Post a comment
Print articleHong Kong: MPF Updates
May, 2007 -
First conviction on offence to make false or misleading statement to claim MPF benefits
According to section 43E of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance ("MPFSO"), a person who, in any document given to the MPFA, an approved trustee or an auditor of an approved trustee or of a registered scheme in connection with the MPFSO, makes a statement that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material respect, or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect, commits an offence.
In February 2007, an MPF scheme member was convicted for breaching section 43E by making false and misleading statement in a document submitted to the approved MPF trustee. The defendant was fined HK$8,000. This has been the first case that a scheme member was found guilty of an offence under this section.
In this case, the defendant applied to the trustee for early withdrawal of his MPF accrued benefits on the ground of permanent departure and submitted to the trustee a statutory declaration that he would depart from Hong Kong permanently. However, the MPFA had conducted subsequent investigations in close collaboration with relevant government departments and found that the defendant did not leave Hong Kong. Therefore, it was found that the statutory declaration submitted to the trustee was false or misleading in a material aspect and he was convicted.
The scheme members should be reminded that it is a serious offence to use false and misleading statement to apply for early withdrawal of MPF benefits and on conviction, the defendant is liable to a fine of HK$100,000 and imprisonment for 12 months on first occasion and for each subsequent occasion, the defendant is subject to a fine of HK$200,000 and imprisonment for 24 months.
First conviction on offence for failing to comply with lawful requirement made by the MPFA
According to section 43D(1)(b) of the MPFSO, any person who without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a lawful requirement made by the MPFA in the course of exercising or performing its function, commits an offence.
In November 2006, the MPFA for the first time successfully prosecuted an employer for failing to comply with section 43D(1)(b) and the defendant was fined HK$3,000.
In this case, the MPFA inspectors had repeatedly requested the defendant by means of telephone and in writing to provide relevant income records in the course of investigating a default contribution case. The requests were ignored by the defendant. The MPFA subsequently carried out several on-site inspections on the defendant’s business premises and issued to the defendant Notices to Require Provision of Information and despite these notices, the defendant had still failed to provide the required information.
The MPFA decided to bring this case to the court and the defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted.
The employers should therefore be reminded to comply with the lawful requirement of the MPFA and in case of conviction, an employer could be liable to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months on the first occasion and to a fine of HK$200,000 and to imprisonment for two years on each subsequent occasion.
According to section 43E of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance ("MPFSO"), a person who, in any document given to the MPFA, an approved trustee or an auditor of an approved trustee or of a registered scheme in connection with the MPFSO, makes a statement that the person knows to be false or misleading in a material respect, or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect, commits an offence.
In February 2007, an MPF scheme member was convicted for breaching section 43E by making false and misleading statement in a document submitted to the approved MPF trustee. The defendant was fined HK$8,000. This has been the first case that a scheme member was found guilty of an offence under this section.
In this case, the defendant applied to the trustee for early withdrawal of his MPF accrued benefits on the ground of permanent departure and submitted to the trustee a statutory declaration that he would depart from Hong Kong permanently. However, the MPFA had conducted subsequent investigations in close collaboration with relevant government departments and found that the defendant did not leave Hong Kong. Therefore, it was found that the statutory declaration submitted to the trustee was false or misleading in a material aspect and he was convicted.
The scheme members should be reminded that it is a serious offence to use false and misleading statement to apply for early withdrawal of MPF benefits and on conviction, the defendant is liable to a fine of HK$100,000 and imprisonment for 12 months on first occasion and for each subsequent occasion, the defendant is subject to a fine of HK$200,000 and imprisonment for 24 months.
First conviction on offence for failing to comply with lawful requirement made by the MPFA
According to section 43D(1)(b) of the MPFSO, any person who without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a lawful requirement made by the MPFA in the course of exercising or performing its function, commits an offence.
In November 2006, the MPFA for the first time successfully prosecuted an employer for failing to comply with section 43D(1)(b) and the defendant was fined HK$3,000.
In this case, the MPFA inspectors had repeatedly requested the defendant by means of telephone and in writing to provide relevant income records in the course of investigating a default contribution case. The requests were ignored by the defendant. The MPFA subsequently carried out several on-site inspections on the defendant’s business premises and issued to the defendant Notices to Require Provision of Information and despite these notices, the defendant had still failed to provide the required information.
The MPFA decided to bring this case to the court and the defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted.
The employers should therefore be reminded to comply with the lawful requirement of the MPFA and in case of conviction, an employer could be liable to a fine of HK$100,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months on the first occasion and to a fine of HK$200,000 and to imprisonment for two years on each subsequent occasion.
