All Industries (Managerial Staff) 10/11/2026
All Industries (Managerial Staff) 21/10/2026
All Industries (Frontline Practitioners) 5/10/2026
'All Industries Frontline Practitioners 11/9/2026
All industries (Managerial Staff) 15/9/2026
Ex-airline ground crew member charged by ICAC gets 20 months’ jail for accepting bribes from human smuggling syndicate
The ICAC cracked a corruption case in 2009, charging two members of a human smuggling syndicate and two former airline ground crew members who assisted in smuggling travellers to other countries via the Hong Kong International Airport. Another former airline ground crew member, who had been wanted by the ICAC, was charged upon returning to Hong Kong after fleeing over 15 years. He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment at the District Court today (July 29) after entering a guilty plea.
Tsui Ying-kit, 45, former customer services officer of Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (Cathay Pacific), was arrested by the ICAC in August 2009 for his alleged involvement in a human smuggling bribery scam. A warrant for his arrest was subsequently issued by the magistrates’ courts after he failed to report bail to the ICAC. Upon returning to Hong Kong in July 2025, he was charged by the ICAC.
The defendant today pleaded guilty to four counts of conspiracy for an agent to accept advantages, contrary to section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and section 159A of the Crimes Ordinance.
Deputy District Judge Mr Timothy Casewell imposed a jail term of 20 months on the defendant and ordered him to make restitution of $18,000, equivalent to the bribe amount involved, to Cathay Pacific.
The offences took place between September 2008 and August 2009. At the material time, the defendant was a customer services officer of Cathay Pacific tasked with carrying out check-in procedures for passengers at the Hong Kong International Airport.
The court heard that the defendant conspired with two other ground crew members of Cathay Pacific to assist passengers arranged by a human smuggling syndicate to check in for their flights. Through prior checking with Cathay Pacific’s computer system, the trio expedited the check-in procedures for these travellers, and alerted the syndicate to any security checks on them.
The ICAC investigation revealed that the defendant and the two ground crew members had issued boarding passes to the travellers arranged by the human smuggling syndicate. In return, the defendant accepted bribes ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per traveller, totalling $18,000.
In May 2010, the ICAC charged two members of the human smuggling syndicate and two former ground crew members of Cathay Pacific. The four defendants, who pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy for an agent to accept advantages, were sentenced to jail terms of 14 to 20 months at the District Court in February 2011.
Cathay Pacific rendered full assistance to the ICAC during its investigation into the case.
The prosecution was today represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Timothy Chen, assisted by ICAC officer Edward Wong.
The ICAC cracked a corruption case in 2009, charging two members of a human smuggling syndicate and two former airline ground crew members who assisted in smuggling travellers to other countries via the Hong Kong International Airport. Another former airline ground crew member, who had been wanted by the ICAC, was charged upon returning to Hong Kong after fleeing over 15 years. He was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment at the District Court today (July 29) after entering a guilty plea.
Tsui Ying-kit, 45, former customer services officer of Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (Cathay Pacific), was arrested by the ICAC in August 2009 for his alleged involvement in a human smuggling bribery scam. A warrant for his arrest was subsequently issued by the magistrates’ courts after he failed to report bail to the ICAC. Upon returning to Hong Kong in July 2025, he was charged by the ICAC.
The defendant today pleaded guilty to four counts of conspiracy for an agent to accept advantages, contrary to section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and section 159A of the Crimes Ordinance.
Deputy District Judge Mr Timothy Casewell imposed a jail term of 20 months on the defendant and ordered him to make restitution of $18,000, equivalent to the bribe amount involved, to Cathay Pacific.
The offences took place between September 2008 and August 2009. At the material time, the defendant was a customer services officer of Cathay Pacific tasked with carrying out check-in procedures for passengers at the Hong Kong International Airport.
The court heard that the defendant conspired with two other ground crew members of Cathay Pacific to assist passengers arranged by a human smuggling syndicate to check in for their flights. Through prior checking with Cathay Pacific’s computer system, the trio expedited the check-in procedures for these travellers, and alerted the syndicate to any security checks on them.
The ICAC investigation revealed that the defendant and the two ground crew members had issued boarding passes to the travellers arranged by the human smuggling syndicate. In return, the defendant accepted bribes ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per traveller, totalling $18,000.
In May 2010, the ICAC charged two members of the human smuggling syndicate and two former ground crew members of Cathay Pacific. The four defendants, who pleaded guilty to five counts of conspiracy for an agent to accept advantages, were sentenced to jail terms of 14 to 20 months at the District Court in February 2011.
Cathay Pacific rendered full assistance to the ICAC during its investigation into the case.
The prosecution was today represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Timothy Chen, assisted by ICAC officer Edward Wong.
The marketing game
Summer holiday was a peak season for travelling. There was a high demand for air tickets, especially the discounted offers with limited supply.
