Leakage of confidential information to former colleague

An inspector in a government department copied records from the database of his department and sent them to his former colleague who owned a consultancy company for touting businesses.
Cover
Image
Leakage of confidential information to former colleague
Media Feed Source ID
cases_144_cover_en
fade-up
container

One day at dinner time, an inspector of a government department was chatting with a former colleague who owned a consultancy company.  During the meeting, the inspector mentioned that he had been in financial difficulties recently. The owner of the consultancy company took the chance to lend a helping hand to the inspector by offering him a loan of substantial amount.  At the same time, the owner of the consultancy company requested the inspector to copy to him from the database of the departmental computer and saved them into his personal USB.  Those records concerned the business organizations that had failed to comply with the regulations enforced by his department.  In return for the help from his former colleague, the inspector obtained over 100 records and sent them to the owner of the consultancy company.  The owner of the consultancy company used the records as a sales lead, approaching those business organisations on the list and touting his consultancy services to them. Some of the business organisations received sales calls from the consultancy company almost as soon as they had received warning notices from the government. They suspected corruption and reported the matter to the ICAC.

Case Analysis

According to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) S.4(1), it is an offence for the owner of the consultancy company to offer advantages (i.e. a loan) to induce a public servant (i.e. the inspector of the government department) to abuse his official capacity by leaking confidential information.  The inspector also violated POBO S.4(2) for accepting bribes in his capacity as a public servant.

Although the department may allow staff to copy information from the computer system into removable storage media for operational need, such arrangement opens up opportunities for information to be leaked.  The use of these media and mobile devices should be properly managed in workplace.  Guidelines alone cannot foster a culture of compliance. Corruption results from inadequately implemented controls and staff misconduct. This case demonstrates that rules are of limited use if no checks are carried out for compliance.  Therefore, managers should always keep a careful eye on subordinates and remind staff to handle conflicts of interest properly.  Misuse of personal data may be a breach of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and can expose the company to damaging lawsuits.  Coaching staff is essential for preventing problems.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_144

Falsifying documents to mislead the principal constitutes an offence under the POBO

Tim was the director of a Hong Kong company and was stationed in its Mainland factory. He instructed a transportation company operator to inflate the service fees statement and used the falsified documents to mislead the principal.
Cover
Image
Falsifying documents to mislead the principal constitutes an offence under the POBO
Media Feed Source ID
cases_143_cover_en
fade-up
container

Tim was the director of a Hong Kong company and was stationed in its Mainland factory. In the process of awarding a freight contract to a cross–boundary transportation company for goods to be transported to Hong Kong, he claimed he was the factory owner. Tim also falsely claimed that he needed to inflate the transportation cost to offset certain monthly miscellaneous expenses, which were not chargeable to the company's account. He instructed the transportation company operator to inflate the transportation fees on the monthly statement by HK$20,000. He then submitted the statement to his company for issuing of payment to the transportation company via the personal bank account of the factory accountant.   Tim had subsequently pocketed HK$180,000 through the bank account of the accountant for nine months.

The transportation company operator later discovered that Tim was only a paid director and not the actual factory owner.

Case Analysis

In accordance with the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), the term "agent" includes individual directors of a company.  In the above case, Tim as a director was an agent of his company.  He breached Section 9(3) of the POBO by intentionally using false documents to deceive and mislead his principal, i.e. the company.

Tim, who provided false information to mislead the transportation company operator, might also commit offences of false accounting and deception.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_143

Profit-splitting

Daphne was responsible for recommending spare parts suppliers to her watch manufacturing company. A supplier suggested marking up the quotation price by 4% so that they could equally share the profits.
Cover
Image
Profit-splitting
Media Feed Source ID
cases_142_cover_en
fade-up
container

Daphne, a purchasing officer in a watch manufacturing company, was responsible for recommending spare parts suppliers.  One day, a supplier, Simon, invited her for a lunch and made a business suggestion.  If Daphne recommended her company continuing to use Simon’s company as a supplier, Simon would mark up the quotation price by 4% from the next purchase order and they could equally split the profit by having 2% each.

Daphne was scandalized when hearing the suggestion.  Although Simon’s suggested mark-up price was still by far the lowest among the lot, the quality of his products was not as good as the others and only just met the company’s required standard.  On a second thought, she needed an extra income at the moment because she had just made the down-payment for her new flat.  After all, her company would still get a good bargain price.

