Offering advantages in return for confidential information

An estate agent gave ‘a token of thanks’ to a manager of a listed company who was responsible for property redevelopment for leaking out confidential information.
Cover
Image
Offering advantages in return for confidential information
Media Feed Source ID
cases_015_cover_en
fade-up
container

Mr To, a manager of a listed company, was responsible for acquiring properties for his company which engaged in property redevelopment. Through his work, Mr To became acquainted with an estate agent Tony who frequently treated Mr To lavish dinners and unconditionally lent him $50,000 to solve his financial difficulties.

One night when they were having dinner, Mr To told Tony some confidential information about the acquisition plan of his listed company. As a token of his gratitude, Tony deposited $100,000 into Mr To’s bank account. Upon receiving the confidential information, Tony immediately arranged for his friends and relatives to rent and buy the premises that were to be acquired soon. Before long, the listed company announced its acquisition plan covering the premises acquired by Tony’s friends. Tony’s friends were granted compensation which were then shared among Tony and his friends.  Tony’s scam eventually surfaced and the listed company stopped processing all compensation applications made by Tony’s friends.

Case Analysis

Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Mr To (an employee), without the approval of his employer (the listed company) to accept advantage (i.e. $100,000 offered by Tony) as a reward for leaking out confidential information relating to the company’s property acquisition plan.  He had also abused the trust placed on him by his employer for misusing the company’s information for personal gain.  Tony might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

Furthermore, according to the Code of Ethics of Estate Agents Authority, estate agents or salespersons shall refrain from activities during their practice which may infringe the law. They shall, in the course of business, provide services to clients with honesty, fidelity and integrity, and protect their clients against fraud, misrepresentation or any unethical practices in connection with real estate transactions. Tony had breached the Code of Ethics for offering bribes and engaging in fraudulent activities in deceiving compensation.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_015
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Abusing power for personal gain

Mr Kwok, manager of a listed company, was responsible for his company’s property investment. He solicited “commission” from two estate agents who sourced suitable properties for his company.
Cover
Image
Abusing power for personal gain
Media Feed Source ID
cases_014_cover_en
fade-up
container

Mr Kwok, a manager of a listed company, was responsible for the company’s investment in the property market, in which several ten million dollars was usually involved.  Mr Kwok commissioned two estate agents Raymond and Freddy from two different estate agencies to source suitable properties for his company.  He always told Raymond and Freddy that there were many estate agents approaching him for business.  Facing fierce competition, Raymond and Freddy offered an ‘under-the-table’ commission of $520,000 and $1.7 million respectively to Mr Kwok for recommending the listed company to buy their properties.

When the listed company discovered that corruption might be involved in various property investment transactions which Mr Kwok handled, the company reported it to the ICAC.

Case Analysis

Mr Kwok, as an employee, might commit an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for, without the approval from his employer, soliciting and accepting an advantage (i.e. the ‘under-the-table’ commission offered by Raymond and Freddy) for recommending the listed company to buy their properties.  Meanwhile, Raymond and Freddy both might also violate Section 9 of POBO for offering bribes.

Individual ethics and corporate culture are among the key factors which shape a company’s corporate governance. Company directors and senior executives serving the company should serve as role models.

Mr Kwok, who held an influential position at the company’s property investment, should have used the power bestowed on him by the listed company to protect its interests.  However, Mr Kwok abused his company’s trust for personal gain and violated the law instead.  

It is important for the company to work on an ethical culture at the corporate level through practicing ethical leadership, giving clear guidance on ethical standard expected of staff, managing integrity training and putting in place a comprehensive internal control system which helps company prevent and detect crime or malpractices as early as possible.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_014
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Bribery spoils fair play

A listed company exclusively authorised an estate agency to sell a factory building unit by tender. The estate agency manager and his subordinate were both offered “lai see” for showing favour to one of the tenderers.
Cover
Image
Bribery spoils fair play
Media Feed Source ID
cases_013_cover_en
fade-up
container

A listed company exclusively authorised an estate agency to sell a factory building unit by tender. Estate agency manager Mr Chan and his subordinate Jenny were responsible for tender matters. Jenny soon found a client, Mr Lai, who was willing to pay $19.6 million for the unit.

Meanwhile, Sidney, the proprietor of a small estate agency, was facing intense competition and trying every means to gain business.  Knowing that Mr Chan was responsible for the factory unit transaction, Sidney spared no effort in looking for a buyer. He also offered a $100,000 “lai see” to Mr Chan and Jenny to ensure that his client could successfully buy the property. In light of the advantage offered by Sidney and upon Mr Chan’s instructions, Jenny deliberately misled other prospective tenderers, including Mr Lai, into lowering their tender price or withdrawing. ICAC officers later arrested Sidney and Mr Chan in a restaurant where they were discussing how to hand over the bribe. Initially, Sidney denied making a corrupt deal with Mr Chan, but Mr Chan chose to co-operate with the ICAC and revealed everything.

