Under the proposal announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, families whose asylum claims and appeals have been rejected could receive £10,000 per person — capped at £40,000 per household — if they agree to return voluntarily to their home country.

The policy has sparked political debate and raised questions about how the UK’s immigration system operates. Legally, however, the proposal is not as unprecedented as it may first appear.

The UK already operates a voluntary return scheme that provides financial assistance to migrants who leave the country voluntarily. The government’s new proposal would effectively expand the scale of that existing financial incentive.

Key Takeaways

• The UK government is piloting payments of up to £40,000 for failed asylum seeker families who agree to leave the country voluntarily.

• The policy builds on the Home Office Voluntary Returns Service, which currently provides up to £3,000 in financial support for migrants who leave voluntarily.

• The UK’s asylum system costs around £4 billion per year, with more than 100,000 people living in government-funded accommodation according to Home Office figures.

• Ministers argue voluntary departures are cheaper and easier to manage than enforced removals.

• The policy could still face legal scrutiny through judicial review in UK courts, depending on how it is implemented.

Why the Government Is Offering £40,000 Payments

The voluntary return payment scheme is designed to reduce the cost of supporting migrants whose asylum claims and appeals have been exhausted but who remain in the UK.

In a speech delivered on 5 March 2026, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said supporting families in asylum accommodation can cost up to £158,000 per year.

The UK’s asylum support system currently costs around £4 billion per year, with more than 100,000 people living in government-funded accommodation.

Ministers argue that financial incentives for voluntary departure could reduce these costs while avoiding lengthy and complex deportation proceedings.

If migrants refuse voluntary return, the government has indicated it may proceed with enforced removal where individuals can legally be returned to their home countries.

Is Paying Migrants to Leave Legal in the UK?

Yes — under existing UK immigration policy.

The UK government already operates the Home Office Voluntary Returns Service, which allows migrants to leave the country voluntarily rather than through enforced removal.

Eligible migrants can currently receive up to £3,000 in financial support, along with travel arrangements and reintegration assistance after returning to their home country.

Migrants may qualify for voluntary return assistance if they:

• are in the UK illegally

• have overstayed their visa

• have withdrawn an immigration application

• have had an asylum claim refused

Financial support is typically issued via a payment card that can only be used after the individual has returned to their home country.

The proposed £40,000 payment would therefore represent a significantly larger incentive within an existing legal framework, rather than the creation of a new immigration power.

How Other Countries Use Voluntary Return Incentives

Financial incentives for voluntary departure are widely used across Europe as part of immigration enforcement policies.

Denmark — which the UK government referenced when discussing the policy — offers reintegration payments to migrants who agree to return voluntarily rather than face forced removal.

Germany and Sweden also operate assisted return programmes that combine financial support with travel arrangements and reintegration assistance for migrants returning to their home countries.

Governments often prefer voluntary returns because they are generally cheaper and less legally complex than deportations, which can involve detention, court appeals and complex logistical arrangements.

Could the Policy Be Challenged in Court?

Even where the government has legal authority to operate voluntary return schemes, immigration policies can still be challenged through judicial review in the UK courts.

Claimants could argue that the policy is unlawful if it is implemented unfairly or if it breaches human rights protections.

Possible legal questions could include:

• whether migrants are properly informed before accepting payments

• whether eligibility rules are applied consistently

• whether child welfare considerations are properly assessed

• whether the policy complies with human rights law

These arguments would not necessarily invalidate the programme but could influence how the policy is implemented in practice.

Human Rights Issues and the Removal of Families

One of the most sensitive legal aspects of the policy involves families with children.

If voluntary departure is refused, the government has indicated that enforced removals may follow where migrants no longer have the legal right to remain in the UK.

Removal decisions must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

Immigration cases involving removal frequently raise legal arguments under:

• Article 8, which protects the right to family life

• Article 3, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment

UK courts must also consider the best interests of the child, which immigration law requires authorities to treat as a primary consideration in removal decisions.

Why Voluntary Returns Are Often Preferred

Governments often favour voluntary return programmes because enforced removals can be expensive and legally complex.

According to figures cited in the immigration reform speech, the Home Office removed nearly 60,000 people with no legal right to remain in the UK last year, a figure ministers say has increased significantly.

Encouraging migrants to leave voluntarily can reduce the need for detention, enforcement operations and lengthy court proceedings.

