Resource guide
Can a director be personally liable over sponsor compliance?
No, breaching your sponsor duties is not a crime and will not put a director in prison. It risks the licence: downgrade, suspension, revocation. But a director can be personally criminally liable for illegal working (employing someone the company knew, or had reasonable cause to believe, had no right to work) with up to five years' imprisonment. That is a different offence, under different legislation, and it has been law since 2006. Sources verified 16 July 2026.
Last updated . Reviewed by Soteriaa team.
Short answer
Getting sponsor duties wrong is not a crime. It risks the licence (downgrade, suspension, revocation), not a director's liberty. But illegal working is a criminal offence, and a director can be personally liable for it. These are two different regimes under different legislation, and blurring them is where the fear comes from.
Three different regimes
Don't conflate them.
The same facts can touch more than one, but they are legally distinct.
1. Illegal working — criminal
Employing someone with no right to work, knowingly or with reasonable cause to believe, is a criminal offence; a director can be personally liable. Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
2. Sponsor-duty breaches — administrative
Reporting failures, poor records, or paying below the going rate risk licence downgrade, suspension, or revocation, not a director's liberty.
3. Director duties — civil
General duties under the Companies Act 2006 (ss.171–177) are civil and owed to the company. A different regime again.
Illegal working: where a director can be personally criminally liable
Under section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, it is an offence to employ someone knowing, or, under section 21(1A) (inserted by the Immigration Act 2016), having reasonable cause to believe, that they are disqualified from working by their immigration status. The maximum on indictment is five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine (raised from two years by the Immigration Act 2016). Under section 22, where the body corporate commits the offence “with the consent or connivance of an officer”, that officer (a director, manager, secretary, or a person purporting to act as such) “as well as the body, is guilty of the offence”. This is long-standing law: enacted 2006, penalty raised 2016.
Sponsor-duty breaches: administrative, not criminal
Failing to report a change via the Sponsorship Management System, keeping poor records, or paying below the going rate leads to licence downgrade, suspension, or revocation under the sponsor guidance. No statute imposes criminal liability on a director for breaching sponsor duties as such. Serious, but a different kind of consequence from the illegal-working offence above.
The civil penalty, separately
Distinct again from both: a civil penalty under section 15 of the 2006 Act (up to approximately £45,000 for a first breach and £60,000 for a repeat breach, per worker), which is administrative and carries a statutory excuse where the correct right-to-work checks were carried out.
When to get advice
This page sets out the law in general terms. It is not legal advice and is not an assessment of any organisation. If you are facing enforcement, or are unsure how these rules apply to your situation, take advice from a solicitor or a regulated immigration adviser. Soteriaa is software. It keeps sponsor records, evidence, dates, and the audit pack, and gives no legal advice.
FAQ
Director liability questions
Where the criminal line actually is, and where it isn't.
Can a director go to prison for breaching sponsor duties?
No. Breaching sponsor duties (failing to report via the SMS, poor record-keeping, or paying below the going rate) is an administrative matter. It risks the licence: downgrade, suspension, or revocation under the sponsor guidance. No statute makes breaching sponsor duties a criminal offence for a director.
So when can a director be personally criminally liable?
For illegal working. Under section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 it is an offence to employ someone knowing, or, under section 21(1A), having reasonable cause to believe, that they are disqualified from working by their immigration status. Under section 22, where the company commits that offence with the consent or connivance of an officer, that officer (a director, manager, secretary, or a person purporting to act as such) is also guilty. The maximum on indictment is five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Is this a new 2025 law?
No. This is long-standing. The offence is in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and the maximum sentence was raised from two years to five by the Immigration Act 2016. It is not new and does not come from a 2025 Act.
How does the civil penalty differ from the criminal offence?
They are separate. The civil penalty under section 15 of the 2006 Act (up to approximately £45,000 for a first breach and £60,000 for a repeat breach, per worker) is administrative and carries a statutory excuse if the correct right-to-work checks were done. The criminal offence under section 21 requires knowledge or reasonable cause to believe, and carries up to five years' imprisonment.
Should I get legal advice?
If you are facing enforcement or are unsure how these rules apply to your situation, yes, from a solicitor or a regulated immigration adviser. This page is general information, not legal advice, and is not an assessment of any particular organisation.
Does Soteriaa give legal advice?
No. Soteriaa is record-keeping software. It organises sponsored worker records, evidence, dates, and the audit pack; it gives no legal advice and makes no compliance determinations.
Keep the records that keep you off the wrong list.
Sponsored worker records, right-to-work evidence, deadlines, and a one-click audit pack — organised, not advice. Start free.