Heading for disaster

William, a restaurant owner, offered a handsome referral commission to his friend, a general manager of a travel agency, for getting into the travel agency’s approved list.
Cover
Image
Heading for disaster
Media Feed Source ID
cases_124_cover_en
fade-up
container

William had emigrated to Malaysia for years and set up a restaurant in a renowned seafood centre there. At a recent travel trade exhibition held in Malaysia, William met his friend Patrick from Hong Kong. Patrick, a general manager of a Hong Kong travel agency, was responsible for designing itineraries for his company’s group tours. In order to secure Patrick’s assistance in putting his restaurant on the company’s approved list, William proposed giving Patrick $30,000 plus a further commission of $10 per head for future referral of tourists. William added that the money could be deposited in the bank account of Patrick’s wife to avoid any trouble.

Later, William’s restaurant was successfully included in the travel agency’s approved list upon Patrick’s recommendation. Soon after that, William deposited $30,000 into the bank account of Patrick’s wife.

Case Analysis

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Patrick, (an employee of the travel agency) without the approval of his employer, to accept advantages (i.e. $30,000 from William) for putting William’s restaurant into the company’s approved list.  William might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

Although the commission was deposited into the account of Patrick’s wife, Patrick might still commit a corruption offence.  Under the POBO, a person is considered to have accepted an advantage even if a third party receives the advantage on his behalf.

Moreover, it is important to note that it shall be an offence under the POBO if any act (including includes promising, agreeing, soliciting or accepting advantages without permission, etc.) of bribery takes place in Hong Kong.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_124

Penny wise and pound foolish

Jasper, a sales associate, accepted red packets from customers in exchange for favorable prices, leading to neglect of those who didn’t give gifts and resulting in increasing complaints against him.
Cover
Image
Penny wise and pound foolish
Media Feed Source ID
cases_118_cover_en
fade-up
container

Jasper worked as a sales associate for a renowned audio-visual equipment company for many years.  Through his expertise and friendly demeanor, he gradually established an extensive customer network.

Some customers hoped Jasper could sell products at a "favourable price". As a result, they started giving him red packets, hoping he would offer them lower prices.  They even asked for company gifts when their purchases did not meet the limit.  Jasper happily accepted these offers and believed that this would not only satisfy his customers and strengthen his relationships with them, but also help him meet his sales targets, ultimately benefiting the company.  It seemed like a win-win situation.

However, Jasper soon became indifferent to customers who did not provide red packets, and even deliberately neglected their requests, leading to a growing number of complaints against Jasper.

Case Analysis

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. 

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_118

Storing up trouble

Ivan and Ian were employees of a department store and were involved in procurement functions. They were well acquainted with the suppliers and gambled together frequently. Now both of them were facing temptations from the suppliers…
Cover
Image
Storing up trouble
Media Feed Source ID
cases_117_cover_en
fade-up
container

Ivan and Ian were employees at a department store.  Ivan worked as a merchandiser while Ian, the warehouse supervisor, verified the received goods and conducted regular stock takes.

They were well acquainted with most suppliers, particularly Mr. Wong and Mr. Au.  On weekends, Ivan and Ian enjoyed mahjong with their suppliers.  Although they were not good at the game, they often won a lot.

During a mahjong game, Ivan shared his concerns about the heavy financial burden of supporting his daughter, who was studying abroad.  At the same time, Ian expressed his struggles with negative equity on his assets.  Seizing the opportunity to ‘help’ Ivan and Ian while making extra money for themselves, Wong and Au proposed a scam to defraud the department store.  They suggested Ivan overstating the quantity of toiletries purchased from them, and Ian stamping the official receipt on the invoices purporting that the received quantities were accurate.  As a reward, Wong and Au promised to pay each of them a monthly commission of $10,000.

