Divulging information to unauthorised parties for personal gain is a criminal act under anti-corruption law.  The sales supervisor had committed Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.  Leaking customers’ personal data is also a breach of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and can expose the company to damaging lawsuits.

In a case of this kind, a great deal of time was usually required in identifying the suspect during the investigation, because the client database was open to many staff members for reasons of operating efficiency.  If no security measures were in place to control the retrieval of information, innocent staff would be  unhappy to find that they were suspected of the illegal act when investigation was required.  Besides, some staff members like the sales supervisor in this case might consider it a trivial matter to trade client information for some extra cash, especially when the information was so easily accessible.  

Where important data such as customer details, business plans, product designs, etc., are kept in digital formats, this becomes an area that is vulnerable to corruption and related crimes.  Managers must therefore be vigilant in maintaining the security of valuable information. Irrespective of the format in which it is stored, managers should classify information into different security levels according to the degree of sensitivity and confidentiality.   This helps prevent unauthorised access.

It is crucial that managers inform staff clearly of the serious consequences, both for themselves and for the company, that can result from the unauthorised disclosure of company information. The human resources policy of the company should be regularly reviewed and constantly enforced to provide the necessary deterrents against misconduct, e.g. any breach will result in dismissal and report to the relevant law enforcement agencies.

Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), the principal's permission (in this case, the toy company) has to be given before an agent (Ivan) solicits or accepts an advantage; otherwise the agent has to apply for permission as soon as reasonably possible after the acceptance. In addition, for such permission to be lawful, the principal needs to carefully consider the details of the application before granting permission.

Ivan's company had not stated clearly in advance whether or not its staff members could accept advantages in relation to their official duties. In other words, Ivan did not have the company's permission when he accepted the commission. Furthermore, since he had not applied for retrospective permission from his company afterwards, and his acceptance of the commission was not known to and approved by all shareholders, such acceptance was considered without the principal’s permission.  

Some of the company shareholders recklessly claimed that they had given permission for Ivan to accept commission. However, they had not specified the details and scope of acceptance, and there was no record of the accepted rebates. They also did not take into account the fact that such a policy would affect fairness of competition among their suppliers. This was against both the spirit and requirements of Section 9 of the POBO, so the defence of "permission of the principal" was not substantiated.

As such, companies should proactively formulate rules and regulations to govern the acceptance of advantages by staff at all levels. They should also state clearly in writing the company policy on the nature and maximum amount of advantages staff are permitted to accept, conditions of such acceptance, declaration procedures and enquiry channels, etc. for staff compliance.

Both the sales manager who offered advantages to secure business and the greedy assistant service manager had committed a bribery offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

The procurement field has always been vulnerable to the risk of corruption, especially on high value goods and services such as information system and IT equipment that require frequent updating.  When a chain of purchases of IT equipment is initiatedor consulting services are outsourced, the situation is rife with opportunities for illicit deals if the procurement process is not properly administered. Furthermore, the fact that the assistant service manager was able to take home some IT equipment revealed that the company’s asset control was a complete failure.

Management usually rely on the expertise in their workforce to perform procurement duties. But that must not excuse, deter or prevent them from instigating the necessary checks and balances to minimise the danger of corruption and malpractice. For examples, managers should lay down procedures and safeguards to prevent tampering or leakage of quotations or tenders during the procurement process. Tender evaluation panel involving professionals can be formed to evaluate the bids of high value or special purchases and make recommendations for senior management to consider. Proper records of quotations/tenders as well as products/services delivered should be kept for checking and future audits. Separating procurement duties from storekeeping duties and conducting inventory check are also helpful to minimize risks of company’s assets being misappropriated.

Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), the principal of a company is the entire Board of Directors, while individual shareholders or directors are considered as agents. In this case, Mr Chow was an 'agent' as he was one of the shareholders and the paid General Manager of the factory. Prior to any solicitation or acceptance of any advantage in the course of business, Mr Chow should have obtained permission from the Board of Directors.

The principal’s permission should be definite and given in advance in accordance with Section 9 of the POBO. Otherwise, the agent has to apply for permission as soon as reasonably practicable after the acceptance. In addition for such permission to be lawful, the principal must have carefully considered the application before granting permission.

Mr Chow’s company had not stated clearly in advance whether or not its staff members could accept advantages in relation to their duties. During the investigation, Mr Chow claimed that he had notified other shareholders that the rebates concerned were used to cover the entertainment expenses incurred in Chinese Mainland. Nevertheless, he had, in fact, only casually brought this matter to the attention of just two of the shareholders. Furthermore, the arrangement had not been discussed at any board meeting or formally approved, and there was no record of the accepted rebates, nor how they were dealt with. As such, Mr Chow was considered not to have obtained the company’s permission to accept the rebate at the material time. Moreover, he had not applied for retrospective approval from his company, and his acceptance of the rebates was not known to and approved by all shareholders. Thus Mr Chow accepted the rebates without the principal’s permission.

To protect the interest of the companies and their stakeholders, companies should take the initiative to formulate rules and regulations governing the acceptance of advantages by their board members and staff and to state clearly in writing the company’s stance and policy regarding acceptance of advantages, and entertainment. The procedures for declaring acceptance of advantages and the channels for making enquiries should also be laid down and made known to all staff.

In Hong Kong, according to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for any agent (generally the employee), without the permission of his principal (generally the employer), to solicit or accept an advantage as a reward for doing an act on relation to his principal’s business. Moreover, if any part of the bribery act takes place in Hong Kong, it shall still be an offence under the POBO. Although Chung was one of the shareholders of the enterprise, he was still an agent as defined by the law. He therefore must seek approval from the company before accepting any advantages.

Business organisations should take the initiative to govern the acceptance of advantages by all levels of staff (including directors) in relation to company businesses. The company should state clearly amounts of advantage that the staff are permitted to accept, and conditions of such acceptance. The policy should also list out the declaration procedures and enquiry channels for staff compliance.

Moreover, the company should establish detailed procurement procedures in order to ensure that the products purchased are of good quality and to prevent staff from abusing their authority or engaging in corrupt practices in the purchasing process. Staff should be reminded constantly of the importance of selecting suppliers in a fair and impartial manner.