Info Center

Press Releases

MPF intermediary suspended for making a false statement

The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) has suspended the registration of [X] as a Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) intermediary for two months from 11 August to 10 October 20161 after the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Appeal Board today (11 August 2016) affirmed the MPFA’s decision upon an appeal lodged by [X].


[X] was convicted on 30 December 2014 for making a false and misleading statement to the MPFA in contravention of section 43E(1) of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance2 (MPFSO). The MPFA considered that [X]’s acts and the resultant conviction revealed dishonesty and lack of integrity on her part and that she had fallen short of the expectations that the public and MPF scheme members had on her as an MPF intermediary.


In determining the disciplinary order, the MPFA had taken into account all the circumstances of the case including [X]’s clean disciplinary record.


The MPFA imposed the disciplinary order under the statutory regulatory regime for MPF intermediaries which came into effect in November 2012.


Under the MPFSO, the MPFA may impose disciplinary orders against registered MPF intermediaries for breaching the ordinance. The orders include revocation, disqualification, suspension of registration for a period determined by the MPFA, public or private reprimand and imposition of a pecuniary penalty.



11 August 2016


Note: The name(s) of the MPF intermediary/ intermediaries in this press release has/ have been masked because the relevant disciplinary order has ceased to be in force for over five years.

1. [X] is registered as a subsidiary intermediary attached to [Y (a principal intermediary)].

2. Information revealed that [X] submitted a “Request for Preserved Account Details Authorization Form” to the MPFA for the purpose of checking the personal account information of a scheme member. She declared on the form that she had duly obtained the scheme member’s authorization to perform the checking but in fact she had not. She was fined $9,200 by the court.