However, some critics argue that large financial incentives could create unintended incentives, particularly if migrants believe a failed asylum claim might still lead to financial support.

Timeline of the Policy

March 2026
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announces a pilot scheme offering voluntary return payments of up to £40,000 for certain failed asylum seeker families.

2026
The government begins a limited pilot programme, targeting a small number of families whose asylum claims and appeals have been rejected.

Future
Ministers have indicated the scheme could be expanded across the wider asylum system if voluntary departures increase.

What Happens Next

The £40,000 voluntary return payment scheme will initially operate as a limited pilot programme involving a small number of families whose asylum claims and appeals have already been rejected. If ministers conclude that the scheme increases voluntary departures, it could later be expanded across the wider asylum system.

Any broader rollout would likely attract scrutiny from immigration lawyers, human rights organisations and parliamentary committees, particularly in relation to how the policy is implemented and whether it complies with existing legal safeguards.

More broadly, the proposal highlights a challenge facing immigration systems across Europe: how governments balance border enforcement, public spending and humanitarian obligations once asylum claims have been exhausted.

People Also Ask

Can the UK pay asylum seekers to leave?

Yes. The UK already operates a voluntary returns programme that helps migrants return to their home country with financial assistance and travel support.

Why is the UK offering migrants money to leave?

The government argues that voluntary return incentives may be cheaper than housing migrants in asylum accommodation while legal removal processes continue.

How much financial support can migrants receive?

Under current Home Office guidance migrants may receive up to £3,000. The new pilot programme would offer much larger payments for certain families.

Can failed asylum seekers be deported from the UK?

Yes. Once asylum claims and appeals have been exhausted, migrants can be removed if there are no legal barriers preventing deportation.

The case centres on Tesla’s challenge to a non-negotiable $32-per-vehicle royalty under the Avanci patent pool for connected cars.

A full hearing is scheduled for 27–29 April 2026. The appeal tests the jurisdictional reach of UK courts in standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing — an issue with direct implications for automotive manufacturers, telecom licensors and platform-based royalty models. The outcome could influence where global FRAND disputes are litigated and how much leverage implementers can exert.

The Dispute in Brief

The proceedings arise from InterDigital’s licensing of patents declared essential to ETSI 2G through 5G standards. Those patents are bundled in the Avanci 5G Platform, which aggregates licences for connected-vehicle use.

Tesla plans to deploy 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK, its fourth-largest global market. It disputes the platform’s flat-rate structure, arguing the terms are not fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). In December 2023, Tesla sought declarations concerning patent validity and the appropriate FRAND terms covering approximately 11,900 UK SEPs.

InterDigital challenged the English courts’ jurisdiction. The High Court set aside service in part, and the Court of Appeal dismissed Tesla’s appeal by majority in March 2025, with Arnold LJ dissenting on aspects of the jurisdictional analysis. Tesla now appeals to the Supreme Court, while InterDigital pursues a cross-appeal.

What the Court Decided

The UK Supreme Court has not yet issued a substantive ruling. On 21 January 2026, the Court granted permission to appeal, confirming a three-day hearing for late April.

The Court is expected to consider whether English judges can determine FRAND terms at an implementer’s request when an intermediary offers the licence. It will also examine how civil procedure rules on international service and forum apply in SEP licensing disputes involving patent pools.

How the Court Got There

To date, the litigation has focused on jurisdiction rather than the appropriate FRAND rate. Tesla has positioned England as a suitable forum for determining licensing conditions applicable to UK SEPs.

InterDigital successfully argued at earlier stages that the dispute was not properly anchored in England. The Court of Appeal majority upheld the High Court’s approach to service and jurisdiction, concluding that Tesla’s claims, as framed, could not proceed in England. The court nevertheless recognised the case arises in a rapidly developing area of FRAND jurisprudence.

The commercial context is significant. Tesla requires licences to sell 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK — its fourth-largest global market — while the Avanci platform aggregates roughly 11,900 UK SEPs offered at a flat per-vehicle rate. Where implementers challenge standardised pool pricing as non-FRAND, the choice of forum can materially affect royalty exposure and negotiation dynamics.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal indicates that the jurisdictional boundaries of English courts in global SEP disputes remain unsettled.

Key Takeaways for Business

• Forum strategy remains in focus: The appeal will test how far English courts can reach into global SEP licensing disputes, a key consideration for multinational technology and automotive groups.