Case Analysis

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.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_117

The unspoken rule

Gloria, a regional manager of a chain retail store, repeatedly demanded gifts from her subordinates for favorable treatment, believing it fostered friendly relationships without recognising the ethical issues.
Cover
Image
The unspoken rule
Media Feed Source ID
cases_115_cover_en
fade-up
container

Gloria, a regional manager for a chain retail store, was responsible for overseeing daily operations and staff management across multiple branches.  Her duties included handling employee transfers, approving leaves, and recommending promotions.

Gigi, a sales associate, revealed that over the past two years, Gloria had repeatedly demanded gifts from her subordinates, including luxury handbags and jewellery.  Gloria implied that only those who provided gifts would be considered for desirable positions, extended leave, or promotions.  As a result, many employees, including Gigi, felt pressured to comply to avoid jeopardising their careers.  Gloria viewed this practice as a usual way to foster friendly relationships with her subordinates and did not anticipate any problem with accepting gifts from them.

Case Analysis

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.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_115

The opportunity cost

Frankie, a sneaker store manager, offered to reserve limited-edition sneakers for parallel goods trader Felix in exchange for a rebate.
Cover
Image
The opportunity cost
Media Feed Source ID
cases_114_cover_en
fade-up
container

Frankie was a manager of a sneaker store for a well-known sports brand.  Recently, the brand released a highly anticipated limited-edition sneaker.  Only 1,000 pairs were produced worldwide, and Frankie’s store was only allocated two pairs per size for customers to purchase.

On launch day, fans and parallel goods traders flooded the store.  Felix, a regular parallel goods trader, informed Frankie that these sneakers could fetch up 8 times their retail price on the secondary market.  Tempted by the potential profit, Frankie began considering how to take advantage of this opportunity.

Despite the store’s policy which prohibited staff from reserving products for customers, Frankie proposed a deal to Felix.  Frankie offered to assist in reserving the limited-edition sneakers for Felix, and in return, Felix had to pay him a 30% cut of the resale profit as a rebate.  Felix gratefully accepted the offer.

Case Analysis

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.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_114

Good relations with complications

Janice was tasked to set up a consignment corner in a hotel for a travel agency. She called her brother-in-law to enquire whether his travel agency would be interested.
Cover
Image
Good relations with complications
Media Feed Source ID
cases_113_cover_en
fade-up
container

Given the increasing demand of the hotel guests for local tour services, the hotel’s senior management decided to set up a consignment corner for a travel agency to deal with these requests. Janice, the hotel’s Marketing Manager, was assigned to the task.

It seemed only natural, therefore, for Janice to call Tommy, her brother-in-law, to enquire whether the travel agency he worked for would be interested.

In the midst of a recession, the performance of Tommy’s company had already been discouraging.

Hence, the pressure on Tommy, the Business Development Manager, to find a solution was intensified.  The prospect of winning the consignment corner came as a huge relief to Tommy.  He explained that this would save his career and urged Janice to grant the consignment contract to his travel agency. Believing that Tommy’s agency was as good as any other agencies and no one would discover their relationship, Janice made her decision easily.

A month later, as a token of gratitude, Tommy presented Janice a tour package to Hawaii as her birthday present.

Case Analysis

Considering the close relationship with her brother-in-law, Janice should have observed her company’s internal guidelines on declaration of conflict of interest and refrained from being involved in the granting of contract. Conflict of interest situations such as this, if not dealt with properly, may easily lead to corruption.

Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), a tour package is an advantage. Janice might breach the POBO if she, without the permission of the hotel, accepted the tour package as a reward for granting the contract to Tommy’s agency.  In that case, Tommy might also breach the POBO for offering of bribe.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_113
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Building a problem

Karson, a Chief Engineer of a hotel, was offered a red packet by the proprietor of a construction company for his assistance in awarding a hotel renovation project.
Cover
Image
Building a problem
Media Feed Source ID
cases_109_cover_en
fade-up
container

Karson, the Chief Engineer of a hotel, was assigned to oversee a $5 million renovation project for the hotel’s main lobby.  Kenneth, the proprietor of a construction company, was selected as the contractor for the renovation work.

