INZ Is Investigating My Business – What Accredited Employers Need to Know

An immigration investigation is not an audit in the conventional sense. When Immigration New Zealand opens an investigation into an accredited employer, it is exercising statutory powers that can lead to criminal prosecution, substantial civil penalties, and the permanent cancellation of your accreditation. The consequences for a business that relies on migrant workers can be severe and fast-moving.

If your business has received a notification of an investigation, or if you have reason to believe one may be underway, understanding what INZ can do and what you should and should not do in response is essential.

An investigation can be triggered by a complaint, a tip-off, a pattern identified in INZ’s compliance monitoring, or a routine audit that raises concerns. You may not know which it is until the investigation is underway.

INZ’s Investigation Powers

Under the Immigration Act 2009, INZ has broad powers to investigate employers who sponsor or employ migrants. These include the power to require the production of employment records, payroll data, and documentation relating to migrants’ working conditions. INZ officers can visit business premises, interview employees, and compel the provision of information.

In serious cases, INZ works alongside other agencies, including MBIE’s Labour Inspectorate and the New Zealand Police. Where an investigation identifies evidence of exploitation, INZ can refer matters for prosecution under the Immigration Act’s employer liability provisions.

What INZ Is Looking For

Immigration investigations of accredited employers typically focus on one or more of the following: whether the employer is paying migrant workers the wages specified in their visa conditions; whether migrants are performing the role they were granted a visa to perform; whether the employer’s accreditation conditions are being met; whether the employer has been involved in exploitative practices; and whether job check applications were made on the basis of accurate information.

The accreditation regime places ongoing compliance obligations on employers. Accreditation is not a one-time approval but carries ongoing responsibilities. An employer who met all conditions at the time of accreditation may still be in breach if circumstances have changed and they have failed to notify INZ or adjust accordingly.

What Not to Do

The most common mistake employers make when they become aware of an investigation is to act unilaterally, i.e. responding to INZ’s inquiries without legal advice, providing documents without understanding what obligations that creates, or attempting to correct issues retroactively in ways that can appear as concealment rather than remediation.

Anything said to INZ investigators can be used in subsequent proceedings. Records produced voluntarily may be used as evidence. Employees interviewed by INZ may give accounts that differ from the employer’s understanding of the situation. None of this means that cooperation is the wrong approach, but it does mean that cooperation should occur with a full understanding of what it entails and with legal support.

Getting legal advice at the outset of an investigation is not a sign of guilt. It is a recognition that the process is serious, the stakes are high, and the right response requires expert judgment.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

The consequences of an adverse investigation outcome range in severity. At the lower end, INZ may issue a formal warning. More serious findings can result in civil infringement notices with fines of up to $100,000 per breach. Criminal prosecution under the immigration employer liability provisions carries the possibility of imprisonment. And cancellation of accreditation means the employer cannot legally hire migrants, which for businesses that depend on migrant workers can be operationally devastating.

Accreditation revocation may also affect existing migrant employees whose visas are tied to the employer. The cascading effect on a workforce and the reputational damage that follow can exceed the direct financial penalties.

Early Intervention Makes a Difference

Where an employer has identified a potential compliance issue, there is often an opportunity to address it proactively. Self-reporting a breach, with a clear remediation plan, is treated differently from a breach that comes to light through investigation. The window for proactive engagement closes once INZ is already looking.

Legal advice at the earliest stage allows a business to understand its actual exposure, take any remediation steps that are available, and approach INZ’s inquiry with a clear and defensible position. Waiting until the investigation is advanced significantly narrows those options.

Dalley Sundar advises accredited employers on INZ investigations and compliance matters. If your business is under investigation or you have concerns about your compliance position, get in touch.