Traditional Chinese Simplified Chinese Email this article Government Homepage
MPF Scheme member convicted and fined for false statement in benefits claim
************************************************************

    A Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Scheme member was convicted today (February 6) and fined $8,000 at the Kwun Tong Magistrate for breaching section 43E of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance by making false and misleading statement in a document submitted to the approved MPF trustee.

     It was the first time that a scheme member was found guilty of an offence under this section.

     The defendant Chong Yuk-lun, applied to the trustee on July 19, 2006, for early withdrawal of his MPF accrued benefits on the grounds of permanent departure from Hong Kong.  Subsequent investigation by the MPFA found that the defendant did not leave Hong Kong after he submitted to the trustee and made a statutory declaration at the Home Affairs Office that he would leave Hong Kong permanently on August 15, 2006.

     A spokesperson for the MPFA said the authority, in close collaboration with relevant government departments, would take proper action to verify cases of early withdrawal of MPF on the grounds of permanent departure to ensure that information provided by scheme members was accurate.  The authority would prosecute scheme members if they were found to be making false and misleading statements.

     "In accordance with the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance, scheme members who withdraw the MPF on the grounds of permanent departure are required to submit to the trustees the prescribed documents and a statutory declaration.  As indicated in the application form, it is a criminal offence for a scheme member to make a false and misleading statement to the trustee or the authority."

     The spokesperson said the magistrate, when sentencing, stressed that the implementation of the MPF System was to provide retirement protection to employees and that the defendant's use of a false and misleading statement to apply for early withdrawal of MPF benefits was not only against the legislative intention, but also a serious offence. The spokesperson reminded scheme members a first conviction could result in a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. A subsequent offence was subject to a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for two years.

     Meanwhile, A company director and three employers were fined $93,000 at the Kwun Tong Magistracy today, after being convicted of offences under the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance.

     The defendant, Sidney Lee Ping Fai, director of Onlee Cargo Service Company Limited was charged with offences under section 7A(8) and section 44 of the ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of failing to make MPF contributions for an employee within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between March and July, 2005. The defendant was fined $8,000 for the first summons and $2,500 each for the remaining summonses, totalling $18,000.

     Onlee Cargo Service Company Limited (BR no.: 13164194), also pleaded guilty to 10 counts of failing to make MPF contributions for its employee within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between May, 2004, and February, 2005. The defendant was fined $8,000 for the first summons and $2,500 each for the remaining summonses, totalling $30,500.

     Armed Forces Security (H.K.) Limited (BR no.: 18250584), was charged with offences under section 7A(8) of the Ordinance. The defendant pleaded guilty to seven counts of failing to make MPF contributions for two employees within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between April and July, and September, 2006, and between September and October, 2006. The defendant was fined $10,000 for the first summons and $3,000 each for the remaining summonses, totalling $28,000.

     Starview Technology Limited (BR no.: 30525717), pleaded guilty to eight counts of failing to make MPF contributions for its employee within the prescribed time for the contribution periods between May and July, 2005, and between October, 2005, and February, 2006. The defendant was fined $6,000 for the first summons and $1,500 each for the remaining summonses, totalling $16,500.

Ends/Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Issued at HKT 18:56

NNNN

Print this page