Would Daphne commit an offence if she accepted Simon’s suggestion?  What factors does she need to consider when making a decision?

Case Analysis

Daphne might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if she (as an employee), without the approval of her principal (the watch manufacturing company) accepted an advantage (i.e. 2% profit from the mark-up price offered by Simon) for recommending Simon’s company to her watch manufacturing company.  Simon might also violate POBO for offering bribes.

Daphne was facing a dilemma that might put her personal values such as responsibility and honesty to challenge. In handling the situation, Daphne 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 violations 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 responsibility and honesty?
  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 the dilemma.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_142

Unauthorized rebate from supplier

Mr Chow, one of the four shareholders of a chemical engineering company in Hong Kong, was in charge of procurement for its mainland factory. A Hong Kong supplier tried to secure orders from Mr Chow by presenting him expensive gift and offering him rebate.
Cover
Image
Unauthorized rebate from supplier
Media Feed Source ID
cases_141_cover_en
fade-up
container

Mr Chow started a joint venture with three of his friends by setting up a chemical engineering company in Hong Kong and a chemical manufacturing factory in Guangdong. The four of them were all directors of the company, each holding 25% of the company shares.

As Mr Chow had substantial experience in operating factories in Chinese Mainland and had developed an extensive business network in Hong Kong and Chinese Mainland especially with Mainland suppliers and government officials, he offered to manage the Mainland factory as the paid General Manager in charge of the business there.

Mr Chow often boasted that the success of the Mainland factory was due to his networking clout. At the same time, he kept grumbling that he had to cover the enormous entertainment expenses with his own money. As the General Manager of the Mainland factory, Mr Chow was entrusted with key procurement decisions. When one of his Hong Kong suppliers learned that Mr Chow had recently bought a property in Chinese Mainland, he presented Mr Chow with an expensive audio- visual set-up, hoping that this gift would secure a contract for the supply of chemical raw materials.

This seemingly thoughtful present soon brought its reward in the form of a first order from Mr Chow. To secure future business, the supplier also offered 5% of the transaction amount as a rebate to Mr Chow at his request. Subsequently, the bribe money was deposited into Mr Chow’s bank account in Hong Kong.

Case Analysis

Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), the principal of a company is the entire Board of Directors, while individual shareholders or directors are considered as agents. In this case, Mr Chow was an 'agent' as he was one of the shareholders and the paid General Manager of the factory. Prior to any solicitation or acceptance of any advantage in the course of business, Mr Chow should have obtained permission from the Board of Directors.

The principal’s permission should be definite and given in advance in accordance with Section 9 of the POBO. Otherwise, the agent has to apply for permission as soon as reasonably practicable after the acceptance. In addition for such permission to be lawful, the principal must have carefully considered the application before granting permission.

Mr Chow’s company had not stated clearly in advance whether or not its staff members could accept advantages in relation to their duties. During the investigation, Mr Chow claimed that he had notified other shareholders that the rebates concerned were used to cover the entertainment expenses incurred in Chinese Mainland. Nevertheless, he had, in fact, only casually brought this matter to the attention of just two of the shareholders. Furthermore, the arrangement had not been discussed at any board meeting or formally approved, and there was no record of the accepted rebates, nor how they were dealt with. As such, Mr Chow was considered not to have obtained the company’s permission to accept the rebate at the material time. Moreover, he had not applied for retrospective approval from his company, and his acceptance of the rebates was not known to and approved by all shareholders. Thus Mr Chow accepted the rebates without the principal’s permission.

To protect the interest of the companies and their stakeholders, companies should take the initiative to formulate rules and regulations governing the acceptance of advantages by their board members and staff and to state clearly in writing the company’s stance and policy regarding acceptance of advantages, and entertainment. The procedures for declaring acceptance of advantages and the channels for making enquiries should also be laid down and made known to all staff.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_141

Lacking a clear company policy

Mr. Chung had established a toy manufacturing enterprise in the Mainland in partnership with his friends. He solicited rebate from a Mainland supplier as a reward for placing purchase orders…
Cover
Image
Lacking a clear company policy
Media Feed Source ID
cases_140_cover_en
fade-up
container

Mr. Chung had established a toy manufacturing enterprise in the Mainland in partnership with his friends. Holding 10% of the shares, he was mainly responsible for supervising the manufacturing process. Since Chung had the authority to purchase materials for the company, he hinted to a Mainland supplier that he expected a rebate equivalent to 5% of the transaction amount as a reward for placing purchase orders. When the incident was exposed, the ICAC found that none of the shareholders in the enterprise had any knowledge of Chung’s acceptance of advantages. Besides, the company did not establish any clear policies on such acceptance of advantage either for its shareholders or staff. It was revealed that Chung had accepted a total of $50,000 over a period of eight months. Chung was sentenced to imprisonment for committing a bribery offence.

