Education center operator loses appeal over fake attendance sheets

The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has confirmed a nine-month jail term for an education center operator who forged attendance sheets to defraud the government’s Continuing Education Development Program.

According to the case details, the education center had obtained government approval to offer internet marketing and WeChat marketing courses under the Continuing Education Development Program.

After learning that the courses had to be completed by December 31, 2019, the defendant – aware that many residents had not yet used their subsidies – scheduled numerous courses lasting only 10 minutes each, with himself serving as a paid instructor to meet the program’s requirements and secure funding.

During subsequent sessions, some students did not actually attend, but the defendant filled in the attendance sheets with the dates registered with the Education and Youth Development Bureau and signed them as the instructor to confirm attendance for absent students.

In other cases, students were asked to sign blank attendance sheets during make-up classes, with the defendant later adding dates and signing them to validate the false records.

The Court of First Instance (TJB) convicted the defendant of forgery of documents and imposed a combined sentence of nine months’ actual imprisonment.

The defendant appealed to the TSI, arguing that signing as an instructor merely confirmed his own presence and did not verify student attendance, while also questioning whether responsibility for confirming attendance lay with the instructor or the institution’s principal.

He further challenged the credibility of student witness testimony and the lower court’s finding that his motive was to avoid jeopardizing future course approvals under the program.

The TSI dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the original ruling, affirming that the defendant was the center’s de facto manager with a direct interest in course approvals. The court emphasized that, as the head of a government-subsidized institution, verifying attendance was a fundamental responsibility, including ensuring that courses were properly conducted and that instructors and students attended as required.

The attendance sheets bore the responsible person’s signature and the institution’s stamp at the bottom, indicating the need for final verification by the person in charge.

The panel noted that some classes had as few as 10 or even just one student, meaning the defendant should have been fully aware of any absences. Yet he signed attendance sheets confirming attendance for absent students, demonstrating clear knowledge of the falsification and establishing intent.