Mark, true. But if he is 16 now (which the article implies), he was under 16 when hired - that's why i think we should wait for the court case. Employers know the risks involved in trying to rort minimum wages, they'd be nuts to deliberately try to scam someone like this. The fact that they were paying a minimum wage amount (rather than an odd amount - $5 or $5.50) indicates that there maybe some information that the papers aren't telling us.