Case Analysis

In Hong Kong, according to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for any agent (generally the employee), without the permission of his principal (generally the employer), to solicit or accept an advantage as a reward for doing an act on relation to his principal’s business. Moreover, if any part of the bribery act takes place in Hong Kong, it shall still be an offence under the POBO. Although Chung was one of the shareholders of the enterprise, he was still an agent as defined by the law. He therefore must seek approval from the company before accepting any advantages.

Business organisations should take the initiative to govern the acceptance of advantages by all levels of staff (including directors) in relation to company businesses. The company should state clearly amounts of advantage that the staff are permitted to accept, and conditions of such acceptance. The policy should also list out the declaration procedures and enquiry channels for staff compliance.

Moreover, the company should establish detailed procurement procedures in order to ensure that the products purchased are of good quality and to prevent staff from abusing their authority or engaging in corrupt practices in the purchasing process. Staff should be reminded constantly of the importance of selecting suppliers in a fair and impartial manner.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_140

Awarding subcontracting orders for monetary rewards

Production manager Mr. Wong was deployed to oversee the whole mechanical production process in the mainland and award production order to suitable factories. Two manufacturers offered him kickback for placing more production orders.
Cover
Image
Awarding subcontracting orders for monetary rewards
Media Feed Source ID
cases_139_cover_en
fade-up
container

A mechanical engineering company in Hong Kong had operated a factory in the Mainland.  Its production manager Mr. Wong was deployed to oversee the Mainland mechanical production process. Mr. Wong had worked in the company for eight years and won the praise and trust from his boss. Since some of the production procedures were subcontracted to other local manufacturers, Mr. Wong was also responsible for sourcing suitable factories and awarding the production orders. As such, Mr. Wong got acquainted with many other manufacturers, and was frequently invited to social activities after work. Two of them suggested offering him a kickback as a reward for placing more production orders and they would inflate the price of the orders to compensate the extra cost, i.e. the kickback to Mr. Wong. Succumbing to the temptations of monetary rewards, Mr. Wong accepted RMB575,000 in bribes and then deposited the bribe money into his bank account in Hong Kong

Would Mr Wong breach any laws? How could companies avoid such malpractices from happening?

Case Analysis

Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Mr Wong (an employee), without the approval of his employer, to accept advantages (i.e. RMB575,000 illegal kickback from the two manufacturers) for placing more production orders with the two manufacturers.  The offeror of the bribe would also be guilty of the offence.  It shall be an offence under POBO if any act of bribery (includes promising, agreeing, soliciting or accepting advantages without permission) takes place in Hong Kong. By depositing the bribe money back into the bank account in Hong Kong, Mr. Wong might still violate the POBO.

Mr Wong’s close relationship with the manufacturers had affected his objectivity when discharging his official duties.  Though entertainment is an acceptable form of business behaviour, many past cases have shown that small favours such as free meals and small gifts etc. always breed corruption. It is therefore important for business manager to remind their staff of the need to handle their relationships with care, and to avoid accepting excessively frequent or lavish entertainment from them.

Furthermore, business organisations should also establish clear policies on acceptance of advantage and declaration of conflicts of interest, and inform their suppliers or subcontractors of such policies. In the event that staff have violated the law or company policies, prompt action should be taken to report the case immediately.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_139

False accounting

Ray, the owner of a forwarding company, invited a shipping clerk of a manufacturer, to set up a partnership with him by making false accounting records in order to conceal the marked up shipment cost.
Cover
Image
False accounting
Media Feed Source ID
cases_138_cover_en
fade-up
container

Cherry was a shipping clerk of Silky Way Ltd (SWL), a manufacturer of silk blouses for export to overseas buyers.  SWL had factories in Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Fuzhou.

