Given that one of the candidates was Heidi’s relative, Heidi, responsible for conducting the recruitment interview, was in a conflict of interest situation.  Heidi should avoid the situation as far as possible and adhere to the company code of conduct in handling it, such as declaring their relationship to the company.

If Heidi failed to disclose such a conflict of interest, the company could not take appropriate measure to mitigate the risk arising from the conflict (e.g., deploying another officer with no conflict of interest to take up the interview) and even worse, giving rise to allegation of bias and unfairness, and putting the company into disrepute.  Moreover, such failure to declare the conflict as required would cast doubt on Heidi’s integrity.  Even if Heidi acted impartially and her relative was the best candidate, the conflict of interest could still lead to the perception of favouritism and unfairness to other candidates. 

If false document is involved (e.g. falsifying documents to cover up conflict involved), it may breach S.9(3) of the POBO.  Using fraudulent means to conceal conflicts during the recruitment exercise for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances may lead to criminal charges such as deception and fraud, and could breach the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance if bribery is involved.

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.

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.

According to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), any agent who uses false, erroneous or defective receipts, accounts or other documents with an intent to deceive his principal shall be guilty of an offence.  Emma intentionally concealed her conflict of interest and did not disclose her marital relationship with Eric in declaration documents.  She also deliberately altered the quotation documents submitted by other bidders, which contained false information to deceive the restaurant in awarding the contracts to her husband.  Emma might contravene Section 9(3) of the POBO or other criminal offences such as fraud and false accounting, and her husband might also be guilty of conspiracy to defraud.

Additionally, Emma invited her husband to submit bid for the tendering exercise, placing herself in a conflict of interest situation.  This would make it difficult for Emma to perform her duties impartially and may even lead to suspicions of corruption.   Employees should strive to avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations strictly adhering to internal guidelines.

Although Xenia and Xaviera were good friends, their relationship conflicted with the company’s interest, placing Xenia in a conflict of interest situation.  She prioritised her personal relationship over professional integrity.  By recklessly marking up the prices of other airlines to aid the sales of Xaviera’s tickets, Xenia acted unfairly toward those airlines and jeopardised the credibility of her company.  If the truth was discovered, it may also lead to complaints from the airlines and clients.  Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations, strictly adhering to internal guidelines.  Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal guidelines.

Xenia might commit fraud under Section 16A of the Theft Ordinance by overstating the prices offered by other airlines when submitting quotation to the client.  If Xenia, without the permission of her travel agent, abused her position to favour Xaviera while accepting advantages, she might also be liable under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.  On the other hand, by deceiving her client with inaccurate information, Xenia breached the trust her company and her client placed on her.  As an employee of the travel agent, Xenia should diligently fulfil her duties and exercise discretion fairly and transparently. 

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.

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.

David would violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for manipulating quotation breakdown to deceive his employer i.e. the Hospital Authority (HA).  Dr M, who instructed David to take part in the fictitious quotation plot might also be charged with an offence of conspiracy to defraud.

Dr M might face disciplinary action taken by the Medical Council of Hong Kong and his fitness to practise might be questioned.

At the same time, the HA would also take follow-up action against Dr M and David who might breach the HA’s code of conduct which requires the procurement of goods to be the best value for money in terms of price, quality, delivery time and service.

Also, Dr M should, as far as possible, avoid any actual and perceived conflict of interest. When a situation of conflict of interest cannot be avoided, he should as soon as possible declare all relevant details of such situation to his organisation, i.e. his relationship with the sales manager of the potential supplier.

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.

The school secretary might have committed an offence under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if he had submitted false documents, i.e. false PTA accounting records, to deceive his principal, i.e. the school.     

Though being a voluntary treasurer, Mike still has professional obligations to the PTA.  Mike should bring the issue to the attention of the PTA or consider reporting the suspected fraud to the school or law enforcement authorities. He should also avoid involve in any acts that might call his integrity and professionalism into question. He must take into account his own views on ethics and legality and offer advice to the PTA if there were better alternatives.  

As a professional accountant serving as a volunteer, Mike should always observe the Code of Ethics of Professional Accountants and comply with the fundamental principles of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care and avoid any conflict of interest.