In a strange case of confusion, a lady was accused of failing to keep HKID records for her employees. Mr Gordon Chan persuaded the ImmD before the trial to withdraw the summonses and to bind over the lady instead.
In STS 7704-05/2025, the proprietor of a restaurant was summonsed for failing to keep identity card records as an employer under section 17K of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115). Under the section, an employer must keep at the place of employment the following records of his employees:
- Full name as shown on the identity card (or other documents by virtue of which he is lawfully employable)
- The type of document and its number
Where there are more than 10 employees at a location, it should be presented as a list.
In this case, the main prosecution evidence comes from a cautioned statement in which the lady said she did not keep any records of her employees. However, it appears that the lady did keep copies of her employees’ HKIDS. So why would she say she didn’t?
This is where the confusion arises. At that time, ImmD was carrying out an operation against illegal workers. Among those investigated, a man who claimed to be a patron was accused of working unlawfully. Therefore, when the lady was asked about the employees’ record, she thought it related to that man and denied it firmly.
After making representations to the prosecution highlighting the bizarre background of the case, Mr Gordon Chan persuaded the Immigration Department to end the case with an order for binding over the lady.
Though bizarre, it also shows that even if a case arises from a commercial context, it is still possible to negotiate with the prosecution to consider binding over or plea bargaining.
Gordon Chan, Esq
Barrister-at-law, Archbold Hong Kong Editor on Public Health, and Member of the Bar Association's Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure. Specialised in medical, technology and criminal law.
