Working without authorisation is common enough in most economies that it can appear low-risk. This article sets out what actually follows, because the consequences fall much more heavily on the worker than on anyone else.
| For the worker | removal, re-entry restrictions, a lasting record |
|---|---|
| For the employer | fines and, in serious cases, prosecution |
| Asymmetry | the worker bears the durable consequence |
| Detection | usually through routine checks, not investigation |
What counts as working
Broader than most people assume, and this is where good-faith breaches occur.
Generally included:
- Paid employment, of any duration
- Unpaid work that would ordinarily be paid
- Self-employment and freelance activity
- Providing services to local clients
- Working in a family business
- Volunteering in some circumstances
The second and last are the ones that catch people out. Working unpaid does not make an activity permissible, because the concern is the labour market rather than the payment.
The position on remote work for a foreign employer is more nuanced and is covered separately, but the general principle applies: what matters is usually where the work is performed.
Consequences for the worker
These are the durable ones.
Removal from the country, often with detention beforehand and at your own cost where recoverable.
A re-entry restriction for a defined period, which may be years.
A permanent record. This is the consequence that outlasts everything else. Application forms ask about immigration breaches, and the question is usually framed broadly and without time limit.
Effects on other countries. Records are shared under various arrangements, and other states ask about breaches anywhere.
Loss of any pending application. A breach discovered while an application is in progress generally ends it.
The third and fourth together are the reason this matters more than the immediate penalty. A few months of unauthorised work can complicate applications for a decade, in places entirely unconnected to where it happened.
Consequences for the employer
Employers face fines per worker, potential prosecution for repeated or serious cases, and in some systems restrictions on sponsoring permits in future.
Two implications that matter to a worker.
Employers who are aware of the risk will not take it. An employer offering informal work either does not understand the exposure or is prepared to accept it — and neither suggests they will handle the situation well if it goes wrong.
The employer's exposure is financial; yours is your status. If an inspection occurs, the employer pays a penalty and continues trading. You may be removed and barred.
That asymmetry should govern the decision. The person taking the real risk in an informal arrangement is the one with the least to gain from it.
How it is usually detected
Rarely through investigation. Far more often through:
- Routine workplace inspections, particularly in sectors known for informal employment
- Data matching — tax, social contribution and immigration records compared
- A later application, where the history is examined and gaps require explanation
- Reports, often from disputes rather than from officials
- Border questioning, where an account does not match a travel pattern
The third deserves emphasis. A period during which you were present but have no lawful basis to explain is exactly what an assessor examines, and it is difficult to explain away years later.
If it has already happened
Advice that is uncomfortable but consistent with everything else in this material:
- Stop. Continuing compounds it
- Take proper advice before making any application or leaving
- Do not conceal it on future applications — the question is asked and records are shared
- Prepare an accurate account with any mitigating context
- Regularise where possible, which some systems allow in defined circumstances
Point three is the one people most want to avoid, and the one that determines the outcome. A disclosed breach with an explanation is assessed on its facts; a concealed breach that is discovered is treated as deception, and deception is dealt with far more severely than the original breach would have been.
That distinction is worth more than any short-term advantage concealment might offer.
Frequently asked questions
Does unpaid work count?
Generally yes, where the work would ordinarily be paid. The concern is the labour market rather than whether money changed hands.
Who bears the real risk?
The worker. The employer faces a financial penalty and continues trading; the worker may be removed, barred, and carry the record into every future application.
How is it usually discovered?
Through routine inspections, data matching between tax and immigration records, and later applications where an unexplained period of presence requires accounting for.
Should a past breach be disclosed?
Yes. A disclosed breach is assessed on its facts; a concealed one that is discovered is treated as deception, which is dealt with far more severely.
