Officers in HK:                         Ms. Leslie Stojanov, Mr. Luc Bernard, Mr. Daniel A. Leblanc

 

 

The job title of the PA declared in the CVR did not match the dissolution document of the company.

 

The number of shares held by the PA was not shown in the shares transfer documents.  It was not possible to state that these share transfer transactions between the PA and other shareholders were accepted by ABIC.

 

 

The officer mentioned that there were missing documents, 2004 financial report provided was not a complete year, no 2005 financial report and no update PNW (521 form).  For any future clients’ interview, the immigration consultant should have checked and submitted relevant update documents to the BIQ-HK in advance.

 

The PA could not provide satisfactory explanation regarding the corporate income tax paid in 2003, which did not match the financial report.  The officer considered the financial reports for the current company not reliable.

 

 

The business contracts brought, all except one contract, do not bear the PA’s signature.

 

The PA (GM and a minor shareholder) did not bring proof that he/she is the authorized signatory for company bank account.

 

 

The source of funds (the part of the PA) for the initial investment (registered capital RMB 1M) and the increase of capital (from RMB 1M to 10M) in the current company was not clear to the officer.  The PA did not declare any dividends from the previous and current company (audit reports for both companies).  For the increase of capital in the current company, the PA explained that part of the money (the PA was not precise of the amount and no contract with these two companies were brought to the interview) came from advances (should be considered as loans) from two other companies that rented the warehouse used by the PA’s company.  It was deemed quite unusual and confusing to the officer.  The PA offered that he/she still had bank deposit receipts of PA’s company for the money received from the two other companies.

 

The officer asked for proof of receipt for the commissions and dividends (more than RMB 4.7M) and insisted that the internal accounting receipts provided for about RMB 1.5M were not satisfactory.

 

Origin of Funds (cont’d)

The officer wanted to see bank records or other official documents to prove the receipt of important income amount (at least 2002 - RMB 830,000, 2003 – RMB 990,000).  The officer said that he/she would have to refuse the application.  The PA remembered the instructions given at lawyer briefing and explained the process of signature and approval on the internal accounting receipts of commission (signed by the President and cross-signed by the in-charge of Finance Department). The PA also stated that he/she could provide the original internal receipts if the officer needed them within 2 weeks, and other evidence submitted, i.e. resolutions of the company, to prove the important money that the PA had received.  This helped to convince the officer the accuracy of these internal receipts.  At the end of the interview, the lawyer further clarified to the officer that the PA answered without hesitation to the officer’s questions about the signature and approval process, the PA could send ORIGINAL of the internal receipts, the PA has a history of managing the company for several years which should reassure that the PA had accumulated his money legally, the PA was no different from most other Chinese investors who did not often keep bank records.

 

The officer was concerned that no proof of income (more than RMB 3M), which was then used to invest in the current company.

 

 

The PA did not show corporate income tax paid as per the financial reports.

 

 

The officer relies heavily on the reliability of the financial reports and evidence (including official documents) showing how the PA accumulated his/her assets and invested in the company.

*****