Peter violated the Codes of Conduct[1] issued by Securities and Futures Commission by abusing his official position to refer business to David in return for accepting an advantage in the form of a country club membership. Peter failed to fulfil his obligation to protect the interests of his employer and clients as David might not be the broker who provided the best service to his company, not to mention the excessive brokerage fee charged.

If Peter had not obtained prior permission from his employer to accept the advantage, both Peter and David breached Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Peter committed an offence of accepting a bribe and David committed an offence of offering a bribe.  

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

Philip must obtain the consent from his principal to accept the commission, otherwise both Philip and Ken would breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Without the approval of Philip’s principal, Ken would commit an offence of offering a bribe while Philip would commit an offence of accepting.

Although at the end of the day Philip might not be able to fulfil the agreement and Ken might not reward him, they were still liable to prosecution if a verbal agreement of corruption had been reached.

Bryan might breach the Code of Conduct[1] of the bank by accepting an advantage from Alan, i.e. the abnormally low price and the favourable repayment terms. Bryan should decline such an offer or seek approval from the bank's management.

Although the advantage did not seem connected to Bryan's official duties at the time of the offer, it might put him in a position of obligation to reciprocate in future and place him in a compromising situation when he was asked to return a favour.

[1] According to HKMA’s Supervisory Policy Manual CG-3, each authorized institute (bank) should develop its own Code of Conduct containing certain minimum conduct requirements which include “no member of staff should solicit, accept and retain personal benefits from any customer of the bank or any individual organisation doing or seeking to do business with it.”

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

The bank certainly would not allow the manager to accept advantages related to  his  official  position,  thus  the  rebate  was  an  illegal  advantage  and the acceptance of which constituted an offence of accepting a bribe. The finance company director also committed bribery for offering illegal advantages.  

Under the POBO, food or drink for consumption on the occasion when it is provided is considered as "entertainment", which is not defined as an advantage. Even though it is not against the law to accept entertainment, accepting excessive level of entertainment by a bank staff may breach the Code of Conduct of the bank. The bank manager compromised his impartiality when he dined frequently with the finance company director.

Although entertainment is common in business practice, a bank staff should avoid meals or entertainment that are excessive in nature or frequency, so as not to cause embarrassment or loss of objectivity when conducting business with clients. In case of doubt, it would be prudent to consult the bank’s management prior to acceptance.

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 affairs or business. The offeror will also be guilty of the offence. Even if the acceptance of bribes takes place outside Hong Kong, if any part of the bribery act (including offering, soliciting or accepting a bribe) takes place in Hong Kong, the case can be pursued under the POBO. Furthermore, according to Section 11 of the POBO, as long as the offeror of bribes intends to induce the acceptor to extend his/her favour(s), both parties would have committed bribery offence even if the acceptor claims that he/she 'did not actually have the power to do so', 'did not intend to do so' or 'did not, in fact, do so'. Hence, Mr Lee might have committed the offence of offering bribes and could not claim in his defence that the purpose of the bribes had not been carried out. Similarly, if Mr Cheung had accepted the red packet without declaring it to the bank, he might also have committed an offence even if he had not ultimately helped Mr Lee.

Entertainment means the provision of food and drink for immediate consumption, whereas dried seafood, spirits or red packets are advantages. The offeror cannot offer bribes in excuse of 'an established custom in the trade or 'trade practice'. According to Section 19 of the POBO, the court will not accept such defence on the part of either the offeror or the acceptor, but will only consider whether or not the acceptor has the permission of the principal.

According to the guidelines laid down in the Supervisory Policy Manual — Code of Conduct (the Code) issued by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, a bank employee must declare any advantage received in the course of business.  While the acceptance of mere entertainment does not constitute an offence, entertainment that is in any way luxurious is very likely a prelude to corruption or bribery. Hence, the Code further stipulates that a bank employee can only accept normal business entertainment such as an ordinary meal.

When facing corruption temptation, Mr Cheung should make a declaration in compliance with the Code and report the offering of gifts and red packets offered by Mr Lee to the bank in order to protect himself from being implicated in a bribery case.

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 affairs or business. The offeror will also be guilty of the offence. 

In this case, the manager, an employee (agent) of the finance company (the principal), accepted commission (advantage) from the property developer as a reward for favourably recommending the loan proposal (an act in relation to the finance company’s business). Under the POBO, the manager was considered to have accepted the advantage even his wife received the advantage on his behalf.  Hence, the manager might have contravened Section 9(1) of the POBO for accepting bribes. The property developer might have contravened Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes.

On the other hand, the manager might have breached Section 9(2) of the POBO for bribing the property valuer (agent of the property valuation agency) to inflate the value of the collateral, while the latter might have contravened Section 9(1) of the POBO for accepting bribes from the manager. They also might have contravened Section 9(3) by each submitting false, misleading valuation reports to their employers.

The manager might have also breached the Banking Ordinance which prohibits any employee of an authorized institution to receive any gift, commission etc. for his own personal benefit or advantage or for that of any of his relatives, for procuring or endeavouring to procure for any person any advance, loan, financial guarantee or credit facility from that institution.

