Cross-boundary inspection
Raymond, a garment inspector, frequently travelled to conduct product inspections at a factory outside Hong Kong. Over time, he became well-acquainted with the factory representative, Mr Wang, who arranged sumptuous meals for him during each visit.
Raymond, a garment inspector, frequently travelled to conduct product inspections at a factory outside Hong Kong. Over time, he became well-acquainted with the factory representative, Mr Wang, who arranged sumptuous meals for him during each visit.
On one occasion, prior to issuing his inspection report, Raymond informed Mr Wang that the inspection would fail. Concerned about the outcome, Mr Wang handed Raymond a sealed envelope containing cash and sought his “assistance” in view of their “friendship”.
If Raymond accepted advantages from Mr Wang and agreed to submit an inspection report containing false results to his employer (i.e. the inspection body), he would contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). Even if no advantage was involved, Raymond would still breach Section 9(3) of the POBO by submitting false documents with an intent to deceive his employer. Mr Wang, who offered the bribe, would also commit an offence under POBO.
Although the advantages were offered outside Hong Kong, the offence may still be prosecuted under POBO if any act of bribery (including offering, soliciting, accepting, promising, or agreeing to accept an advantage without permission) took place in Hong Kong. For example, submitting a false inspection report to his employer in Hong Kong falls within the scope of the Ordinance.
As a staff member of an independent third-party inspection body, Raymond is required to maintain impartiality and professional independence. He should decline excessive, frequent or lavish entertainment offered by assessed organisations to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest, and strictly comply with his company’s policies on the acceptance of advantage and entertainment.