Cherry was on good terms with Ray, proprietor of All-The-Way Forwarding Company which handled more than 80%of the shipment for SWL. All-The-Way had been making a handsome profit all along and Ray felt that this was partly due to Cherry who smoothed out whatever hiccups there might be in the freight arrangement.

When Christmas was near, he asked Cherry out for dinner.  Over dessert, Ray presented Cherry with an expensive watch.  Cherry was surprised but pleased.

Ray then went on to talk about his plans for the coming year.  He told Cherry he would like to set up a partnership with Cherry.  Noting that Cherry was in a puzzle, Ray elaborated.

“I always feel that the practice within the freight forwarding business of charging shipments of Chinese products a lower rate unreasonable.  I am going to equalise all charges for all shipments despite the fact that some goods are manufactured in China.  Your boss need not know the change or else he might turn to other forwarding companies. You just help me in handling the documents and you can get your share.  Nobody will raise any queries if you are in charge.  They all trust you.”

When Cherry was too surprised to answer, Ray went on, “It would not be difficult at all to make alterations in the computer database.  With the printouts, you can proceed to work on the invoices and accounts easily.”

Cherry did not know what to say.  It seemed to be a tempting proposal but to do so would be cheating SWL.  While she was hesitating, Ray prodded again.  “You deserve more than what you are getting now at SWL. With all the time and energy that you are putting in at the office, you are grossly underpaid.  You have to look after your own interest too.  SWL is already running a flourishing business.”

Case Analysis

In the above case, Cherry was an employee of the manufacturer i.e. an agent under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), while the manufacturer was her principal. 

According to Section 2 of the POBO, advantage means any gift, loan, fee, reward or commission, employment, contract, service, favour, payment, release or discharge of loan or liability, etc. 

Under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it was an offence for Cherry (an employee), without the approval of her employer, to accept advantages (i.e. the expensive watch and other monetary rewards) for making false accounting records to conceal the marked up shipment cost.   Ray might also violate Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes. 

Furthermore, Cherry might breach Section 9(3) of the POBO by intentionally using false documents to deceive and mislead her principal, i.e. the manufacturer.

Ray and Cherry, who conspired to provide false information to mislead the manufacturer, might also commit offences of false accounting and deception.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_138

Misuse of an e-mail system

A sales manager of a web design company was moonlighting at a rival company. He diverted the clients’ business e-mails of his company to the secret employer and received commission on every contract he secured for the latter.
Cover
Image
Misuse of an e-mail system
Media Feed Source ID
cases_137_cover_en
fade-up
container

A sales manager of a web design company was moonlighting at a rival company.   To get more business in this competitive sector, the rival company offered the sales manager 6% commission on every contract he secured for them. During his day job at the web design company, the sales manager communicated with clients by e-mails, and it was easy for him to retrieve the clients’ business information that came with the e-mails he received.   He made use of the convenience provided by the system and diverted the e-mails to his secret employer.   He conducted six of these illicit transmissions within four months, and he also dishonestly secured contracts for the rival company by deceiving two clients into believing that his primary employer had an agency agreement with its rival.

Case Analysis

Commission is a kind of advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  The sales manager might have breached Section 9 of the POBO for accepting the commission as a reward for him to divulge company’s emails or information to the rival company. The offeror of the advantage might also breach the same law.

Management may take system security for granted, but this kind of oversight can prove costly – business may be diverted to competitors and security controls bypassed with just a few keystrokes.

The web design company should have adopted the necessary safeguards to ensure that the digital information was stored safely and under the control of authorised personnel. Proper audit trail should be maintained to detect and deter fraudulent practices.   Professional consultants can also be hired to review and enhance IT security on a regular basis.  Where these are not done, criminals can carry out acts which may not leave any trace, for example by abusing e-mails to commit crimes.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_137

Offering contract for private gain

Alexander, the Manager of Planning in a real estate development firm, was tempted to offer the firm’s environmental research contract to his friend in return for a “favour”.
Cover
Image
Offering contract for private gain
Media Feed Source ID
cases_136_cover_en
fade-up
container

Alexander was Manager of Planning in a real estate development firm and was responsible for recommending a contractor to conduct an environmental study.  He was considering Gamble, a small firm which had done outstanding work for the firm in the past.  Roy, a friend and representative of another larger environmental research firm, approached Alexander on the matter over a lunch appointment.  Alexander clearly stated that Gamble would possibly get the contract because of its satisfactory past performance, whereas Roy’s firm had a dozen other contracts to keep them busy.

