A research and development company protects the intellectual property rights and commercialises its research products through patent applications and seeking collaboration with business partners to turn its invention into practical use.

Mr Lee, an officer of the company responsible for handling its patent applications, told Ms Wong, who is a manufacturer of certain equipment, that his company was developing a technology that would significantly reduce the production costs and had yet to file a patent application for the invention.  Ms Wong was highly interested in the new technology.  Instead of going through the standard licensing procedures of the company, she offered advantages to Mr Lee for him to divulge the information related to the technology (e.g. prototype, testing figures, manufacturing workflow).

As the company had not put in place security measures to guard against unauthorised leakage of confidential information, Mr Lee accessed the patent data and passed it to Ms Wong.

Tony, an operations manager of a technology consultancy firm, actively promoted his firm’s services to SMEs, offering to manage the entire application process for government technology funding schemes which support SMEs in adopting digital solutions.  He assured his clients that the application would be “hassle‑free” and that his company would arrange the required documentation including vendor quotations for digital solutions.

Behind the scenes, Tony colluded with several vendors to submit inflated quotations for digital solutions, such as cloud systems, cybersecurity upgrades and e‑commerce platforms.  Although the funding application guidelines required SMEs to contribute a specified proportion of project costs, Tony secretly arranged for the SMEs’ contribution to be temporarily financed or rebated after approval, thereby creating the false impression of genuine cost‑sharing by the applicants.

To facilitate approval, Tony offered a bribe to a government official responsible for processing applications under the scheme and requested that the vetting process be expedited.  The government official refused the offer and immediately reported the matter to ICAC.

As an administrator, Bernard conducted yearly evaluations of his subordinates. The evaluations were weighed heavily in management promotion decisions.  Recently, two of Bernard’s subordinates Apple and Barry were competing for a new administrative post.  Bernard worked well with Apple but Apple’s performance was average.  If Apple worked alongside Bernard as a peer, she would not challenge Bernard or threaten his position in the firm.  Barry, by contrast, was outstanding; but his tendency to shake things up and push for changes made it very difficult for Bernard to work with.  Foreseeing Barry’s potential in the company, Bernard was worried that his position in the company would be threatened if Barry got promoted.  On the other hand, Bernard also knew that his peer administrators kept average-performing supporters to themselves through the staff evaluation process. 

Should he write a strong annual evaluation for Apple but an average one for Barry?  Between Apple and Barry, who would be better for the firm and who would better off with Bernard?