William, a ticketing officer of a travel agent, was inundated with inquiries about discounted air tickets. Because of the high demand for discounted air tickets, William saw it as a good opportunity to make up for his recent credit card payment. William secretly contacted several regular customers, informing them about the upcoming special offers. He implied rewarding him would grant them priority access to these limited discounted tickets. Without much deliberation, several customers agreed to pay William $500 as a reward and successfully purchased the discounted tickets. For other customers, William recommended high-fare tickets so that he could reserve low-fare tickets to the regular customers.
William, as a ticketing officer of a travel agent, without obtaining permission from his employer, solicited and accepted advantages from customers for prioritising the sale of discounted tickets to them. Both William and the clients who offered the advantages might contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).
Employees of travel agents should always handle customer requests impartially. William disclosed the upcoming special offers of air tickets to several regular customers while intentionally recommending high-fare tickets to others. Such an act breached professional integrity and negatively impacted the reputation of the travel agent. If employees accept advantages to provide preferential treatment, it creates dissatisfaction or complaints from other customers and constitutes a violation of the POBO.
On the other hand, William should exercise prudent financial management and avoid risking his position due to debt, as this could lead to criminal offences. William’s illegal acts could be attributed to his poor financial management, which made him susceptible to financial temptations. Ultimately, he resorted to taking risks to alleviate his financial burdens. Employees should always exercise financial prudence to prevent falling into corruption traps.
Friendship goes first
Xenia was a staff member of the ticketing department of a travel agent. Her close friend, Xaviera, worked in the sales department of an airline company. Knowing that Xaviera was new and facing tremendous pressure to meet sales target, Xenia always encouraged her customers to purchase air tickets from Xaviera’s airline.
One day after Xaviera received a warning letter about her poor sales performance, she felt distressed and sought comfort from Xenia. While supporting Xaviera, Xenia received a phone call from an insurance company requesting 50 air tickets for a corporate trip to a convention in Europe. Xenia knew this would be a good opportunity to help Xaviera out of her predicament. To secure the business, Xenia marked up prices from competing airlines when making quotations to the insurance company, steering the company toward Xaviera’s airline. As a result of the misleading pricing information provided by Xenia, the insurance company chose to book the tickets with Xaviera’s company.
Although Xenia and Xaviera were good friends, their relationship conflicted with the company’s interest, placing Xenia in a conflict of interest situation. She prioritised her personal relationship over professional integrity. By recklessly marking up the prices of other airlines to aid the sales of Xaviera’s tickets, Xenia acted unfairly toward those airlines and jeopardised the credibility of her company. If the truth was discovered, it may also lead to complaints from the airlines and clients. Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations, strictly adhering to internal guidelines. Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal guidelines.
Xenia might commit fraud under Section 16A of the Theft Ordinance by overstating the prices offered by other airlines when submitting quotation to the client. If Xenia, without the permission of her travel agent, abused her position to favour Xaviera while accepting advantages, she might also be liable under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. On the other hand, by deceiving her client with inaccurate information, Xenia breached the trust her company and her client placed on her. As an employee of the travel agent, Xenia should diligently fulfil her duties and exercise discretion fairly and transparently.
Under-the-table
Sally worked in the procurement department of an airline company and was responsible for procuring cabin cleaning services. Her high school friend, Susan, owned a cleaning service company that was struggling financially. Upon learning about Susan's difficulties, Sally proactively offered to help her secure cleaning service contracts with the airline. Sally even suggested that Susan could slightly inflate the service fees and share the excess with her as a reward for her assistance in obtaining the contracts.
According to the procurement regulations of the airline company, procurement staff members must declare any conflicts of interest with contractors. Putting her own interest before the company, Sally decided to conceal her relationship with Susan and assist her in obtaining the procurement contract. When submitting the conflict of interest declaration form, Sally falsely claimed she had no conflict of interest in the procurement process.
Sally, a purchasing staff member of an airline company, made use of her office to ask the supplier to inflate the service fee and accepted advantages from the supplier as a reward for assisting the latter in obtaining the cleaning service contract without obtaining the approval of the airline company. Both Sally and Susan might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).
By inviting Susan to submit a bid for the tendering exercise, Sally found herself in a conflict of interest situation. Sally intentionally concealed the conflict of interest and made false statements on the conflict of interest declaration form to deceive her company, which might also commit Section 9(3) of the POBO or other fraudulent offences. If fraudulent acts are involved to conceal conflicts for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances, it may lead to other criminal offences such as deception, fraud, false accounting, etc.
Employees must adhere to the company’s guidelines and procedures when conducting procurement and tendering exercises, including the guidelines on handling conflicts of interest. Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declaration strictly following the internal guidelines. Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal policies.
Thank you for your feedback.