Fagin was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as responsibility and honesty to challenge. In handling situation like this, Fagin should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:

1. Any violation to his professional, industry specific, or company code of conduct?
2. Is it against the Law?
3. Does it correspond with his self-values such as responsibility or honesty?
4. Can he disclose his decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving his ethical dilemma.

Under the Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, it is an offence for any agent, with intent to deceive the principal, to use any false, erroneous or defective receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested.

Ivy might breach Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for using false documents with the intent to deceive her company.  She might also commit an offence of deception, contrary to Section 17 of the Theft Ordinance.  

Becky was facing an ethical dilemma that might compromise her personal values such as honesty and responsibility. In handling the situation, Becky should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:

1. Any violation to her professional, industry specific, or company code of conduct?

2. Is it against the Law?

3. Does it correspond with her self-values such as honesty and responsibility?

4. Can she disclose her decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for her in solving her ethical dilemma and choosing the best course of action.

As an employee of the company, Jasper is regarded as an agent under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Without the company’s permission, he accepted red packets from customers for abusing his official duties, which might breach Section 9 of the POBO.  Both the offeror and acceptor of the bribes are guilty of the offence.

A red packet is a kind of advantage.  Section 2 of the POBO states that advantages include fee, gift, loan, reward, commission, office, contract, service, favour, payment, and more.  However, entertainment which refers to food and drink consumed on the occasion is excluded.  In addition, there is no monetary limit for advantage.  Therefore, Jasper’s acceptance of these advantages might have violated the law regardless of the amount involved.

Retail staff should adhere to company guidelines when selling products and providing company gifts.  Otherwise, it may lead to customer dissatisfaction or complaints, negatively impacting the company’s reputation. 

It would be an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for Ivan and Ian, who were employees of the department store, to accept the advantage, i.e., the monthly commission of $10,000, offered by Wong and Au for assisting the latter in overstating the quantity of toiletries without the permission of their employer.  Wong and Au might also commit an offence by offering bribes.  Furthermore, by overstating the purchase orders and acknowledging the false receipt, both Ivan and Ian might breach Section 9(3) of the POBO, which forbids employees from using documents containing false, erroneous or defective information to deceive their employer.  They might also commit an offence of conspiracy to defraud.

Ivan and Ian should adhere to their company’s code of conduct on handling persons having business dealings with the company and avoid gambling with suppliers.  While Ivan and Ian might seem very lucky to win a lot during mahjong games with Wong and Au, frequently gambling together and winning excessive amount might portray the perception that Wong and Au were losing to them deliberately so as to pass benefits to Ivan and Ian in return for favour at work.

Given that one of the candidates was Heidi’s relative, Heidi, responsible for conducting the recruitment interview, was in a conflict of interest situation.  Heidi should avoid the situation as far as possible and adhere to the company code of conduct in handling it, such as declaring their relationship to the company.

If Heidi failed to disclose such a conflict of interest, the company could not take appropriate measure to mitigate the risk arising from the conflict (e.g., deploying another officer with no conflict of interest to take up the interview) and even worse, giving rise to allegation of bias and unfairness, and putting the company into disrepute.  Moreover, such failure to declare the conflict as required would cast doubt on Heidi’s integrity.  Even if Heidi acted impartially and her relative was the best candidate, the conflict of interest could still lead to the perception of favouritism and unfairness to other candidates. 

If false document is involved (e.g. falsifying documents to cover up conflict involved), it may breach S.9(3) of the POBO.  Using fraudulent means to conceal conflicts during the recruitment exercise for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances may lead to criminal charges such as deception and fraud, and could breach the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance if bribery is involved.

Gloria might contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if she, without the permission of her employer, the retail store, solicited and accepted gifts from subordinates for abusing her official duties to favour some staff members when arranging deployment, leaves or promotions.  Subordinates who offered the gifts might also commit an offence.

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 have the power, right or opportunity to do so, did not intend to do so, or did not in fact do so.  Hence, Gloria and the subordinates who offered the advantages might still breach the POBO even if Gloria did not in fact show favour to them in staff management and the purpose of the bribery had not been carried out.

It is important for supervisors and subordinates to maintain a positive working relationship.  However, supervisors must avoid blurring the lines between personal and official capacities by accepting gifts from subordinates.  This could make them feel obliged to return the favour and ultimately hinder their ability to fulfil necessary personnel management and supervisory responsibilities.  Gloria’s behaviour may attract criticism and dissatisfaction from other subordinates and colleagues, negatively impacting management effectiveness.  Additionally, it can undermine employee morale and create an undesirable culture.

As an employee of the retail store, Frankie should always comply with the internal guidelines on product sale.  By taking this opportunity for personal gain, Frankie not only violated the internal guidelines but also breached the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Frankie, as an agent, without the permission of the retail store, solicited and accepted rebates from Felix for reserving goods might violate Section 9 of the POBO.  Felix, as the offeror of the bribe, might also be guilty of the offence.

Retail staff should uphold integrity and perform their duties with high ethical standard.  Illegal behaviours ruin one’s career and create unfairness to other customers, ultimately damaging the company’s reputation.