If Raymond accepted advantages from Mr Wang and agreed to submit an inspection report containing false results to his employer (i.e. the inspection body), he would contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Even if no advantage was involved, Raymond would still breach Section 9(3) of the POBO by submitting false documents with an intent to deceive his employer.  Mr Wang, who offered the bribe, would also commit an offence under POBO.

Although the advantages were offered outside Hong Kong, the offence may still be prosecuted under POBO if any act of bribery (including offering, soliciting, accepting, promising, or agreeing to accept an advantage without permission) took place in Hong Kong.  For example, submitting a false inspection report to his employer in Hong Kong falls within the scope of the Ordinance. 

As a staff member of an independent third-party inspection body, Raymond is required to maintain impartiality and professional independence.  He should decline excessive, frequent or lavish entertainment offered by assessed organisations to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and strictly comply with his company’s policies on the acceptance of advantage and entertainment.

If Danny and Eric deliberately included false data in the testing reports with intent to deceive their employer, they would contravene Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, even if no advantage was obtained.

Testing technicians must uphold the highest standards of professional integrity at all times.  Diligently carrying out each testing procedure ensures the accuracy and reliability of test results, protects consumers from potentially hazardous products, and safeguards public confidence in the industry.

Case Analysis

The foreman offered an advantage (i.e. the gift cheque) to the works supervisor as a reward for the latter’s doing/forbearing to do any act in relation to his principal’s business (i.e. conniving at fabricated test samples).  As the works supervisor, being an agent, did not have the permission of his principal (i.e. the consultant) to accept the advantage, he contravened Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap.201) (POBO); while the foreman contravened Section 9(2) of POBO for offering the advantage under such circumstance.  Both the foreman and works supervisor were sentenced to imprisonment.   

Case in Perspective

Construction materials testing process is vulnerable to corruption and malpractices, in particular when there is a lack of proper and effective supervision in the selection, safekeeping and transportation of test samples.  However, in order to avoid contractual liabilities due to failure of compliance tests (e.g. deduction of contract payments), unscrupulous contractors and/or sub-contractors may manipulate the process to ensure that only compliant samples are selected for testing.  They may also cover up substandard materials or works through substitution of test samples or falsification of test reports, with the corrupt connivance of site supervisory staff and/or laboratory technicians.  The above malpractices not only render the parties concerned liable to prosecution, but also undermine the works quality and put the public safety at stake.

Therefore, project owners/clients should put in place adequate and effective safeguards to prevent corruption and malpractices in the material testing process in their construction projects, including, but not limited to, the following –

(a) Lay down clear procedures for the selection, safekeeping and transportation of test samples;

(b) Keep all selected samples in safe custody throughout the process until handing over to testing laboratories;

(c) Request laboratories to submit test reports and certificates directly to the project owners/clients or their consultants; and

(d) Where necessary, appoint independent laboratories to conduct parallel tests on materials.