Carl, as the employee of the restaurant, accepted the watch from Charles as an inducement to abuse his authority by favouring Charles when arranging the work schedule without the permission of the restaurant.  He might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while Charles might also be guilty of the offence as the offeror of the bribe.

Although the watch was given to Carl on his birthday, it does not constitute a defence of offering bribes.  If Carl accepted the gift in relation to his official duty without the restaurant’s permission, he would be liable under the POBO.

As a managerial staff, Carl should act as a role model and set a good example for his subordinates.  Managerial staff should refrain from accepting advantages from their subordinates to avoid conflict of interest and any perception of bias, ensuring they can carry out their supervisory duties impartially.  Charles’s behaviour caused unfairness to other colleagues and affect staff morale.

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Ayden, an agent of the restaurant group, without the permission of his principal, to solicit and accept rebates from Andy for providing him with quotation information submitted by other bidders.  Andy might also commit an offence as the offeror of the bribes.  Even if the contracts were not awarded to Andy in the end, once the offering and acceptance of the bribe was established, both of them would be guilty of an offence under the POBO.

Ayden intentionally split contracts to circumvent the established approval procedures, reflecting that the company had not set up an effective checks and balance system.  The company should establish an internal audit team to conduct regular and surprise checks to prevent any non-compliance and detect such irregularities at an early stage.

Additionally, a company should implement an effective quotation system to enable the selection of the most suitable contractor for each project as well as to prevent leakage of tender information.  To minimise the risk of information exposure, all received quotations should remain sealed until the official deadline for submission.  Furthermore, the opening of the quotations should involve at least two authorised persons to prevent any potential tampering with the submitted prices.

As a construction professional, Ayden should not engage in any corruption or malpractice.  Greed not only exposed him to criminal liability but also jeopardised his professional career.

Sally, a purchasing staff member of an airline company, made use of her office to ask the supplier to inflate the service fee and accepted advantages from the supplier as a reward for assisting the latter in obtaining the cleaning service contract without obtaining the approval of the airline company.  Both Sally and Susan might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).

By inviting Susan to submit a bid for the tendering exercise, Sally found herself in a conflict of interest situation.  Sally intentionally concealed the conflict of interest and made false statements on the conflict of interest declaration form to deceive her company, which might also commit Section 9(3) of the POBO or other fraudulent offences.  If fraudulent acts are involved to conceal conflicts for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances, it may lead to other criminal offences such as deception, fraud, false accounting, etc.

Employees must adhere to the company’s guidelines and procedures when conducting procurement and tendering exercises, including the guidelines on handling conflicts of interest.  Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declaration strictly following the internal guidelines.  Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal policies.

Concert tickets are advantages under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  If Rosanne, without obtaining the permission of her airline company, accepted the concert tickets from Rachel for providing preferential treatment in arranging the duty roster, both Rosanne and Rachel might breach Section 9 of the POBO.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, trade custom or practice does not serve as a defence for the offeror and the acceptor of an advantage.  Although the tickets were gifts given to the supervisor during Christmas, this would not be a defence in court.  The court would only consider whether Rosanne obtained the approval from her principal when accepting the concert tickets.

As a managerial staff, Rosanne should not accept advantages or entertainment that are excessive or frequent from subordinates to prevent any perception of bias and to ensure she can carry out her supervisory duties impartially.

Airline staff should stand firm in resisting temptations.  Quinton, a staff member of an airline company, is regarded as an agent.  If he, without the permission of his principal, i.e. the airline company, accepted advantages for abusing his staff privilege of nominating Queenie as a travel companion, he might contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Queenie, who offered the advantage, might also be guilty of an offence under the POBO.  Quinton should adhere to the company guidelines regarding the nomination of travel companions and not abuse his staff privilege for personal gain.

Quinton’s illegal acts could be attributed to his investment failure and 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 and avoid engaging in high-risk investments or gambling activities to prevent falling into corruption traps.

Rebates are considered advantages under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Patrick might breach Section 9 of the POBO since he accepted advantages from Paul, i.e. free golf trip and the 5% rebate of the freight charges, without obtaining permission from his principal, i.e. the airfreight company, as an inducement for reserving extra cargo space for Paul.  Paul might also breach the POBO as the offeror of the bribe.

Even though Patrick could not allocate the cargo space to Paul, the corruption offence was still pursuable under the law.  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.

Although “entertainment” is not an “advantage” under the POBO, it can be a “sweetener” in a corrupt dealing.  Therefore, Patrick should adhere to the company’s code of conduct regarding the acceptance of entertainment from business clients.  He should also decline invitations to meals or entertainment that are excessive in nature or frequency while conducting official duties to avoid any conflict of interest.

According to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), free tours, “red packet” and casino tokens are all advantages. If the two representatives accepted these advantages from Bill in Hong Kong, both of them and Bill would be subject to the POBO, so that both the offeror and recipient would breach the law if they do not have the permission of their employers to receive the advantages.

They cannot use customary trade practice as an excuse because according to Section 19 of the POBO, it shall not be a defence to show that any such advantage is customary in any profession or trade, The court shall only make a judgement based on whether permission was given by the principal of the recipient.

Dr E would violate Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance as he accepted an advantage i.e. the sponsorship for visiting the company's laboratory and attending a conference without  the  permission  of  his  employer,  and  in  return  recommended  the medical  equipment  of  Billy’s  company  to  the  hospital.    Billy  would  also commit an offence of corruption for offering the bribe to Dr E.

Dr E might breach Section 15.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct issued by the Medical Council of Hong Kong (Oct 2022) which specifies that doctors should avoid accepting pecuniary inducement from commercial firms that might compromise the independent exercise of their professional judgement.

According to the Hospital Authority's (HA) guidelines on acceptance of donation and sponsorship, overseas site visit relating to the selection of medical equipment before or during tendering exercises should be funded by the HA and should not be sponsored by any of the potential vendors.  In any case, HA employees should not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any advantage or gift which would, or might reasonably be seen to, compromise their integrity or judgement or influence the discharge or non-discharge of their duties and responsibilities.

A principal and agent relationship exists between Dr C and his patients. As such, Dr C would breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) by accepting rebates from Ms WONG for referring his patients to her laboratory if Dr C did not have the permission from his patients.

Although the “under-the-table” dealing was not carried out by Dr C and Ms WONG, they would still be liable to prosecution.   Under the POBO, both parties can be found guilty of an offence when the agreement on solicitation and acceptance of advantages have been reached even though the purpose of bribery has not been carried out.

Dr C might also violate Section 14.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct issued by the Medical Council of Hong Kong (Oct 2022) which prohibits doctors from receiving rebates from diagnostic laboratories for referring patients.

Dr A was a public servant as he is employed by a public hospital under the Hospital Authority. Terry had breached Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for offering Dr A an advantage, in the form of company shares as a return for Dr A’s favourable assessment result in the report . Dr A would also breach the POBO if he accepted the advantage without the permission from the Hospital Authority.

Although entertainment does not fall within the definition of advantage under the POBO, public servants should avoid accepting any lavish, unreasonably generous or frequent entertainment, as it may put them in an obligatory position in the discharge of official duties and compromise their impartiality or judgement.