The sentencing of a Filipina for three Immigration offenses has been put off at Shatin Court after she volunteered to help authorities prosecute fixers who provided her a fake employment contract that enabled her to get a domestic helper’s visa. Anabelle Waguis, 37 years old, faces charges of breach of condition of stay, making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining an entry permit, and conspiracy to defraud. Magistrate Raymond Wong adjourned the case to April 15 on the request of the prosecutor, who said Waguis would cooperate in the prosecution of “Kate” and others who were involved in her getting a fake employment visa. PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE In the meantime, she was sent back to prison where her testimony will be taken. Waguis was a domestic helper whose stay in Hong Kong was limited until Sept. 22, 2022, or two weeks after termination of contract. However, she remained in Hong Kong between July 6, 2023 and Oct. 12, 2025, in violation of section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance, according to the complaint by Immigration Department. Basahin ang detalye! She was also charged with violation of section 42(1) (c) of the Immigration Ordinance on Sept. 19, 2022 when she made a false statement that she was going to work for Ng Yuk Man as a domestic helper. She did this “knowing the same to be false or not believing the same to be true, for the purpose of obtaining an entry permit, namely, an entry visa to Hong Kong to take up employment as a domestic helper,” the complaint stated. The conspiracy to defraud charge arose after she conspired with a person named Kate in August 2022 to provide fake employent contract to the Director of Immigration and his officers stating that she will work for Ng Yuk Man as a domestic helper, resulting in a domestic helper’s visa being issued to her. Her actions induced “the said Director and his officers to act contrary to their public duty, namely to grant you the permission to remain in Hong Kong as foreign domestic helper under circumstances which they would not otherwise have granted.” This was contrary to Common Law and section 2(3) and 4(2) of Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance, and punishable under section 159C(6) of Crimes Ordinance.