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.

Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Mr Wong (an employee), without the approval of his employer, to accept advantages (i.e. RMB575,000 illegal kickback from the two manufacturers) for placing more production orders with the two manufacturers.  The offeror of the bribe would also be guilty of the offence.  It shall be an offence under POBO if any act of bribery (includes promising, agreeing, soliciting or accepting advantages without permission) takes place in Hong Kong. By depositing the bribe money back into the bank account in Hong Kong, Mr. Wong might still violate the POBO.

Mr Wong’s close relationship with the manufacturers had affected his objectivity when discharging his official duties.  Though entertainment is an acceptable form of business behaviour, many past cases have shown that small favours such as free meals and small gifts etc. always breed corruption. It is therefore important for business manager to remind their staff of the need to handle their relationships with care, and to avoid accepting excessively frequent or lavish entertainment from them.

Furthermore, business organisations should also establish clear policies on acceptance of advantage and declaration of conflicts of interest, and inform their suppliers or subcontractors of such policies. In the event that staff have violated the law or company policies, prompt action should be taken to report the case immediately.

Commission is a kind of advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  The sales manager might have breached Section 9 of the POBO for accepting the commission as a reward for him to divulge company’s emails or information to the rival company. The offeror of the advantage might also breach the same law.

Management may take system security for granted, but this kind of oversight can prove costly – business may be diverted to competitors and security controls bypassed with just a few keystrokes.

The web design company should have adopted the necessary safeguards to ensure that the digital information was stored safely and under the control of authorised personnel. Proper audit trail should be maintained to detect and deter fraudulent practices.   Professional consultants can also be hired to review and enhance IT security on a regular basis.  Where these are not done, criminals can carry out acts which may not leave any trace, for example by abusing e-mails to commit crimes.

The sales representatives committed an offence under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) offence if they had submitted false documents i.e. claims of commissions or entertainment expenses to deceive their principal i.e. the company.   

Furthermore, the offering of illegal commissions to agents of business clients with a view to obtaining or securing business might constitute a bribery offence under the POBO.   Agents of clients should obtain permission from their principals, i.e. their employers, for accepting advantages or commissions in relation to their work.  As approval should be given by the principal of the acceptor not the offeror, the Managing Director’s approval on the expense payments would not be considered the principal’s approval in this case.  

Although the clients were located in the Mainland, if any part of the act of bribery (including offering, soliciting or accepting a bribe) takes place in Hong Kong, the case may still be pursued by the ICAC under the POBO.  In any case, customary trade practice could not be a defence in any proceeding for a bribery offence under the POBO.  

Andrew should bring the issues to the attention of the company management and avoid involve in any acts that might call his integrity and professionalism into question. He should take into account his own views on ethics and legality and offer advice to the management if there were better alternatives.  

If corruption involving senior management was suspected, and all his attempts to find legal and ethical alternatives were rejected, then Andrew should consider resigning from the company and refuse to carry out any illegal transactions. He should consider reporting corruption to the ICAC and other crimes to the police.

Things can go wrong when technology is left in the wrong hands and management does not keep a watchful eye on its use.  Blindly trusting the system without regulating and controlling it is a recipe for disaster.  Good judgement plus positive interaction with technical staff is the key to addressing the risk factors created by adoption of new technologies.   Managers have to instill a high level of ethical standards among staff to ensure that all procedures are followed and that all regulations are complied with.  This is especially important in vulnerable areas such as the handling of valuable information and the procurement of supplies and services.

Mr Kwok, as an employee, might commit an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for, without the approval from his employer, soliciting and accepting an advantage (i.e. the ‘under-the-table’ commission offered by Raymond and Freddy) for recommending the listed company to buy their properties.  Meanwhile, Raymond and Freddy both might also violate Section 9 of POBO for offering bribes.

Individual ethics and corporate culture are among the key factors which shape a company’s corporate governance. Company directors and senior executives serving the company should serve as role models.

Mr Kwok, who held an influential position at the company’s property investment, should have used the power bestowed on him by the listed company to protect its interests.  However, Mr Kwok abused his company’s trust for personal gain and violated the law instead.  

It is important for the company to work on an ethical culture at the corporate level through practicing ethical leadership, giving clear guidance on ethical standard expected of staff, managing integrity training and putting in place a comprehensive internal control system which helps company prevent and detect crime or malpractices as early as possible.

It is evident that Howard had received an unsatisfactory answer from the Managing Director.  Assuming his findings were accurate, he should present a report to the other directors of the company, setting out the details of his findings of the wrongdoings of Mr Szeto, the Purchasing Manager.

Mr Szeto might have committed offences under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordnance (POBO) for using false procurement documents to deceive the company and claiming private expenses through company’s accounts. He might have also breached Section 9 of the POBO for accepting secret commissions from suppliers without the approval from the company. 

If the board did not take appropriate action to follow up on the case, Howard should consider reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities after seeking legal advice.  While maintaining confidentiality of company matters was an important consideration, Howard had to weigh this consideration against the public interest in disclosing such matters to the appropriate authorities.

Howard might consider resigning from the company in the worst case scenario that he no longer had confidence in the integrity of those charged with governance of the company.

The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:

1. Any violation to his professional, industry specific or company code of conduct?

2. Is it against the Law?

3. Does it correspond with his self-values such as honesty, compassion and responsibility?

4. Can he disclose his decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

Dicken could refer to the ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model for solving his dilemma.

As far as professional conduct is concerned, Dicken, as a professional accountant, should observe the fundamental principles of integrity, confidentiality and professional behavior when carrying out his duties as a professional accountant. He might have breached the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants for using confidential information for personal gain or for the financial gain of others. 

For legal compliance, Dicken might breach the Securities and Futures Ordinance if he, as a senior management of the listed company, had intentionally, recklessly or negligently disclosed unpublished price-sensitive information to Lawrence for the latter to deal in the company’s shares.

Dicken was regarded as an insider under the law because he was a person who, being the financial controller of Good Men Investment Co. Ltd, had access to and knowledge of certain information relating to the company which the public did not have and would have an impact on the price of the company’s shares.