PASTRY COMPANY, DIRECTOR CHARGED WITH USING HALAL LOGO WITHOUT APPROVAL

PETALING JAYA, Jan 24 (Bernama) -- A pastry company and its director were charged in two Sessions Courts, here, today, with 14 counts of using the halal logo and a registered trademark without approval in the supply of 366 sandwiches of various types.

Ewe Sarn Yeun, 65, director of Shake and Bake Cafe Sdn Bhd, and the company (represented by Ewe), pleaded not guilty to seven charges, which were read out before Judges Dr Syahliza Warnoh and Noor Ruzilawati Mohd Nor, respectively.

According to the six charges, the man and the company were each charged with supplying food products, namely 50 mixed tuna sandwiches; 43 mixed potato sandwiches; 77 mixed chicken sandwiches; 74 egg mayo sandwiches; 66 ham & cheese sandwiches; and 56 chili crabstick sandwiches, which were described using the Malaysian halal logo, without approval, to falsely indicate that the food was suitable for consumption by Muslims, which is contrary to Paragraph 4 (1) of the Trade Descriptions (Halal Certification and Marking) Order 2011.

The offence was allegedly committed at the pastry company in Sunway Damansara, here, at 12.50 pm on Jan 10.

Ewe was charged under Paragraph 8 (b) of the Trade Descriptions (Halal Certification and Marking) Order 2011 which is punishable under Paragraph 8 (B) of the same law, which provides for a maximum fine of RM100,000 or imprisonment for a maximum of three years or both upon conviction. For subsequent offences, the fine may increase to RM250,000, with imprisonment of up to five years.

Meanwhile, the company was charged under Paragraph 8 (A) of the Trade Description (Halal Certification and Marking) Order 2011, which is punishable under Paragraph 8 (A) of the same law, which carries a maximum fine of RM200,000 if convicted. For a second or subsequent offence, the fine may increase to RM500,000.

In addition, Ewe and his company were each charged with one count of using a registered trademark - the Malaysian Halal Logo - without approval, on 366 sandwich packages at the same location, date and time.

He was charged under Section 102 (1) (c) of the Trademark Act 2019, punishable under Section 102 (1) (ii) of the same law, which carries a maximum fine of RM10,000 for each item marked with a registered trademark or a maximum prison term of three years or both if convicted; and a fine of up to RM20,000 and imprisonment of up to five years for subsequent offences.

The company was charged under Section 102 (1) (c) of the Trademark Act 2019 and is punishable under Section 102 (1)(i) of the same law, which provides for a maximum fine of RM15,000 for each item marked with a registered trademark without approval upon conviction. Subsequent offences may incur a fine of up to RM30,000.

Earlier, the deputy public prosecutor from the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Cost of Living (KPDN), Shafiq Mahadi, proposed bail of RM60,000 for each charge, taking into account that it was a case of public interest, in addition to requesting additional conditions that the accused must surrender his passports to the court, and report to the KPDN Office, Putrajaya, once a month until the disposal of the case.

Lawyer, Hamdan Hamzah, who represented the accused and the company, appealed for bail of RM120,000 for all charges, taking into account that the accused, who has permanent resident status in the United States, has a good reputation and has provided good cooperation throughout the investigation.

“The issue of public interest raised by the prosecution does not pertain to the accused, but against another company whose products went viral in the press and social media,” said the lawyer.

Both courts set March 5 for mention, and allowed the accused to be bailed at RM130,000 in three sureties for all charges, and to surrender his passport to the court until the disposal of the case.

On Jan 13, the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (JAKIM), in a statement, confirmed that the 'ham and cheese' sandwiches sold at the convenience store in the public university in Kuala Lumpur did not have a halal certificate and that the company producing the product was not a Malaysian Halal Certification (SPHM) holder.

--BERNAMA