There is an apparent conflict of interest as Billy deals in the same stocks with his client simultaneously.   Although the company permits staff to aggregate their own orders with the orders of clients, the *Codes of Conduct require that in this situation, financial practitioners must give priority to satisfying orders of clients in any subsequent allocation if all orders cannot be filled.  Hence, even if Billy proportionally allocates the executed orders between Joe’s account and his own account, which does not appear to be blatantly wrong, he still breaches the Codes of Conduct as he has not given priority to satisfying Joe’s order in the subsequent allocation of the executed orders.

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

Ken  should  clearly  know  that  the  orders  of  his  company’s  clients  are non-public information which will have a substantial effect on the trend of the futures market.   However, he still deliberately delays effecting transactions for clients and conspires with Anna to make use of this market-sensitive information for personal gain.   Both of them have engaged in front running and thus violate the *Codes of Conduct.

Ken and Anna may be guilty of a corruption offence too.   Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), Ken's sharing of the profit from the front running operation can be treated as accepting an advantage from Anna as a reward for his doing an act in relation to his principal’s affairs, i.e. passing the information of his company orders to Anna.

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

If the advantage offered, i.e. the antique watch, was not a reward for Margaret in abusing her official position, Margaret might not contravene the Codes of Conduct^[1] issued by Securities and Futures Commission and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).   However, she should be mindful of situations which might lead to the violation of the Codes of Conduct and the law.  Margaret should seek her principal’s (i.e. employer’s) approval before accepting the gift.  Moreover, she should decline the gift if she felt that the acceptance would put her in a position of obligation to the offeror.   In case of doubt, it would be prudent for her to consult her employer on whether she could accept the gift.

Although entertainment  is  common  in  business  practice  and is not  an advantage under the POBO, Margaret should avoid accepting excessive levels of entertainment which might affect her objectivity in dealing with clients.

[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.

A bank employee should seek management's advice if he/she has any doubt about the propriety of any course of action, or if the employee finds his/her own interests may be in conflict with those of the bank. Nancy might breach the Code of Conduct[1] of her bank as she awarded the contract to her brother's company without disclosing their relationship to her employer. Even when Nancy was confident that the service provided by Gordon's company was as good as those of other firms, she should declare the interest to her employer.

[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 “all staff should avoid situations that may lead to or involve a conflict of interest, actual or potential.”

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.

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 study, the project manager, an employee (agent) of the bank (the principal), accepted an advantage from the Mainland contractor, as a reward for making a recommendation to the bank’s head office in Hong Kong to accept the contractor's substandard works and employ the same contractor to renovate other branches (an act in relation to the bank’s business and took place in Hong Kong), might contravene Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). The Mainland contractor might also contravene Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes. If any part of the act of bribery (including offering, soliciting or accepting a bribe) takes place in Hong Kong, it may still be pursued by the ICAC under the POBO.

Procurement of goods and services is one of the most corruption-prone business processes, in particular those involving high values or specialist knowledge and specialised products or services, e.g. renovation and maintenance works.

It is common for banks to send staff members to work in the Mainland office. The staff members are exposed to significant risk of temptation due to their perceived remoteness from the main office in Hong Kong and the absence of supervisory control measures. Relying on a single staff member, who is a specialist, without effective checks and balances and segregation of duties, also increases the corruption risk.

Banks should lay down guidelines for key procurement stages.  They should also assign supervisors to conduct site inspections to ensure compliance with the laid down guidelines and to detect malpractice, such as connivance of substandard performance of contractors. It is also important to circulate the staff code of conduct regularly to remind staff members to refrain from accepting frequent/lavish entertainment from contractors/suppliers which may otherwise affect one’s objective commercial judgment.  In addition, it is also advisable to communicate to suppliers/contractors, in particular non-local ones, on the bank’s policy regarding anti-bribery, acceptance of advantages/entertainment, zero tolerance to corruption and channel(s) for feedback/enquiry.

Sam might breach his bank's internal policy on credit control by abusing his authority to make a favourable recommendation disregarding the real state of George's business. Sam should not allow his personal relationship with George to affect his professional judgement. Rather, he should declare their relationship to the senior management before making a recommendation. To safeguard his own interests, he should keep the management well informed of the matter and abide by their subsequent decisions.