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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Under 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 interest or business.

Gordon privately accepted a reward of $150,000 from his relative Johnny without the permission of his principals (namely the estate agency and Mr Yu). Hence, he might commit the offence of accepting a bribe under Section 9 of the POBO. Johnny might also commit an offence by offering a bribe.

Gordon and Johnny were relatives. Gordon should have declared this conflict of interest to the estate agency and Mr Yu.

When handling a transaction involving a relative and a client, Gordon should have remained neutral. Instead, he favoured his relative, resulting in loss to both Mr Yu and Mr Pau, the other buyer. Although Mr Yu had set a minimum average transaction price per square foot, Gordon should have tried to obtain the best possible price for the seller according to market conditions. Mr Pau had to acquire units at a higher price because of Gordon’s corrupt act.

Gordon’s behavior might also violate the Code of Ethics of the Estate Agents Authority which states clearly that estate agents or sales persons shall refrain from activities during the practice which may infringe the law. They shall provide services to clients with honesty, fidelity and integrity and protect and promote the interest of their clients, carry out the instruction of their clients in accordance with the estate agency agreement and act in an impartial and just manner to all parties involved in the transaction. Furthermore, any conflict of interest in relation to the property shall be disclosed to their clients that they are so acting.

William, as a ticketing officer of a travel agent, without obtaining permission from his employer, solicited and accepted advantages from customers for prioritising the sale of discounted tickets to them.  Both William and the clients who offered the advantages might contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).

Employees of travel agents should always handle customer requests impartially.  William disclosed the upcoming special offers of air tickets to several regular customers while intentionally recommending high-fare tickets to others.  Such an act breached professional integrity and negatively impacted the reputation of the travel agent.  If employees accept advantages to provide preferential treatment, it creates dissatisfaction or complaints from other customers and constitutes a violation of the POBO.

On the other hand, William should exercise prudent financial management and avoid risking his position due to debt, as this could lead to criminal offences. William’s illegal acts could be attributed to his poor financial management, which made him susceptible to financial temptations.  Ultimately, he resorted to taking risks to alleviate his financial burdens.  Employees should always exercise financial prudence to prevent falling into corruption traps.

Dried seafood is an advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  If Victor, without obtaining the permission of his travel agent, accepted the gift from Vincent in exchange for preferential treatment in arranging the tour roster, Victor and Vincent might breach Section 9 of the POBO.  Even if Victor believed that Vincent was capable of leading high-spending tour groups and that acceptance of gift from Vincent would not influence his decision regarding the tour roster, it is no defence for Victor to accept the advantage. 

Additionally, according to Section 19 of the POBO, trade custom or practice does not constitute a defence for the offeror and the acceptor of an illegal advantage.  Although the gift were given to Victor during a festive occasion, this was not a defence in court.  The court would only consider whether Victor obtained approval from his employer.

As a manager, Victor should refrain from accepting advantages from subordinates to avoid any perception of bias and to ensure he can carry out his supervisory duties impartially.

When recommending shop registration to the travel agent, tourist guides should consider product quality, pricing, and services to ensure customer satisfaction and preserve the travel agent’s reputation.  If any acceptance of advantage is involved, regardless of the recommendation’s outcome, it would constitute a corruption offence.  Yvette, as a tourist guide, is regarded as an agent.  Without the permission of her principal, i.e. her travel agent, she abused her official capacity by accepting money and shop discounts from York as an inducement to recommend the handbag shop for registration.  She might breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) and York as the offeror of the bribe might also be liable for the offence.

Even if the travel agent did not eventually accept Yvette's recommendation to register the handbag shop, both Yvette and York might still commit an offence once an agreement to offer and accept a bribe is established, according to Section 11 of the POBO.  Furthermore, if Yvette arranged inbound tourists to patronise non-registered shops, she would also violate the “Directives for Licensees”.

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for an employee to solicit or accept any advantage in relation to his official duty without the permission of his employer.  Timothy, as an employee of a travel agent, solicited and accepted an additional rebate from Tom without the permission of the travel agent while carrying out his duties.  Therefore, both Timothy and Tom might breach the POBO.

Tom should promptly report Timothy’s solicitation to the ICAC.  By misleading tourists into purchasing purported branded goods, Tom not only jeopardised his company’s reputation, but also put the integrity of Hong Kong’s tourism industry at risk.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, trade custom or practice does not constitute a defence for the offeror and the acceptor of an illegal advantage.  Timothy should adhere to the company’s policies regarding the acceptance of advantages to avoid engaging in illegal or unethical behaviour.  Despite his role as a Mainland tour escort, Troy should also comply with the POBO and other laws while escorting the group in Hong Kong.