Case Analysis

To protect the interests of investors, the listed company prohibited their agents or employees from abusing their official positions for personal gain. Mr Chan and Jenny were commissioned by the listed company to sell the property. They had to comply with the listed company’s policy on acceptance of advantages and were not allowed to solicit or accept any work-related advantage. Under the Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for any agent, without the approval of his principal, to solicit or accept an advantage as a reward for or an inducement to perform an act in relation to his principal’s affairs or business. The offeror of the bribe shall also be guilty of the offence. Mr Chan and Jenny might commit an offence under Section 9 of POBO for accepting bribe. This went against the spirit of the tender system and also prejudiced the buyer’s interests.

By attempting to secure business through corrupt means, Sidney’s action went against the spirit of fair competition and damaged the reputation of estate agency trade. He might also commit an offence under Section 9 of POBO for offering bribe.

Furthermore, they all might have breached the Code of Ethics of the Estate Agents Authority which states that estate agents and salespersons shall refrain from activities during their practice which may infringe the law.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_013
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Conspiracy in insider dealing

Dominic is a sales manager of a brokerage company. During a cocktail reception, the financial controller of one of his clients, Tony, talks to Dominic about his plan to make some short-term financial gains…
Cover
Image
Conspiracy in insider dealing
Media Feed Source ID
cases_009_cover_en
fade-up
container

Dominic is a sales manager of a brokerage company and he has a few corporate clients.   One of his clients is a listed company named Treasure Hunt. During a cocktail reception, the financial controller of Treasure Hunt, Tony, talks to Dominic about his plan to make some short-term financial gains.   According to Tony’s knowledge, an international corporation is planning to inject capital into Treasure Hunt, and he foresees its share price will rocket up if the deal is made. Tony, therefore, suggests to collaborate with Dominic to buy Treasure Hunt shares in advance.

With keen interest, Dominic further proposes to purchase the stocks through an external broker in order to disguise their identities.   A week later Treasure Hunt announces the capital injection arrangement and, as anticipated, its share price goes sky-high.   Dominic and Tony, having made a good profit, immediately sell their shares.

Case Analysis

Dominic violates the *Codes of Conduct as well as the insider dealing provisions of the Securities and Futures Ordinance.  He commits an insider dealing offence because he has used non-public information, provided by an insider of Treasure Hunt, to purchase the company’s stocks for financial gain. Tony is regarded as an insider under the law because he is a person who, being the financial controller of Treasure Hunt, has access to confidential information relating to the company.

Tony and Dominic may also commit a corruption offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) because Tony accepts from Dominic a share of the profit from the insider dealing as a reward for leaking the confidential information  of  his  company  to  Dominic.    Tony  may  commit  an  offence  of accepting a bribe while Dominic may commit an offence of offering a bribe.

*Remarks: Codes of Conduct refer to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission, the Code of Conduct for Corporate Finance Adviser and the Fund Manager Code of Conduct.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_009

Loyalty to Employer vs Responsibilities to Other Stakeholders

Patrick was a financial controller of an information technology company planning to go public. His bosses asked him to manipulate management accounting data and to reimburse expenses without any supporting document. The sponsor offered him valuable information after the engagement…
Cover
Image
Loyalty to Employer vs Responsibilities to Other Stakeholders
Media Feed Source ID
cases_004_cover_en
fade-up
container

Patrick was a financial controller of an information technology company planning to go public.  In order to project a good financial performance, the Managing Director asked Patrick to handle the financial estimate and anticipate sales growth meticulously and said he would not bother which accounting method to use as Patrick was a professional accountant.

In the process of selecting a merchant bank to sponsor the listing, different bank managers approached Patrick to promote their services.  Benny, who was the Marketing Director of the OPQ Bank, met Patrick and introduced the bank’s offer. Benny mentioned that he was currently handling an acquisition plan and could release some reliable information to Patrick if Patrick could help him get the business.  Patrick didn't take Benny's words seriously.  Based on the objective report he prepared, OPQ Bank was engaged to proceed with the listing of the company. Finally, the company was successfully listed. 

The directors were enthusiastically considering some expansion plans which needed the support from banks.  Once again, the Managing Director asked Patrick to manipulate some management accounting data to facilitate the granting of credit facilities by banks.   

