Birmingham Trading Standards. Halal Fraud Investigations

Transcription

1 Birmingham Trading Standards Halal Fraud Investigations

2 Background Many premises claim Halal Restaurants, Take Aways, Butchers, Wholesalers Advertisements, Posters, leaflets, Websites Claim to be accredited by recognised organisations Logo s eg HFA and HMC

3 Trading Standards Objectives Protect Consumer Interests Support Fair Legitimate Trading Take Appropriate Action against those making False and Misleading Claims HFA has been working with Trading Standards Department of Birmingham City Council to prevent misuse of halal labelling and HFA name and its halal logo. We are actively involved in protecting consumers interest, encouraging accountability and traceability of halal supplies while identifying the culprits who jeopardise the integrity of halal logos and deliberately mislabel their products as halal without having access to adequate certification or rights to use specific registered halal logos.

4 Legislation Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 misleading claims Food Regulations Trade Marks Act 1994 Fraud Act 2006

5 Enforcement Policy Evidential and Public Interest Test Trader Advice Warning Prosecution

6 Examples Falsely using accredited body logo s Traders claiming to supplying Halal Meat Only Slaughterhouse/Wholesalers supplying Halal Meat

7 Example 1 Meat supplier ordered to pay nearly 20,000 for fake halal labels A meat wholesaler and its director have been ordered to pay nearly 20,000 by a judge at Birmingham Crown Court today (5 September) after admitting applying counterfeit halal certification labels to products which were then sold to a Birmingham supplier. On this occasion, an HMC inspector discovered meat in Birmingham bearing counterfeit HMC stickers. The HMC notified Birmingham City Council s Trading Standards team who attended the premises and seized five boxes of meat which were traced to Zaman Brothers in Bradford, where raids were conducted on two premises. Zaman also admitted having in his possession 5,000 consecutively numbered labels in the style of those issued by the HMC with a view to applying them to meat products which had not been inspected or labelled by the HMC, which would then be sold as having been HMC-certified

8 Example 2 -Real China Restaurant ordered to pay out 8,900 over false halal meat claim A city restaurant has been ordered to fork out 8,910 in fines and costs after falsely claiming all the meat it served was halal. There was no evidence The Real China, at Star City, was even selling halal meat when it was inspected by Trading Standards, a court heard. It claimed all its meat was halal at a time when Muslims were celebrating Eid, it was told. The restaurant s poster read: The Real China Birmingham produces halal dishes for its customers. All meat supplied is halal and is prepared separately under strict conditions. The Real China Birmingham appoint dedicated chefs to cater to halal requirements. However food was not prepared under strict conditions and the restaurant did not have any dedicated chefs.

9 Example 3 JKY UK: Birmingham wholesaler fined 35,000 for selling non-halal meat to Muslims 11/09/2014 Birmingham Mail A wholesaler has been hit with fines and court costs of more than 60,000 after consumer watchdogs discovered the company selling meat it falsely claimed was halal to Muslims. The source of the meat was later traced to a supplier in Ireland which, at that time, did not sell halal meat, said Barry Berlin, prosecuting. He added: When the defendant received the chicken from its supplier it was not boxed or labelled as halal, but when they sold it on it was marked as halal. Halal meat is significantly more expensive than non-halal meat, therefore there is a motivation on behalf of the person who sold it to slip it under the wire as something that it was not. JKY Food Solutions, which boasted a 7.3 million turnover last year, previously pleaded guilty to one charge of breaching general food regulations in relation to the supply of 274 boxes of chicken worth almost 6,000 sold between April and September Fining the business 35,000 and ordering it to pay 26,910 prosecution costs, His Honour Judge Patrick Thomas QC, added: The consumers who went there went for halal meat for powerful religious and cultural reasons. They would not be just upset but revolted to find they were purchasing, eating, giving to family and even takeaway and restaurant customers something that was non-halal. Coun Barbara Dring, chairman of Birmingham City Council s public protection committee, said after the case: Food fraud is a major concern that we take very seriously and we welcome this sentence.

10 Birmingham Trading Standards If you are concerned that a particular business maybe making false and misleading claims please Contact Trading Standards: via the Consumer Helpline on by to: [email protected]

11

12