Hong Kong imposes six-month ban on Chan Ka Hey for fabrication

To deceive the insurer and his employing bank, Hey fabricated a new DDA form with a cut-out of the client’s signature, without consent.

Hong Kong’s Insurance Authority (HKIA)  and Monetary Authority (HKMA) have taken disciplinary action against Chan Ka Hey, a former technical representative of an authorised institution. 

Hey has been prohibited from applying for a license for six months due to being deemed not fit and proper. This action was based on a thorough investigation by the HKMA under the Banking Ordinance (Cap. 155) into Hey’s conduct.

“The correct, honest and ethical course of action would have been for Mr Chan, on discovering his original mistake, to have asked the client to re-sign and complete the form again. Whilst this may have involved some embarrassment in admitting an error, this would have been the right thing to do. Integrity involves doing the right thing, despite the fact that this may be difficult.” Peter Gregoire, Head of Market Conduct of the HKIA said.

The investigation revealed that in June 2018, Hey received a direct debit authorisation (DDA) form from an overseas client, meant for settling insurance premium payments. 

The client's signature was missing on one of the signature pages. To deceive the insurer and his employing bank, Hey fabricated a new DDA form by cutting and pasting the client's signature from the signed form onto a blank DDA form. 

He then submitted this fabricated form, without the client's knowledge or consent, to process the direct debit.

ALSO READ: Australia’s Fed penalises Insurance Australia Group

The HKIA considered the investigation findings and Hey’s explanation that he failed to process the direct debit within the valid period of the signed DDA form. 

However, the HKIA deemed Hey’s actions unethical, displaying a significant lack of integrity. 

This made him unfit and improper for his role as an agent. 

The disciplinary action was imposed in light of several factors, including the singular occurrence of the misconduct, the absence of personal gain, his admission of wrongdoing, his clean disciplinary record up to that point, and the need to deter similar behaviour.

The insurance regulator’s decision was made under section 81 of the Insurance Ordinance (Cap. 41), taking into account all relevant circumstances.