While Patrick was contemplating how to handle the Managing Director's request, the Assistant to General Manager asked Patrick to issue a cheque of $80,000 to a Mr. Wong, a bank manager in charge of the credit department.  The Assistant said that it was approved by the General Manager and all Patrick needed to do was to sign the cheque and book it as "entertainment" expenses.  

After the Assistant to General Manager left, the phone rang.  It was Benny of OPQ Bank.  He invited Patrick to dinner saying that he would keep his promise of passing some "valuable information" to Patrick.

If you were Patrick, how would you handle the requests of the Managing Director and that of the Assistant to General Manager, as well as the invitation of Benny to dinner?

Case Analysis

Financial Projection for Listing

Surely Patrick should handle the financial estimates and anticipated sales growth meticulously.  He should document his bases of assumptions and agree those with the Managing Director.  All these would be reviewed by the merchant bank which sponsored the listing as well as the reporting accountant, and the eventual delivery of the forecasts would be a matter of public and regulatory scrutiny once the company got listed.  Although the Managing Director did not bother which accounting method to use, Patrick should ensure that the accounting method followed all applicable Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standards, Hong Kong Accounting Standards and interpretations issued by the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Managing Director's Request for Manipulation of Management Accounting Data

Patrick should explain to the Managing Director that, first of all, a wilful act of manipulation of accounting data is a criminal offence.  Secondly, accounting information presented to banks would most likely be audited.  Once the banks realised that there were significant discrepancies between management accounting data previously presented and the audited accounting data, they would ask for explanations which would well call into question the credibility of the company.  In the worst case, banks could withdraw financial support to the company.

Request for a Cheque by the Assistant to General Manager

It would be a breach of the Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if the General Manger used false document e.g. false reimbursement records, to deceive his company. Furthermore, if the cheque payment was offered by the General Manager to the Mr Wong as an advantage in disguise to induce or reward for latter’s assistance in granting credit facilities to the company, both the General Manager and Mr Wong would breach Section 9 of the POBO.

Patrick should report the matter to the Managing Director and explain the legal consequences of being involved in such an act.  Patrick should take the opportunity to urge the Managing Director to issue a set of code of conduct to strengthen internal control of the company. He should report to the ICAC if corruption was suspected.

Offering of ‘Valuable Information'

The valuable information provided by Benny is likely to be insider information which, if used to deal in listed securities, could have severe legal consequences.  Patrick should make it clear to Benny that his evaluation of the banks was done in an objective manner and there would be no need for Benny to reciprocate with any 'gift' as a result of OPQ bank being appointed.  If Patrick's dinner with Benny is no more than a social entertainment, Patrick does not need to avoid it.  If by accident Patrick had heard of the valuable information from Benny but he did not deal, counsel nor procure other persons to deal in the securities, he would not breach the insider dealing provisions under the Securities and Futures Ordinance.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_004

Obtaining bribe through a third party is also an offence

Jimmy was a sales manager of a renowned securities firm who was assigned to allocate shares of a to-be-listed company to clients. He received numerous requests for purchase from investors, including his favourite client Amy…
Cover
Image
Obtaining bribe through a third party is also an offence
Media Feed Source ID
cases_001_cover_en
fade-up
container

Jimmy was a sales manager of a renowned securities firm. Recently his company was appointed as the sub-underwriter of a profit-making business named Blue Water which was to be listed on the stock exchange.  Jimmy was assigned to allocate Blue Water shares to clients.  He quickly received numerous requests for purchase from investors who anticipated its share price to rise once the stocks were traded in public.

Amy was one of Jimmy's favourite clients.  One day, Jimmy invited Amy for lunch.  Over the table, he explained that he could allocate 100,000 shares of Blue Water to her in exchange for a return of 10,000 shares back to him.  Jimmy asked Amy to arrange the 10,000 shares to an account held by a woman named Wendy in a small brokerage company.  Amy later learned that Wendy was actually Jimmy's wife.

Case Analysis

Jimmy violated the Codes of Conduct[1] issued by Securities and Futures Commission because he preferentially allocated the shares to Amy, thereby giving favour to her and putting other clients at a disadvantage.  He also breached Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) by soliciting and accepting an advantage, i.e. 10,000 shares as a reward for allocating the Blue Water stocks to Amy despite the short supply. Although Jimmy asked Amy to place the stocks in the account of his wife, he was still guilty of a corruption offence. Under Section 9 of the POBO, a person is considered to have accepted an advantage even though another person acting on his behalf receives the advantage.

