already under strain. Akhand, it turns out, qualified as a barrister in 2022. He does not hold a licence to practise.
This makes him a non-practising or unregistered barrister. It is illegal for someone in his position to refer to themselves as a barrister in connection with legal services. Akhand's professional affiliations also drew scrutiny.
He described himself on LinkedIn as working at Lextel Solicitors. He appeared on the company's website at the time of the meeting. The website has since been removed.
Lextel Solicitors stated Akhand was not an employee. He had stopped working for the firm approximately two years prior. They claimed they had left his profile on their website due to a lack of "formal notice to quit." They also denied any record of the meeting taking place in their office.
They suggested Akhand was associated with other businesses in the same building. Akhand, for his part, denied "knowing and deliberately behaving in a way that is illegal or dishonest." He described the meeting as introductory. He stated the journalist was not a client.
He did not believe he had given regulated immigration advice. His association with Lextel Solicitors had "ceased a long time ago." These conflicting accounts cloud the precise nature of his operations. Strip away the noise and the story is simpler than it looks: Akhand is not an isolated case.
The BBC investigation uncovered a broader pattern of fraudulent asylum applications facilitated by other advisers. Between 2018 and 2021, a different Bangladeshi lawyer reportedly helped bring a string of fake claims. Many of these apparently succeeded.
These applications often combined claims of both atheism and a gay or bisexual identity. They presented a dual basis for persecution. The evidence submitted in these cases included online articles posted on what appeared to be genuine news websites.
Internet records, however, showed this network of websites was established by someone connected to the group facilitating the fraud. Some articles cited alleged lawsuits filed against applicants in Bangladeshi courts due to their political or religious activism. No other references to these lawsuits appeared on genuine websites.
Verifying these claims proved difficult for Home Office officials. Bangladesh's courts primarily use a paper-based record system. This systemic gap allowed fabricated narratives to persist.
Other claimants were named in news articles on these linked websites. They described their marriages to same-sex partners. This provoked subsequent homophobic criticism or abuse from unnamed third parties.
These websites appeared to have been specifically created to publicize alleged threats to asylum applicants. A caseworker at an East London law firm reportedly set up many of them. Beyond a small number of articles naming specific asylum applicants, the websites were largely filled with plagiarized content.
This content was copied from major news wires and legitimate Bangladeshi media outlets. One website even listed an "editor-in-chief" with no other verifiable online presence. Further evidence fabrication involved a Bangladeshi gay rights website.
It was active only for a few years during the application period. It has since been taken offline. Several asylum applicants cited posts they had written for this site.
Another tactic involved using photographs from political protests. These events were allegedly staged solely to capture images of participants. These images could then be submitted to the Home Office as proof of activism.
The market is telling you something. Listen: The demand for such services suggests a desperate need among some individuals to secure asylum. This is coupled with a willingness to exploit any perceived loophole in the system.
Several asylum seekers told the BBC they were encouraged by paid advisers to visit a general practitioner and feign depression. Their medical records would then serve as evidence for their fake asylum claim. One individual even pretended to be living with HIV.
This exploitation of the healthcare system adds another layer to the deception. Advisers also coached fake claimants on how to conduct themselves during critical interviews with the Home Office. One adviser promised a sample questionnaire.
It detailed recent questions asked of other applicants. During an event in Rochdale, an asylum seeker recounted how his solicitor had coached him on facial expressions and reactions. "She told me to cry," he recalled. "I replied, 'I can't cry.' I told her 'I'm not capable of overacting.'" This vivid detail highlights the extent of the theatrical preparation involved. This industry has significant implications.
It undermines the integrity of the asylum system. This makes it harder for genuine claimants to be believed. The Home Office faces increased pressure to identify fraudulent applications.
This diverts resources from legitimate cases. For individuals genuinely fleeing persecution, the proliferation of fake claims risks creating a climate of skepticism. It also raises ethical questions for legal professionals and community organizations.
The Home Office will likely face calls for a comprehensive review of its asylum verification processes. Law enforcement agencies could initiate further investigations into the individuals and networks involved in facilitating this fraud. The legal implications for Akhand and others operating similarly remain uncertain.
Public pressure for accountability will grow. The focus will now shift to how UK authorities intend to close the systemic gaps that allow such deceptive practices to flourish, ensuring that genuine asylum seekers are not further disadvantaged.
Key Takeaways
— - An undercover BBC News investigation revealed a sophisticated industry in East London facilitating fraudulent asylum claims.
— - Advisers charged up to £3,000 for fabricated evidence, coaching applicants to pose as gay, atheist, or political dissidents.
— - Fake evidence included staged social media posts, fabricated news articles, and coached medical conditions.
— - A barrister, Zahid Hasan Akhand, who is not licensed to practise, was central to the exposed scheme.
Source: BBC News
