According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence if Karson, a hotel employee, without the permission of his employer, accepted an advantage, i.e., the red packet and the 2% rebate of the project sum, for awarding the renovation project to Kenneth and turning a blind eye to the substandard work.  Kenneth might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, it shall not be a defence to show that the acceptance of advantage is customary in any profession, trade, vocation or calling.  Although the red packet was offered during the customary “God Worshipping” ceremony, the court shall determine the legality based on whether the recipient had obtained the permission from his principal.

Although Karson did not actively solicit advantages and might not have ultimately received any commission from Kenneth, the verbal agreement between the two parties to conceal the substantial work still constituted corruption.  According to Section 11 of the POBO, once an agreement to offer and accept a bribe is reached, both the offeror and acceptor of the bribe shall commit an offence even if the acceptor claims that he did not actually carry out the act as agreed.

Karson might also breach the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE) which states that a member of HKIE shall discharge his duties with integrity and in accordance with the highest standards of business ethics; and neither give nor accept any gift, entertainment, payment or service of more than nominal value, to or from those having a business relationship with his employer or client without the consent of the latter.

Leo is regarded as an agent of the hotel.  Without the hotel’s permission, he accepted a rebate from Louis for abusing his official capacity to disclose other bidders’ information to the latter.  Leo might breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while Louis might also commit the offence by offering a bribe.  Accepting bribes, whether directly or indirectly through a third party, is against the law.  If the purpose of offering the advantage is to induce the agent to do an act in relation to his principal’s business, both the offeror and the recipient would commit an offence under the POBO.  Bidders’ or clients’ information is valuable to the hotel and staff members should strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the hotel for protecting confidential information.

On the other hand, hampers and gifts are advantages.  According to Section 19 of the POBO, custom or trade practice cannot constitute a defence.  If these gifts were offered to Leo with a corrupt motive, both Leo and Louis might commit a bribery offence, even if they were offered during festive occasions. Even if no corruption was involved, Leo should follow the hotel’s code of conduct regarding the acceptance of advantages to avoid conflict of interest.  He should be particularly cautious of the sweetening process initiated by Louis’ offer of gifts.  Accepting frequent gifts and favours will put the recipient in an obligatory position to reciprocate, compromising one’s objectivity in carrying out official duties and potentially leading to corruption.

It is an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for any agent, without the permission of his principal, to accept any advantage as an inducement to or reward for him to abuse his authority in relation to his principal’s affairs or business.

Bruce, as the chief chef of the hotel, is regarded as an agent.  He might breach Section 9 of the POBO for accepting money from Bob for turning a blind eye to the substandard food quality without the permission of the hotel.  Bob might also commit an offence for offering bribes.

Bruce’s unethical behaviour constituted a serious breach of his employer’s trust and caused unfairness to other suppliers and customers.  Moreover, substandard food quality might also jeopardise food safety if not properly addressed.