Canada people smuggling case - institution responses

Over the Christmas and New Year period, the international education newswires ran hot with the story of the December 24, 2024 statement by India’s Enforcement Directorate alleging the involvement of businesses fitting the description of education agents in people smuggling into Canada at a massive scale. The investigation by Indian authorities is linked to the 2022 Dingucha Case, in which an Indian family of four froze to death trying to cross the border from Canada to the US after paying and following the instructions of people smugglers.

The investigation is ongoing and, at the time of writing in January 2025, the allegations remain broad and light on detail. However, we can take what we do know and place it in the context of global regulation and best practice on education agents to consider how institutions could or should respond as more detail on the case comes to light.

Regulating agent relationships

Over the last few years we have generally seen an increased level of awareness and consideration of the role played by education agents (including agent aggregators) in the international education system – both the benefits and the risks. That has played out in different ways in the main international student destination markets. We won’t spend time here undertaking a comprehensive review, but readers who want to go deeper will find ample material on our education agents reading list.

Several countries have in place regulation – or self-regulation – regimes which impose obligations on educational institutions in the way that they work with education agents. Here is a very high level summary to set the scene for the ‘big four’ destination countries:

Australia – federal regulation applies nationally
Canada – regulation at provincial level – only Manitoba and British Columbia have legislated
UK – industry self regulation through the UK Agent Quality Framework
US – industry self regulation through NACAC and the AIRC

Remedial action

Now let’s consider what each of those regimes says about what action an educational institution should take when it becomes aware of misconduct by an education agent.

Australia

The National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 is a legislative instrument made under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act) and sets nationally consistent standards to support providers to deliver quality education and training to overseas students. Education providers must comply with the National Code to maintain their registration to provide education services to overseas students.

Standard 4 of the National Code states:

If a provider becomes aware, or has reason to believe that an education agent is engaging in false or misleading recruitment practices, they must immediately terminate their relationship with the agent…

…Registered providers must not accept overseas students from education agents that engage in, or have previously engaged in, dishonest recruitment practices.

Canada

Manitoba

Section 9 of the Code of Practice and Conduct Regulation set out in the International Education Act states:

9(1) – A designated education provider must terminate its agreement with an agent if reasonably satisfied that the agent is failing or has failed to:

(a) act with honesty and integrity;

(b) act in furtherance of the interests of the prospective international student; or

(c) comply with The International Education Act.

British Columbia

BC’s new Education Quality Assurance Code of Practice, which came into force on 1 January 2025, states:

The institution must not accept students from an education agent if it knows or reasonably suspects the agent is:
…
engaging in, or has previously engaged in, dishonest recruitment practices such as falsifying study permit documents for applicants or students or facilitating the enrolment of international students while knowing that the international student does not intend to comply with the conditions of their study permit.

UK

The Good Practice Guide for Providers Using Education Agents, which forms part of the UK’s Agent Quality Framework, takes a less direct approach, but still addresses the issue of remedial action in response to agent misconduct through best practice recommendations for the content of contracts between institutions and their agents. It states:

Sector best practice recommends including the following provisions in your agent contract as a minimum:

Agreement that the education agent will adhere to the expected standards as set out in The National Code of Ethical Practice for UK Education Agents (2021) and any subsequent amendments.

…

Termination clause/s. These should include an option for immediate termination for a demonstrable breach of contract. It must be clearly defined what constitutes a ‘demonstrable breach of contract’.

…

Expert tip: If the contract includes multiple geographical territories, ensure the contract reserves the right for the provider to remove permission for the agency to work in one or all locations should misconduct occur.

US

The National Association for College Admission Counselling’s Guide to Ethical Practice in College Admission, updated in August 2024, states:

Colleges employing agents should:

…

b) Ensure that commissioned agents are accountable for employing ethical business practices.

c) Respond quickly and decisively when responding to reports of misconduct of the agents representing them.

What happens next?

Let’s assume for the sake of this analysis that the allegations in the Enforcement Directorate statement are ultimately substantiated and it becomes clear that a number of education agents were involved in a people smuggling scheme, which in at least one case resulted in the death of a family. It is difficult to conceive of more serious misconduct in the context of international student recruitment. Reality is unlikely to be so simple and there will of course be plenty of devil in the detail as the investigation continues. There may also be judicial processes ahead. Laid over all of this, quite appropriately, is the presumption of innocence.

Educational institutions working with implicated agents – either directly, or indirectly as part of an aggregator sub-agent network – will have to consider the regulatory provisions and self-regulatory guidance above to determine what action to take, and at what point to take it.

Will we see any of this decision-making play out? That depends on how educational institutions approach any response. Typically, institution decisions on punitive action against an education agent (including termination of contract) are taken and implemented quietly behind closed doors. Given the nature of this case, if the time comes for action the principles of transparency and ethical practice that run through each of the regulatory regimes discussed above would be well served by an institution offering some form of public statement explaining what it has done and why.

Working with education education agents?

AgentBee’s education agent due diligence solution supports educational institutions to implement best practice education agent due diligence processes.

Educational institutions can use it to:

protect students – conduct initial and ongoing due diligence checks on education agents.
protect your brand – detect cases of unauthorised agents using your institution’s name, logo or other IP without permission.