During the traditional “God Worshipping” ceremony that marked the project’s commencement, Kenneth offered Karson a red packet of $30,000 as a token of gratitude for his assistance in awarding the contract.  Karson gratefully accepted the offer.

One month later, while inspecting the project’s progress, Karson noticed that the quality of the marble used in the lobby was substandard and did not meet the tender specifications.  Due to the tight schedule and cost implications, Kenneth was reluctant to replace the marble.  To cover up the issue, he proposed giving Karson a rebate of 2% of the project sum in exchange for Karson turning a blind eye to the substandard work.  Although bewildered by the offer, Karson verbally agreed to the arrangement to avoid damaging the harmonious working relationship with Kenneth.

Case Analysis

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence if Karson, a hotel employee, without the permission of his employer, accepted an advantage, i.e., the red packet and the 2% rebate of the project sum, for awarding the renovation project to Kenneth and turning a blind eye to the substandard work.  Kenneth might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, it shall not be a defence to show that the acceptance of advantage is customary in any profession, trade, vocation or calling.  Although the red packet was offered during the customary “God Worshipping” ceremony, the court shall determine the legality based on whether the recipient had obtained the permission from his principal.

Although Karson did not actively solicit advantages and might not have ultimately received any commission from Kenneth, the verbal agreement between the two parties to conceal the substantial work still constituted corruption.  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 carry out the act as agreed.

Karson might also breach the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE) which states that a member of HKIE shall discharge his duties with integrity and in accordance with the highest standards of business ethics; and neither give nor accept any gift, entertainment, payment or service of more than nominal value, to or from those having a business relationship with his employer or client without the consent of the latter.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_109
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

From small gifts to blatant bribe

Leo, a head chef, was busy with sourcing food suppliers for the hotel’s recent promotional event. His old classmate, a food supplier, offered a ‘tempting deal’ in return for his help.
Cover
Image
From small gifts to blatant bribe
Media Feed Source ID
cases_108_cover_en
fade-up
container

Leo, the head chef of a Chinese restaurant in a renowned hotel, was responsible for food purchasing.  During an alumni reunion, he met an old classmate, Louis, who was now a food supplier of various food stalls and restaurants.  Following the reunion, Louis sent Leo hampers and gifts during festive occasions and expressed interest in becoming a food supplier for Leo’s hotel.

Not long after, Leo’s hotel planned to host a “gourmet food festival” as part of a promotional campaign to boost business.  Knowing that Leo was sourcing suppliers to secure the best prices with good quality, Louis contacted Leo for more details.  Eager to win the contract, Louis asked Leo to provide him with the price quotations submitted by other suppliers so that he could beat the competitors with lower price.  Louis promised to deposit 10% of the contract sum as a rebate into Leo’s personal account for Leo’s assistance.  Faced with financial difficulties due to recent stock market losses, Leo eventually agreed to help Louis.  Leo suggested transferring the rebate to his wife’s account to conceal their corrupt dealing.

Case Analysis

Leo is regarded as an agent of the hotel.  Without the hotel’s permission, he accepted a rebate from Louis for abusing his official capacity to disclose other bidders’ information to the latter.  Leo might breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while Louis might also commit the offence by offering a bribe.  Accepting bribes, whether directly or indirectly through a third party, is against the law.  If the purpose of offering the advantage is to induce the agent to do an act in relation to his principal’s business, both the offeror and the recipient would commit an offence under the POBO.  Bidders’ or clients’ information is valuable to the hotel and staff members should strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the hotel for protecting confidential information.

