Ronald had become entangled in debt and deliberately used his own consultancy firm to embezzle commission due to his employer. Under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for any agent to use false/ erroneous/ defective receipt/ account/ other document with the intent to deceive his principal. Ronald wilfully used a false document with intent to mislead the estate agency about Ms Yeung’s transaction.  He might violate Section 9(3) of the POBO.

Ronald was disloyal to his employer. He defied the law out of greed and ruined his own future.

As a licensed estate agent, Ronald might also breach the Code of Ethics of the Estate Agents Authority which states that estate agents and salespersons shall refrain from activities during their practice which may infringe the law.

Vincent felt that, as he alone had facilitated the transaction, he alone should enjoy the commission. However, he had forgotten that, as long as he was an employee of his agency, he had a responsibility to protect his employer’s interests, one he should not ignore in light of personal interests.  

Vincent might commit an offence of fraud under Section 16A of the Theft Ordinance for conspiring with another estate agency to embezzle commission for personal gain. He not only seriously harmed his employer’s interests, but also betrayed his company’s trust in him.

Vincent facilitated the transaction between Mr Leung and Mrs Pong as an employee of his agency. If Vincent had an intent during the commission-swindling process to  use false documents to mislead his employer or conceal the transaction, he might have breached Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and would be liable for a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment and a fine of $500,000.  

Vincent would also breach the Code of Ethics promulgated by the Estate Agents Authority for engaging in illegal activities and bringing discredit and/or disrepute to the estate agency trade. His failure to observe and comply with the law and the Code of Ethics might render him not being a fit and proper person under the Estate Agents Ordinance to hold license and disciplinary action might be taken against him.

Under the Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, it is an offence for any agent, with intent to deceive the principal, to use any false, erroneous or defective receipt, account or other document in respect of which the principal is interested.

Ivy might breach Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for using false documents with the intent to deceive her company.  She might also commit an offence of deception, contrary to Section 17 of the Theft Ordinance.  

It would be an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for Ivan and Ian, who were employees of the department store, to accept the advantage, i.e., the monthly commission of $10,000, offered by Wong and Au for assisting the latter in overstating the quantity of toiletries without the permission of their employer.  Wong and Au might also commit an offence by offering bribes.  Furthermore, by overstating the purchase orders and acknowledging the false receipt, both Ivan and Ian might breach Section 9(3) of the POBO, which forbids employees from using documents containing false, erroneous or defective information to deceive their employer.  They might also commit an offence of conspiracy to defraud.

Ivan and Ian should adhere to their company’s code of conduct on handling persons having business dealings with the company and avoid gambling with suppliers.  While Ivan and Ian might seem very lucky to win a lot during mahjong games with Wong and Au, frequently gambling together and winning excessive amount might portray the perception that Wong and Au were losing to them deliberately so as to pass benefits to Ivan and Ian in return for favour at work.

Ophelia deliberately submitted false attendance record to her company intending to deceive the employer of wages.  She might violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance or other fraudulent offences as she intentionally used documents containing false information to deceive her employer.  Oscar might also commit an offence of conspiracy to defraud.  When faced with Ophelia’s offer to help him purchase limited-edition anime figures, Oscar should decline the offer immediately to avoid putting himself in an obligatory position that could lead to illegal acts.

Ollie was aware that Ophelia had submitted false documents to deceive the hotel but chose to turn a blind eye.  Deliberately concealing or shielding unlawful behaviour may give rise to suspicions of involvement in illegal activities.  Therefore, to safeguard the interests of oneself and the company, employees should adopt a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption and report it to the ICAC.

Nancy deliberately submitted false attendance records to her company with the intent to deceive her employer of wages.  She might violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance or committed other fraudulent offences, as she intentionally used documents containing false information to mislead her employer.  Even though Nick did not receive any advantages, he might also be guilty of conspiracy to defraud.

As a managerial staff, Nick has a responsibility to carry out his supervisory duties.  Apart from performing his own duties, he should serve as a role model and set a good example for his subordinates.  It is his duty to oversee the conduct and performance of his subordinates, ensuring their compliance with laws and regulations.

