A Harcourts real estate agent’s recruitment business has come under scrutiny after Newsroom reported that a Sri Lankan migrant paid thousands of dollars for help securing work at an Auckland garage.
The report, by journalist Alice Peacock, identifies Anton Jayakody as the real estate agent behind Royal Recruitment.
It raises questions about transparency in migrant recruitment, including whether employers know what workers are being asked to pay intermediaries who introduce them.
However, an important distinction sits at the centre of this story: a fee being charged does not mean a person has been criminally charged.
According to Newsroom, Immigration New Zealand investigated Jayakody in 2021, but the case did not meet the evidential threshold for prosecution.
AUCKLAND GARAGE MANAGER SAYS SHE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT PAYMENT
In the publicly accessible portion of Newsroom’s report, the manager of a west Auckland garage says she was unaware that a vehicle painter recruited from Sri Lanka would pay the intermediary who helped secure his role.
The worker’s CV had reached her through Jayakody’s recruitment business.
The manager, whom Newsroom agreed not to identify, said recruitment assistance was welcome because of shortages of panel beaters and vehicle painters.
She said she had no reason to assume the worker would pay the recruiter.
The reported role was a vehicle-painting job at a garage. This is a story about recruitment payments, rather than garage accommodation.
THE 2021 INVESTIGATION DID NOT RESULT IN PROSECUTION
Newsroom reports that Immigration New Zealand investigated the matter in 2021 but did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute.
That outcome must remain prominent in any discussion of the allegations.
An investigation does not establish wrongdoing. Equally, a decision not to prosecute should not be presented as a court ruling determining every disputed fact.
The publicly accessible excerpt does not provide the detailed payment evidence or the full responses from those involved. Property Noise has therefore not independently established the precise payment arrangements or whether any particular payment breached the law.
WHY PAYMENTS FOR NEW ZEALAND JOBS ARE IN THE SPOTLIGHT
The report comes shortly after Immigration New Zealand highlighted an important Employment Court decision concerning payments made overseas for New Zealand employment.
In an announcement published on October 20, Immigration New Zealand said the decision in Labour Inspector v Top Produce Ltd confirmed that the prohibition on employment premiums extends to overseas payments.
It also explained that the prohibition can cover payments made on a worker’s behalf and payments received by intermediaries acting for an employer.
The agency urged employers to understand what happens through third-party and offshore recruitment arrangements.
That is separate legal context. It does not establish that Jayakody’s reported arrangements were unlawful or resolve the circumstances of the earlier investigation.
A proper assessment would require evidence about who requested a payment, what it covered, who received it and the relationship between the parties.
EMPLOYERS NEED TO ASK WHAT WORKERS ARE PAYING
For employers, the wider issue is straightforward: receiving a suitable candidate’s CV may reveal little about the arrangements behind that introduction.
As a matter of good recruitment practice, businesses should ask intermediaries to explain their fees and identify who pays them.
Useful questions include:
• Is the employer paying for recruitment, or is the worker being asked to contribute?
• What services does each payment cover?
• Are there other intermediaries involved overseas?
• Does the worker have written terms and receipts?
• Has anyone linked a payment to a promise of employment or immigration outcomes?
These questions help establish accountability before a worker makes a major financial commitment or relocates internationally.
They should be asked without assuming that every recruiter, recruitment arrangement or migration-related expense is improper.
A REAL ESTATE ROLE AND A RECRUITMENT ROLE ARE DIFFERENT
Jayakody’s connection with Harcourts makes the report relevant to the real estate industry. But the available excerpt does not establish that Harcourts operated Royal Recruitment or participated in the reported payment arrangements.
An individual’s side business and a real estate agency’s activities must be distinguished.
For consumers, the practical lesson is to establish exactly which business they are dealing with, what service it provides and which person or organisation is responsible for that service.
A familiar professional name can help establish an introduction. Written terms are still essential.
TRANSPARENCY MATTERS BEFORE MONEY CHANGES HANDS
Property Noise has previously examined transparency in property transactions, including whether buyers receive enough information through New Zealand property listings without advertised prices.
Recruitment is a different transaction, but clear commercial information serves a similar purpose: people need to understand the commitment before deciding whether to proceed.
In separate, unrelated coverage, Property Noise has also reported on professional obligations highlighted by a Harcourts earthquake-disclosure disciplinary case. That case involved different people and circumstances and has no established connection with Royal Recruitment.
WHERE MIGRANT WORKERS CAN SEEK HELP
Workers concerned that they have been pressured or misled into paying for employment can contact Employment New Zealand through its reporting service.
Immigration New Zealand also lists 0800 20 90 20 for people who want to discuss migrant exploitation concerns.
For the real estate industry, this reporting highlights the importance of clarity when professionals operate additional businesses.
For employers and workers, the immediate priority is more practical: understand who is providing the service, what the payment buys and who is accountable.
Original reporting: Alice Peacock, Newsroom, November 5, 2026. This article draws on the supplied material and publicly accessible excerpt, with separately sourced legal context. The full subscriber-only report has not been independently reviewed.