It frustrates me no end why little has been done to stop this massive fraud, which has victimized hundreds, if not thousands, of our workers.
Considering the insane amounts often charged each applicant, who pays out of hard-earned savings or through loans obtained at cut-throat interest rates, the problem looms even larger.
But what has been the action by the authorities so far? A fine as little as $3,000 when the “placement fee” charged was an outrageous $21,000, or the cancellation of agency license when the owner could no longer be found.
In at least one case involving a notorious agent, the suspect was not even charged because investigators were reportedly unsure about what to accuse her of.
She remains free to this day, long after luring dozens of Filipinos, both in Hong Kong and the Philippines, to non-existent jobs in Canada and Cyprus, and making them cough up fees of as much as CAD$9000 each.
Seven of her victims turned to us for help, and we took them to a nearby police station where officers adamantly refused to even record their complaint until their boss came out and saw the obviously fake air tickets given them by the agent.
But despite the lengthy investigation that followed, and despite her fleeing to Macau with about two dozen applicants who were made to wait for a month for flights to Cyprus that never came, the agent, sadly a Filipina, is still around.
Even more frustrating is seeing this Filipina’s obviously fraudulent ploy being copied by other rogue agents, who must have been impressed with how she managed to wriggle out of an extremely tight spot.
They, too, have gotten away with a mere slap on the wrist, or none at all.
The list is long: Natino, Limestone, Pacific Management Consultants, Joyce Agency, Vick’s Maid, and most recently, Excellent Nannies. They were all taken to court or the police, but not a single one was made to fully answer for the wrong they did to our workers.
In many cases, even the Hong Kong Employment Agencies Administration would not act on complaints because of its insistence on such claims falling under the Summary Offences Ordinance, for which a time bar of six months is prescribed.
This means that if payment was received in January, no complaint against the agency involved would be entertained if it was made after July, or after a time lapse of more than six months.
One other option offered to victims is to seek repayment through the Small Claims Tribunal. But this often leads to more frustration for victims because even if they get a favorable judgment, the errant agent tends to ignore the order for repayment.
In such a case, the victim’s only recourse is to seek the bailiff’s help, but this comes at a price of around $4,000, which is the fee prescribed for getting the order enforced.
And even if they are willing to put in good money after the bad, the results are not always favorable.
In one remarkable case brought to our attention, an OFW who paid the fee to enforce the order giving back her $21,000 was stymied further when the agent threatened to file suit against the bailiff, claiming the properties being seized to satisfy the claim were not hers.
The bailiff backed out.
Given all these, it comes as a relief to see our new labor attache coming out firmly against the deployment of our workers here to a third country. While the sanctions for such a violation are just administrative in nature, it still sends out a strong signal that our government is doing its best to strike down on the illegal practice, especially if the agency involved has been in business for decades, like Emry’s.
But more should be done. Our officials must put before their Hong Kong counterparts the long list of cases showing how unscrupulous agents managed to run scot-free after fleecing our workers of thousands of dollars for non-existent jobs abroad.
This is fraud, and this is how Hong Kong authorities should regard it. If the perpetrators end up serving time in jail, this long-standing problem that has caused untold suffering to many of our workers could maybe come to an end.
