Chang Lung and Ta Tung Insurance Brokerage Agencies violated the Fair Trade Law for engaging in insurance solicitation under the guise of staff recruiting advertisements in newspapers

Chinese Taipei

Case:

Chang Lung and Ta Tung Insurance Brokerage Agencies violated the Fair Trade Law for engaging in insurance solicitation under the guise of staff recruiting advertisements in newspapers

Key Words:

insurance, false advertisements, deceptive

Reference:

Fair Trade Commission Decision of 28 February 1996 (the 228th Commission Meeting); Disposition (85) Kung Ch'u Tzu No. 049 and No. 050

Industry:

Insurance industry (6710)

Relevant Laws:

Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law

Summary:

1. In May and June of 1995, two persons reported to the Commission that they went to work for Chang Lung and Ta Tung companies. The companies had announced that persons taking administrative jobs would have a guaranteed minimum salary, but in fact there was no administrative work to be done. The company continued its recruitment of administrative staff on a daily basis. A few days later, it turned out that new recruits must purchase life insurance policy, and solicit new recruits in order to receive the aforesaid salary. The persons having made the report believed the companies were involved in fraud.

2. The newspaper advertisements provided by the aforesaid informants had two contact phone numbers, but no address. So the Commission confirmed with the Telecommunications Bureau, and found that one of the contact numbers belonged to Chen Shih-yuan, the man in charge of the business development division of Chang Lung, and the address was identical to that of the business development division. The address relating to the other phone number was that of Ta Tung Co., [which telephone number was] owned by Chen Wen-tsung with Ta Tung Co.'s address. However, this number was changed to a south Taiwan location (Chia Yi) in October, 1995. In addition, Ta Tung Co. denied Chen Wen-tsung was on its payroll.

3. The Commission thus decided:

(1) In respect of Chang Lung: the information the Commission obtained from the Telecommunications Bureau showed that the phone numbers printed as part of the ads do belong to one of Chang Lung's executives, and the address going along with the number is that of Chang Lung's business development division. The overall content of the aforementioned ads, including "administration assistant", "female employees working at reception desks", "sorting administration files", "outgoing personality and articulate", "salary ranging between NT$ 21,000 and 26,000", made no mention of insurance business , which may very well cause the general public to believe that the position they are applying for has nothing to do with insurance solicitation. The Company in its presentation to the Commission admitted that its branch office did violate the provisions concerning the publication of untrue advertisements, and has closed the branch office in question. However, as the Company also admitted that all its branch offices were under its direct supervision, the Company could not be exempted from its responsibility under administrative law just because it has taken self-policing measures. Therefore, sanctions were imposed on the Company for its violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.

(2) In respect of Ta Tung Co.: Ta Tung Co. denied having taken out any untrue advertisements and enclosed the copy of its previous advertisements in newspapers, but it did not deny the fact that its employees could set up their own phones. According to the confirmation the Commission made with the Telecommunications Bureau concerning the aforesaid phone numbers, despite the fact that the owner of the specific number, Chen Wen-tsung, was not on Ta Tung Co.'s payroll, it does not preclude [the fact] that this phone was installed at Ta Tung Co. Furthermore, in view of the content of the recruiting ads the informants enclosed in their reports stating "a salary of NT$ 23,000 for staff in charge of general affairs", "a salary of NT$ 22,000 for office staff ", "a salary of NT$ 23,000 for administration assistant", "a starting salary of NT$28,000 for management", there is no doubt that the informants did apply for these positions because of the content of these aforesaid advertisements. The Commission therefore also decided to impose sanctions for violation of Article 24 of the Fair Trade Law.

Summarized by Wu, Ting-hung
Supervised by Chang, Fen-fen

＊: For information of translation, click here

[Browse by APEC Member Economies] [Browse by Subject Categories] [Home]
[Decisions] [Approvals] [Interpretations] [Administrative Guidance]