Roy seemed disappointed but Alexander was glad when conversation turned to other topics.  Roy asked Alexander about the progress of his emigration plan.  In fact, Alexander’s wife, Zoe, had already gone to Canada with two sons to settle down first while Alexander would work a few more years in Hong Kong before joining them.  Roy mentioned casually that he had connections in Toronto and could help Alexander place his sons into the best local school though it might take some doing.  The school enjoyed a reputation for good results and easy access to the University of Toronto.  Alexander understood what Roy really meant.  He desperately wanted to make a head-start for his children and pave a smooth path for them.

Would Alexander commit any offence if he recommended Roy’s company in return for Roy’s help for his sons? What factors should Alexander consider when making the decision?

Case Analysis

It would be an offence of Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if Alexander, as an employee of the real estate development firm, without the approval from his employer, accepted advantages from Roy (i.e. Roy’s assistance in placing Alexander’s two sons into the best local school in Toronto) as a reward for helping Roy’s firm to get the business contract of environmental study.  Roy would also violate POBO for offering bribes.

Also, Alexander might violate his company’s code of conduct if he did not disclose his relationship with Roy to the management when there was conflict of interest. 

Apart from the aspects of compliance and company code of conduct, Alexander may also consider the following factors when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:

  1. Does it correspond with his self-values such as honesty, compassion and responsibility?
  2. 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 the dilemma.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_136

Falsifying client's loan application

A relationship manager of a bank, without his client’s knowledge, forged documents to deceive the bank in approving an increase in the client’s credit limit and a new loan. He then transferred the money to an account he controlled.
Cover
Image
Falsifying client's loan application
Media Feed Source ID
cases_043_cover_en
fade-up
container

A relationship manager of a bank was responsible for managing portfolios of his corporate clients.  He noticed that one of his SME clients, Client A, had been lax checking his account statements.  Without Client A’s knowledge, the relationship manager took a series of malpractice in Client A’s account, for example, fraudulently applying for an increase of credit line, forging the client’s instruction to draw funds from the credit line and transferring the money from the client’s account to an account he controlled.  Later, Client A raised his doubts about the balance of the credit line, the relationship manager lied that it was caused by an error in the computer system. 

On another occasion, the relationship manager also forged a loan application under Client A’s name by using another client as guarantor and forged signatures.  He wanted to use the loan to settle the debit balance in Client A’s credit line to cover up his scam earlier.  During the credit approval and fund transfer process, the backend staff members had their doubts but only went to the relationship manager for clarifications.  The supervisor of the relationship manger also raised questions about the irregularities but he easily accepted the explanation given by his subordinate without follow-up. Later, with Client A’s persistent enquiries and complaints about the questionable credit balance to the bank supervisor, the scam by the relationship manager was finally exposed.

Case Analysis

Nearly all bank staff members who misuse customers’ funds believe that such action is only temporary and can be rectified shortly.  However, crime is committed once the funds are misused and such action cannot be ‘rectified’ even if the funds are ‘repaid’ before the crime comes into light. In this case study, the relationship manager (an agent) might have violated Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) by using forged documents to deceive his bank (the principal) in approving an increase in Client A’s credit limit and Client A’s fraudulent new loan.  Also, the relationship manger could be liable for a series of other crimes including theft (transferring money from client’s account to his own), fraud and forgery.

From the perspectives of customer service, it may be desirable for a relationship manager to provide personal service and act as the bank’s single point of contact for important clients.  However, if all verification/clarification of questionable or doubtful transactions are routed through the relationship manager, it will undermine checks and balances and create opportunities for manipulations by unscrupulous relationship manager.

Moreover, banks should adopt good control practices to remind supervisors to stay vigilant to potential risk of corrupt practices and make thorough enquiries into any suspected irregularities.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_043
Survey Questions
1. In which country or region are you currently located?
Hong Kong
Chinese Mainland
Other (please specify)
2. What type of organisation do you represent?
Listed company
Large private company
SME / start-up
NGO / non-profit
Public organisation
Chamber / trade association
Other (please specify)
3. What is the size of your organisation?
1 - 49 employees
50-99 employees
100 - 199 employees
200 or more employees
4. What is your staff level or position?
Executive / senior management
Middle management
Professional
Supervisory level
Frontline/Technical Staff
Other (please specify)

Thank you for your feedback.