Employees should always remain vigilant and adopt a zero-tolerance stance toward corruption and unethical practices, and report to the ICAC and the company.  If employees turn a blind eye or condone illegal behaviour, it not only tarnishes the corporate culture but also harms the company's interests.

Michael is regarded as an agent of the hotel.  Without the hotel’s permission, he accepted rebates from Mike for disclosing quotation information of other bidders to the latter so that Mike could secure the contract at the lowest bid.  Michael might breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while Mike might also commit the offence by offering bribes.  Michael conspired with Mike to use false documents to deceive his employer so that Mike could obtain the supply contract, he might breach Section 9(3) of the POBO or other fraudulent offences and Mike might also commit a conspiracy to defraud offence.  Similarly, Mike submitted false invoices to the hotel to conceal the under-delivery and Michael assisted to cover up the matter.  Both of them might commit the offence of conspiracy to defraud.

Michael and Mike were high school classmates which constituted a conflict of interest.  Michael did not declare the conflict of interest to the hotel intentionally and might violate the company’s internal policies.  Employees must adhere to the company’s guidelines and procedures when conducting procurement exercises, including the guidelines on handling conflicts of interest.  They should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations strictly following the internal guidelines.  Mishandling conflict of interest may distort and cast doubt on the reliability of one’s professional judgement.  On the other hand, companies should implement internal monitoring mechanisms and effective checks and balances to ensure that employees properly follow the procurement policies and goods receiving procedures. 

According to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), any agent who uses false, erroneous or defective receipts, accounts or other documents with an intent to deceive his principal shall be guilty of an offence.  Emma intentionally concealed her conflict of interest and did not disclose her marital relationship with Eric in declaration documents.  She also deliberately altered the quotation documents submitted by other bidders, which contained false information to deceive the restaurant in awarding the contracts to her husband.  Emma might contravene Section 9(3) of the POBO or other criminal offences such as fraud and false accounting, and her husband might also be guilty of conspiracy to defraud.

Additionally, Emma invited her husband to submit bid for the tendering exercise, placing herself in a conflict of interest situation.  This would make it difficult for Emma to perform her duties impartially and may even lead to suspicions of corruption.   Employees should strive to avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations strictly adhering to internal guidelines.

Although Xenia and Xaviera were good friends, their relationship conflicted with the company’s interest, placing Xenia in a conflict of interest situation.  She prioritised her personal relationship over professional integrity.  By recklessly marking up the prices of other airlines to aid the sales of Xaviera’s tickets, Xenia acted unfairly toward those airlines and jeopardised the credibility of her company.  If the truth was discovered, it may also lead to complaints from the airlines and clients.  Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations, strictly adhering to internal guidelines.  Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal guidelines.

Xenia might commit fraud under Section 16A of the Theft Ordinance by overstating the prices offered by other airlines when submitting quotation to the client.  If Xenia, without the permission of her travel agent, abused her position to favour Xaviera while accepting advantages, she might also be liable under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.  On the other hand, by deceiving her client with inaccurate information, Xenia breached the trust her company and her client placed on her.  As an employee of the travel agent, Xenia should diligently fulfil her duties and exercise discretion fairly and transparently. 

Sally, a purchasing staff member of an airline company, made use of her office to ask the supplier to inflate the service fee and accepted advantages from the supplier as a reward for assisting the latter in obtaining the cleaning service contract without obtaining the approval of the airline company.  Both Sally and Susan might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).

By inviting Susan to submit a bid for the tendering exercise, Sally found herself in a conflict of interest situation.  Sally intentionally concealed the conflict of interest and made false statements on the conflict of interest declaration form to deceive her company, which might also commit Section 9(3) of the POBO or other fraudulent offences.  If fraudulent acts are involved to conceal conflicts for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances, it may lead to other criminal offences such as deception, fraud, false accounting, etc.

Employees must adhere to the company’s guidelines and procedures when conducting procurement and tendering exercises, including the guidelines on handling conflicts of interest.  Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declaration strictly following the internal guidelines.  Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal policies.