Under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it might be an offence for the senior bank manager (i.e. an agent, as an employee of the bank), without the permission of his principal (i.e. the bank), to accept advantages (i.e. expensive gifts offered by the client) as rewards for assisting the client to secure extension of loan repayment.  The client might also violate Section 9(2) of POBO for offering bribes.

The senior bank manager might have also contravened Section 124 of the Banking Ordinance which prohibits any employee of an authorized institution to receive any gift, commission, advantage etc. for his own personal benefit, for procuring or endeavouring to procure for any person any advance, loan, financial guarantee or credit facility from that institution.

For efficiency purpose, bank managers are often delegated with authorities to endorse certain loan-related applications up to certain limits. The risk of corruption is in proportion to the discretion which bank managers are allowed to exercise. The greater the discretion, the higher the corruption risk.

The restructuring of distressed loans is a corruption-prone area which is easily overlooked. A desperate debtor could entice the bank manager to secure favourable credit terms, e.g. extension of credit facilities.

Corruption in the lending function will result in an increase in bad loans, affecting the bank’s business and profitability.  When a customer is willing to bribe for favour in credit approval, it reflects both the underlying financial problems of his business and his poor integrity. His chance of defaulting repayment will be high. An internal review of the case will unearth the impropriety and corruption dealing. With a stringent control mechanism of a bank and a whistle-blowing mechanism, there is a good chance that the corrupt dealings will be detected.

In this case, the relationship manager, an employee (agent) of the bank (the principal), without the permission of the bank, accepted monetary bonuses (advantages) from the acquainted client as a reward for his preferential service in managing the investment portfolio (an act in relation to the bank’s business). The relationship manager might violate Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for accepting bribes; whereas the acquainted client might contravene Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes.

The personal relationship between the relationship manager and the acquainted client would give rise to conflict of interest, which was conducive to favouritism towards the customer, e.g. providing first priority in the investment portfolio management.

To prevent corruption and malpractices, banks should enhance the awareness of integrity among staff members and promote ethical culture by:

• disseminating a clear message by top management on commitment to business ethics and integrity, and zero-tolerance to unethical practices;

• specifying the integrity standard expected of all staff members in a Code of Conduct, in particular, the restrictions on acceptance of advantages from bank customers, and the requirement for staff to declare and avoid conflict of interest.

It is also necessary to conduct regular (induction, refresher) staff trainings on integrity and anti-corruption and to communicate with customers, including non-local customers, about the bank’s policies on anti-bribery and acceptance of advantages policy.

In this case, the senior credit manager, an employee (agent) of the bank (the principal), without the permission from the bank, accepted an advantage (a watch) from factory owner as a reward for turning a blind eye to the out-dated equipment and giving him a favourable site inspection report (an act in relation to the bank’s business). Although the acceptance of gifts took place outside Hong Kong, part of the bribery act occurred in Hong Kong (e.g. submission of a favourable report to the bank). The senior credit manager might breach Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for accepting bribes, whereas the factory owner might contravene Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes. The senior credit manager might have also contravened the Banking Ordinance.

Although the senior credit manager was the supervisor of the credit manager, he did not have the authority to permit his subordinates to accept the advantage.

It is very common for banks’ corporate clients to have their business operations such as production plants or other assets in the Mainland or elsewhere outside Hong Kong. When site inspection/ visit by bank staff is required in assessing a loan application, the staff members are exposed to significant risk of temptation, which may comprise bribes, gifts, and excessive entertainment or services.

In fact, assigning staff members of the same unit (in particular one of them is the supervisor of the other one) to conduct high corruption-risk tasks is a formula of disaster. The credit manager did not decline the gift offer at the spot probably because of the pressure from his supervisor, and might eventually be tempted to collude with his supervisor.

Due to the differences in various cultures, some customers from other regions may regard offering gifts/ rewards in return for assistance or favour as a common business practice.  Banks should make it clear to their staff members that it is unnecessary and inappropriate for bank staff members to adopt local cultures which may violate the laws.  Moreover, an independent, reliable and confidential channel of reporting malpractices should be established by banks to encourage whistle-blowing.  Furthermore, it is essential for banks to communicate clearly to all staff members and customers, especially non-local ones, about the bank’s policies on anti-bribery, acceptance of advantages / entertainment and zero tolerance to corruption.

The bank manager, an employee (agent) of the bank (the principal) and without the permission of the bank, accepted advantage from the client as a reward for helping the latter to perform suspicious transactions through the bank (an act in relation to bank’s business). The bank manager might contravene Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for accepting bribes, while the client might contravene Section 9(2) of the same Ordinance for offering bribes.

The bank manager might breach the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance or the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance as well as the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance if he, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that any property which, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represents any person’s proceeds of drug trafficking or indictable offence, deals with that property.

Money laundering is a serious crime.  Banks should make all staff members aware that the bank must comply with the laws and would constantly monitor fund transfers and audit the related control/processes, so as to provide a deterrent.