• Patent pool pricing faces scrutiny: Tesla’s challenge to the $32-per-vehicle licence reflects increasing implementer resistance to rigid pool royalty structures.

• Connected-vehicle economics are exposed: With thousands of UK SEPs tied to automotive connectivity, the eventual ruling could influence future cost considerations across the sector.

• Negotiation leverage may evolve: If implementers can seek FRAND determinations in England, licensors may face greater pressure in cross-border licensing discussions.

• April hearing is a key watch point: The Supreme Court’s judgment is likely to provide important guidance for SEP litigation strategy.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court hearing is scheduled to conclude on 29 April 2026. A written judgment will follow in due course. If the Court finds jurisdiction in England, the dispute is expected to return to the Patents Court for further proceedings on the licensing issues.

Case Details

Court: UK Supreme Court
Date: Permission granted 21 January 2026
Case name: Tesla, Inc and others v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc and another (No 2)
Docket number: UKSC/2025/0058/A
Area of law: Intellectual property / standard-essential patents
Result: Permission to appeal granted; hearing pending

]]> https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/03/thomas-goldstein-convicted-tax-evasion-mortgage-fraud/ Mon, 02 Mar 2026 10:25:48 +0000 https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/?p=91793 A federal jury in Greenbelt, Maryland has convicted prominent appellate attorney Thomas C. Goldstein of tax evasion and mortgage fraud, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Goldstein — who argued more than 40 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and co-founded the legal website SCOTUSblog — was found guilty following a trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Prosecutors alleged he concealed millions of dollars in income and liabilities over a multi-year period.

The case is being prosecuted by the Justice Department’s Criminal Division Tax Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland, with the IRS Criminal Investigation division and the FBI investigating.

What Prosecutors Said the Jury Found

According to the DOJ, Goldstein was the sole owner of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., a boutique appellate litigation firm. Prosecutors also described him as a high-stakes poker player who participated in games involving tens of millions of dollars.

The DOJ alleged that between 2016 and 2023 Goldstein stopped paying taxes on time and engaged in a scheme to evade taxes for 2016. The department said the scheme involved:

• concealing millions of dollars in poker wins and losses

• diverting legal fees payable to his firm into personal accounts

• directing payments to creditors to satisfy poker-related debts

• causing personal payments to be recorded as business expenses

Prosecutors said these actions resulted in underreported income and unpaid tax liabilities while Goldstein spent millions on personal expenses including poker, travel and luxury goods.

Mortgage Applications and Undisclosed Liabilities

The DOJ further alleged that in 2021 Goldstein submitted false mortgage applications to two lenders while seeking financing for a $2.6 million home in Washington, D.C.

According to prosecutors, the applications required disclosure of all liabilities and debts, but Goldstein omitted millions of dollars in obligations — including more than $14 million owed on two promissory notes and taxes owed to the IRS.

The DOJ said one lender issued a $1.98 million loan based on the false statements.

Counts of Conviction and Potential Penalties

The jury convicted Goldstein of:

• Tax evasion

• Assisting in the preparation of false tax returns

• Willful failure to timely pay taxes

• Making false statements to mortgage lenders

According to the DOJ, he faces maximum statutory penalties of:

• 5 years for tax evasion

• 3 years for each count of assisting false tax returns

• 1 year for each count of willful failure to pay taxes

• 30 years for each count of making false statements to mortgage lenders

Any sentence will be determined by a federal district court judge after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. The DOJ said a sentencing date has not yet been set.

Why This Matters for Law Firms and Professional Advisers

While the case concerns an individual defendant, the DOJ’s allegations highlight several risk areas that law firms and professional services businesses routinely monitor.

First, the case underscores the importance of strict controls around the handling of client fees and firm revenue. Prosecutors alleged that firm income was diverted to personal accounts — a type of conduct that can quickly trigger tax and fraud exposure if governance is weak.

Second, the DOJ’s claims regarding the classification of personal payments as business expenses illustrate how accounting treatment can become central evidence in tax prosecutions.

Third, the mortgage component serves as a reminder that lenders and investigators may compare borrower disclosures against other financial records over time, particularly where large liabilities are involved.

For firms advising high-earning professionals, the case reinforces the need for clear separation between personal financial activity and firm operations, as well as careful oversight of tax reporting and loan disclosures.

What Happens Next

The case now moves to the sentencing phase in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The court will determine any custodial sentence after applying the federal sentencing framework. No sentencing date has been announced.

]]>