Ming Pao reporter Sun Zefang
On the day of the Wang Fook Court fire, the alarm bells did not sound and there was no water in the hose reels on each floor. The independent committee hearing revealed earlier that China Development was never on site and only received the "rubber stamp" from the contractor Wang Yip to submit a "Fire Protection Device Shutdown Notice (SDN)" to the prescription. The fire protection device had been out of service for 7 months by the time of the fire. Hongtai Fire Protection knew that the fire pump main switch was turned off before the fire, but did not notify the Fire Services Department (see separate article).
During Friday's hearing, the Fire Services Department said the prosecution had not considered the evidence.
According to the Fire Services Department's website, the department has officially launched accountability procedures against the two contractors. A disciplinary committee hearing will be held at 9:30 am this Friday at the teaching building of the Tseung Kwan O Fire and Paramedic College.
According to the Fire Services (Installation Contractors) Regulations, if the Fire Services Director considers that a contractor has been convicted by a court of misconduct or neglect in connection with the installation, maintenance, repair or inspection of fire protection installations or equipment, or has committed relevant offences, he may refer the contractor to the Disciplinary Committee for follow-up action. However, the only disciplinary sanctions that the committee can impose include reprimand, temporary removal from the register or permanent removal of the contractor.
Fan Kaijie: Forged certificates have 6 months to file a lawsuit
In terms of criminal responsibility, after reviewing the information, Assistant Fire Services Director (Licensing and Approval) Jiang Shiming once stated at the hearing that China Development's submission of SDN without sending personnel to the scene was a false statement, which at least violated the Fire Services (Installations and Equipment) Regulations. The case stipulates that registered contractors who issue or deliver false or misleading certificates may be fined up to $50,000 upon conviction.
Fan Kaijie, a practicing barrister and member of the Legislative Council Election Committee, analyzed that the above-mentioned prosecution time limit for submitting false or misleading certificates is within 6 months after the crime occurred. However, in the incident, it has been more than half a year since the contractor handed over the problematic certificate, and the prosecution time limit may have passed. However, he added that if the prescription determines that the case involves a continuing violation, the time limit for prosecution may not have passed; and depending on the circumstances, if the submitter knowingly made false statements in the certificate to induce law enforcement agencies to fail to act, he may have committed an indictable offense such as fraud or conspiracy to defraud. There is no prosecution time limit for this type of charge, and he may be sentenced to 14 years in prison if convicted.
Tang Jiahua exposed Hongtai and was punished. China Development can sue
Senior barrister Tong Jiahua believes that based on the facts of the earlier hearing, China Development’s fraud should not be limited to the fire protection regulations. He believes that it can be prosecuted under other criminal regulations. However, it may be difficult to establish criminal liability for Hongtai Firefighting, which failed to report knowledge, because it may not be able to prove its criminal intent. The victims may have to rely on themselves to recover compensation through civil litigation.
This newspaper asked the Fire Services Department what regulations the two contractors had violated, whether they could not prosecute fire-related crimes because the prosecution time limit had exceeded, and whether they would change the charges to other criminal regulations. The Fire Services Department responded that the case had entered the disciplinary inquiry process and it was not appropriate to comment. It also pointed out that criminal prosecution and disciplinary procedures are of different natures. If the case involves both criminal and disciplinary matters, prosecution/disciplinary action will be taken in a timely manner based on the circumstances and evidence.
Regulations amended after the fire: Management will be held criminally liable for failure to act
After the fire, the government proposed to amend the Fire Services Ordinance, which would increase penalties and criminal liabilities. For example, the fine for issuing a false fire certificate will be increased from the current fine of only NT$50,000 to a fine of NT$3 million and imprisonment for 3 years upon conviction under public prosecution procedures. If the company's violation is due to "negligence" and "omission" by the management, the management will also bear personal criminal responsibility. Security Director Tang Bingqiang said earlier that this was in response to the incident at Wang Fook Court where it was discovered that company management was aware of and ignored the incident. The amendment also proposes to extend the time limit for prosecution of fire-related crimes to one year from the date of discovery of the crime by the Fire Services Department.
However, Fan Kaijie said that generally laws imposing criminal liability do not have retroactive provisions. He believes that law enforcement agencies will consider all prosecutable crimes under the existing legal framework and will not easily let go of any illegal behavior.
(Wang Fuk Court Fire)