[1] Codes of Conduct refer to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission, the Code of Conduct for Corporate Finance Adviser and the Fund Manager Code of Conduct.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_001
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False

Social Freshmen: Professinal Integrity (Medicial Industry) (Cantonese only)

Dr. Lau, a senior doctor of a private medical centre often attends overseas medical seminars sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and issues sick leaves certificates to his friends without face-to-face consultation…
YouTube video
Transcript

短片對白文字版本    

分場一

時間: 日

地點: 診所內

人物: Pamela醫生,護士

Pamela:    為什麼每逢星期一都有這麼多人來看病?

護士:        他們才不是來看病,他們只是來拿病假證明吧!準是那些週末玩得太盡興,不想上班的人!

Pamela:     那又是,他們每一個都只是說自己頭疼頭暈。

護士:        他們親身來看醫生算是好的啦,有些人打電話過來就當作看了病了!

Pamela:     什麼意思?

護士:       慢慢你就會知道。

(護士離去)

分場二

時間: 日

地點: 休息間內

人物: Pamela醫生,劉醫生,護士

劉醫生:    Pamela,準備去旅行?

Pamela:    想到德國旅行很久了,先看一些旅遊資料。

劉醫生:    德國?我上個月才剛剛去過。

Pamela:     真的?你到過德國旅行,新天鵝堡是不是很美的?

劉醫生:    不是去旅行,我只是到了當地藥廠辦的研討會。

Pamela:    哦!

劉醫生:    可是新天鵝堡真的是很美麗,我們也想多玩兩天,可惜不夠時間。

Pamela:    開研討會也有時間去玩?

劉醫生:    那次研討會,只是舉行了一天,餘下的四、五天,我們便到處吃喝玩樂。

Pamela:     特意到德國參加一天的會議?真破費!

劉醫生:    沒關係,機票、酒店開支,全都是由藥廠支付的,還住得挺好。有空再跟你說!

(劉醫生離開,護士進入休息間)

護士:       喂!

Pamela:     唔?

護士:        有時間多跟劉醫生交流,學習一下!

Pamela:     你剛剛說,有些病人…有些人特意打電話來,就是為了拿病假證明回公司請病假?

護士:        對呀,劉醫生有時候也幫別人寫的。有時候他朋友打電話來,說自己如何頭暈頭疼,劉醫生便幫他們寫病假證明告假。

Pamela:    這樣也可以?

護士:        有什麼關係?那些病人又不用自己付帳,這都是在公司的醫療保險範圍內的,醫療中心又多一宗生意,劉醫生又可以分到診金。大家也是各取所需吧!

Pamela:    但是病人就這樣打電話來就算看了病?

護士:      正如劉醫生所言,他們每個來也只是說他們如何頭暈頭疼,既然大家是朋友,就無謂浪費大家時間!

Pamela:     無謂浪費大家時間?

Import Data

[EN] Social Freshmen: Professinal Integrity (Medicial Industry) (Cantonese only) Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U9ros45PFI Intro: Dr. Lau, a senior doctor of a private medical centre often attends overseas medical seminars sponsored by a pharmaceutical company and issues sick leaves certificates to his friends without face-to-face consultation… Transcript: https://hkbedc.icac.hk/en/doc?id=33§ion=videos&content=content [ZH-HANT] 初出茅廬之專業誠信 (醫療行業篇) Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U9ros45PFI Intro: 私營醫療中心的資深劉醫生,經常出席由藥廠贊助的海外研討會,而且亦不時為朋友在無需到診的情況下簽發病假證明… Transcript: https://hkbedc.icac.hk/en/doc?id=33§ion=videos&content=content [ZH-HANS] 初出茅庐之专业诚信 (医疗行业篇) Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U9ros45PFI Intro: 私营医疗中心的资深刘医生,经常出席由药厂赞助的海外研讨会,而且亦不时为朋友在无需到诊的情况下签发病假证明… Transcript: https://hkbedc.icac.hk/en/doc?id=33§ion=videos&content=content

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
training_060
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

"Integrity Protector" Pamphlet for Insurance Practitioners

Cover
Image
"Integrity Protector" Pamphlet for Insurance Practitioners
Import Data

[EN] "Integrity Protector" Pamphlet for Insurance Practitioners https://hkbedc.icac.hk/insurance/files/leaflet_en.pdf Please use the image at the left [ZH-HANT] 「誠信保」保險從業員單張 https://hkbedc.icac.hk/insurance/files/leaflet_tc.pdf Please use the image at the left [ZH-HANS] 「诚信保」保险从业员单张 https://hkbedc.icac.hk/insurance/files/leaflet_tc.pdf Please use the image at the left

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
leaflets_011
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display
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.