On the other hand, hampers and gifts are advantages.  According to Section 19 of the POBO, custom or trade practice cannot constitute a defence.  If these gifts were offered to Leo with a corrupt motive, both Leo and Louis might commit a bribery offence, even if they were offered during festive occasions. Even if no corruption was involved, Leo should follow the hotel’s code of conduct regarding the acceptance of advantages to avoid conflict of interest.  He should be particularly cautious of the sweetening process initiated by Louis’ offer of gifts.  Accepting frequent gifts and favours will put the recipient in an obligatory position to reciprocate, compromising one’s objectivity in carrying out official duties and potentially leading to corruption.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_108
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Turning a blind eye

The chief chef of a hotel accepted bribes from a food supplier for turning a blind eye to the substandard food supply.
Cover
Image
Turning a blind eye
Media Feed Source ID
cases_107_cover_en
fade-up
container

Bruce, a chief chef at a hotel, was responsible for managing supplier performance and inspecting food quality.  Bob was one of the frozen meat suppliers for Bruce’s hotel.

Recently, Bob purchased a batch of substandard frozen meat to cut costs, which was set to be delivered to Bruce’s hotel.  Upon delivery, Bruce discovered the poor quality of the food.  To cover up the issue, Bob offered Bruce a substantial sum of money to turn a blind eye to the quality problem and acknowledge receipt of the goods.  Since Bob’s company was a long-standing hotel supplier, Bruce accepted Bob’s generous offer and let him pass.  Later, because of the increasing number of complaints about the food quality, Bruce had no choice but to dispose of the entire batch, resulting in significant financial loss for the hotel.

Case Analysis

It is an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for any agent, without the permission of his principal, to accept any advantage as an inducement to or reward for him to abuse his authority in relation to his principal’s affairs or business.

Bruce, as the chief chef of the hotel, is regarded as an agent.  He might breach Section 9 of the POBO for accepting money from Bob for turning a blind eye to the substandard food quality without the permission of the hotel.  Bob might also commit an offence for offering bribes.

Bruce’s unethical behaviour constituted a serious breach of his employer’s trust and caused unfairness to other suppliers and customers.  Moreover, substandard food quality might also jeopardise food safety if not properly addressed.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_107
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Chaotic sales record

Daisy, who worked at a chain fast-food restaurant, discovered that the assistant manager Diana was manipulating the sales data for personal gain. What should Daisy do?
Cover
Image
Chaotic sales record
Media Feed Source ID
cases_105_cover_en
fade-up
container

Diana, an assistant manager at a chain fast-food restaurant, oversaw daily sales.  She misappropriated sales revenue and discount coupons for an extended period, resulting in chaotic and unclear financial records.

This situation persisted until Daisy, a newly hired cashier, noticed numerous irregularities in the restaurant's sales records.  She suspected Diana was manipulating the sales data for personal gain.  Noticing Daisy’s suspicion and to conceal her misconduct, Diana approached Daisy and promised to give Daisy 10% of the misappropriated funds if Daisy assisted in inputting false sales and coupon redemption records into the cash register system.  Daisy was caught in a dilemma as she knew this was wrong but could not resist the temptation of quick money.  Eventually, under Diana’s persistent persuasion, Daisy succumbed and agreed to help Diana conceal everything.

Although Daisy cooperated with Diana’s fraudulent activities, the chaotic and suspicious sales records eventually drew the attention of the restaurant manager.  Daisy felt uneasy about this situation and struggled with whether to reveal the truth to the manager.

Case Analysis

Employees of restaurants should always exercise prudence and integrity when managing sales records.  If Daisy abuses her position to accept advantages for providing assistance to Diana in concealing the illegal misappropriation of the restaurant sales, she might commit Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) and conspiracy to defraud. Diana might also commit the offences.

Employees must uphold a high standard of integrity and refrain from reaping personal gain through corrupt or other illegal means.  When encountering corruption temptation or suspecting any malpractice in the workplace, employees should immediately decline and report the incident to the company and the ICAC.  Deliberately concealing or shielding unlawful behaviour may give rise to suspicions of involvement in illegal activities.  Hence, it is crucial to take a stand against corruption and report it to the ICAC.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_105
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.