Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007

Regulation of immigration advisers - Offences

74: Presumption as to non-exemption

You could also call this:

“If you're accused of giving immigration advice without a licence, the law assumes you need one”

If someone is accused of certain offences related to immigration advice, the law assumes they are not exempt from needing a licence. This applies to offences mentioned in sections 63(1)(a), 64(1), 67(1)(a), and 68(1)(a) of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007. If you want to prove you are exempt, you need to show evidence.

For some other offences, like those in sections 63(1)(b), 67(1)(b), or 68(1)(b), the law also assumes you are not exempt from needing a licence. However, in these cases, if you want to prove you are exempt, you need to show it’s more likely than not that you are exempt.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM407383.

Topics:
Immigration and citizenship > Visas Business > Industry rules
Previous

73: Offences also apply outside New Zealand, or

"You can get in trouble for breaking this law even if you're not in New Zealand"

Next

75: Time for filing charging document, or

"When can someone be charged for breaking immigration adviser rules?"

Part 1 Regulation of immigration advisers
Offences

74Presumption as to non-exemption

  1. In proceedings for an offence under any of sections 63(1)(a), 64(1), 67(1)(a), and 68(1)(a), it is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the person alleged to be neither licensed nor exempt is not in fact exempt from the requirement to be licensed.

  2. In proceedings for an offence under section 63(1)(b), 67(1)(b), or 68(1)(b), it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary to the standard of the balance of probabilities, that the person alleged to be neither licensed nor exempt from the requirement to be licensed is not in fact exempt.