According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Patrick, (an employee of the travel agency) without the approval of his employer, to accept advantages (i.e. $30,000 from William) for putting William’s restaurant into the company’s approved list.  William might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

Although the commission was deposited into the account of Patrick’s wife, Patrick might still commit a corruption offence.  Under the POBO, a person is considered to have accepted an advantage even if a third party receives the advantage on his behalf.

Moreover, it is important to note that it shall be an offence under the POBO if any act (including includes promising, agreeing, soliciting or accepting advantages without permission, etc.) of bribery takes place in Hong Kong.

Considering the close relationship with her brother-in-law, Janice should have observed her company’s internal guidelines on declaration of conflict of interest and refrained from being involved in the granting of contract. Conflict of interest situations such as this, if not dealt with properly, may easily lead to corruption.

Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), a tour package is an advantage. Janice might breach the POBO if she, without the permission of the hotel, accepted the tour package as a reward for granting the contract to Tommy’s agency.  In that case, Tommy might also breach the POBO for offering of bribe.

Ophelia deliberately submitted false attendance record to her company intending to deceive the employer of wages.  She might violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance or other fraudulent offences as she intentionally used documents containing false information to deceive her employer.  Oscar might also commit an offence of conspiracy to defraud.  When faced with Ophelia’s offer to help him purchase limited-edition anime figures, Oscar should decline the offer immediately to avoid putting himself in an obligatory position that could lead to illegal acts.

Ollie was aware that Ophelia had submitted false documents to deceive the hotel but chose to turn a blind eye.  Deliberately concealing or shielding unlawful behaviour may give rise to suspicions of involvement in illegal activities.  Therefore, to safeguard the interests of oneself and the company, employees should adopt a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption and report it to the ICAC.

Nancy deliberately submitted false attendance records to her company with the intent to deceive her employer of wages.  She might violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance or committed other fraudulent offences, as she intentionally used documents containing false information to mislead her employer.  Even though Nick did not receive any advantages, he might also be guilty of conspiracy to defraud.

As a managerial staff, Nick has a responsibility to carry out his supervisory duties.  Apart from performing his own duties, he should serve as a role model and set a good example for his subordinates.  It is his duty to oversee the conduct and performance of his subordinates, ensuring their compliance with laws and regulations.

Employees should always remain vigilant and adopt a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption and unethical practices, and report to the ICAC and the company.  If employees turn a blind eye or condone illegal behaviour, it not only tarnishes the corporate culture but also harms the company's interests.

Michael is regarded as an agent of the hotel.  Without the hotel’s permission, he accepted rebates from Mike for disclosing quotation information of other bidders to the latter so that Mike could secure the contract at the lowest bid.  Michael might breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while Mike might also commit the offence by offering bribes.  Michael conspired with Mike to use false documents to deceive his employer so that Mike could obtain the supply contract, he might breach Section 9(3) of the POBO or other fraudulent offences and Mike might also commit a conspiracy to defraud offence.  Similarly, Mike submitted false invoices to the hotel to conceal the under-delivery and Michael assisted to cover up the matter.  Both of them might commit the offence of conspiracy to defraud.

Michael and Mike were high school classmates which constituted a conflict of interest.  Michael did not declare the conflict of interest to the hotel intentionally and might violate the company’s internal policies.  Employees must adhere to the company’s guidelines and procedures when conducting procurement exercises, including the guidelines on handling conflicts of interest.  They should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations strictly following the internal guidelines.  Mishandling conflict of interest may distort and cast doubt on the reliability of one’s professional judgement.  On the other hand, companies should implement internal monitoring mechanisms and effective checks and balances to ensure that employees properly follow the procurement policies and goods receiving procedures. 

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.

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. 

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.