Traditional Chinese Simplified Chinese Email this article news.gov.hk
Conviction of making false statements to claim MPF benefits
***********************************************************

The following is issued on behalf of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority:

     Two Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) scheme members were convicted today (February 1) and fined a total of $12,000 at the Kwun Tong Magistracy for breaching section 43E(1) of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (the Ordinance) by making false and misleading statements in documents to MPF trustees.

     Defendants Pun Kushal Purja and Cheow Cheung Ki were each fined $6,000.

     According to the prosecution, the defendants, Pun Kushal Purja and Cheow Cheung Ki, applied to MPF trustees on June 17 and March 9, 2010 respectively for early withdrawal of their MPF accrued benefits on the grounds of permanent departure. Investigation by the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) found that the defendants had recklessly provided false and misleading statements in claiming that they had not previously claimed payment of accrued benefits on the ground of permanent departure on an earlier departure date.

     Meanwhile, an officer and four employers were fined a total of $161,000 at the Kwun Tong Magistracy today after being convicted of offences under the Ordinance.

     Avellano Marites T, an officer of Kulung Holdings Limited, was charged with offences under sections 7(1) and 44 of the Ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of failing to enrol an employee in an MPF scheme as required by the Ordinance and was fined $6,000 for the summons.

     Avellano Marites T was also charged with offences under sections 7AA(7) and 44 of the Ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of failing to make MPF contributions to the MPFA for an employee who was not a member of a registered scheme within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between April and July 2009. The defendant was fined $3,000 for each summons, totalling $12,000.

     Avellano Marites T was also charged with offences under sections 7A(8) and 44 of the Ordinance and pleaded guilty to a count of failing to make MPF contributions for an employee within the prescribed time for the contribution period in August 2009. The defendant was fined $3,000 for the summons.

     Kulung Holdings Limited was charged with an offence under section 7(1) of the Ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of failing to enrol an employee in an MPF scheme as required by the Ordinance and was fined $6,000 for the summons.

     Kulung Holdings Limited was also charged with an offence under section 7AA(7) of the Ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of failing to make MPF contributions to the MPFA for an employee who was not a member of a registered scheme within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between April and July 2009. The defendant was fined $3,000 for each summons, totalling $12,000.

     Kulung Holdings Limited was also charged with an offence under section 7A(8) of the Ordinance and pleaded guilty to seven counts of failing to make MPF contributions for an employee within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between August 2009 and February 2010. The defendant was fined $3,000 for each summons, totalling $21,000.

     Convey Advertising Company Limited was charged with an offence under section 43E(1) of the Ordinance for making false or misleading statements. The defendant pleaded guilty to 27 counts of misreporting the "relevant income" of an employee to a trustee. The defendant was fined $6,000 for each of two summonses and $2,000 for each of the remaining 25 summonses, totalling $62,000.

     Yau Tak Fu trading as Moonlight Dancer Pet Grooming was charged with an offence under section 7(1) of the Ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of failing to enrol an employee in an MPF scheme as required by the Ordinance and was fined $6,000 for the summons.

     Yau Tak Fu trading as Moonlight Dancer Pet Grooming was also charged with an offence under section 7AA(7) of the Ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of failing to make MPF contributions to the MPFA for an employee who was not a member of a registered scheme within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between August 2009 and January 2010. The defendant was fined $3,000 for each of three summonses, and $4,000 for each of the remaining three summonses, totalling $21,000.

     KLUB Management Services Limited was charged with an offence under section 7A(8) of the Ordinance and pleaded guilty to four counts of failing to make MPF contributions for an employee within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between January and April 2010. The defendant was fined $3,000 for each summons, totalling $12,000.

     Separately, the MPFA today obtained an order for payment of outstanding MPF contributions of $77,556.23 against an employer at the District Court.

     The employer was Jeck Contact Centre Limited. It was ordered to pay the MPFA $77,556.23, being mandatory contributions in arrears and surcharges payable to seven employees of the defendant.

     Meanwhile, the MPFA successfully pursued five claims in the Small Claims Tribunal for some $95,000 on behalf of 94 employees, who were owed MPF contributions by their employers.

     At the Tribunal's hearings today, two defendants, namely Chief Construction Company Limited and Luen Hing Plastics Products and Handbags Factory Limited, did not dispute the amounts claimed. The Adjudicator ordered them to pay the MPFA $11,100 and $9,227.8, being mandatory contributions in arrears and surcharges payable.

     The other three defendants, namely Asia Intelligence (H.K.) Limited, Good Faith Security Consultants Limited, Good Faith Security Management Limited, did not appear. In their absence, the Adjudicator ordered them to pay the MPFA $39,746.2, $29,243.11 and $5,029.26 respectively, being mandatory contributions in arrears and surcharges payable.

     The amounts awarded at both the District Court and the Tribunal will be reimbursed to the employees' MPF accounts as soon as they are received by the MPFA. The District Court ordered the defendant to pay the costs of $930. The Tribunal ordered the defendants to pay $118, $145, $225, $110 and $80 respectively as the costs of the claims.

Ends/Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Issued at HKT 19:01

NNNN

Print this page