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.

David would violate Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for manipulating quotation breakdown to deceive his employer i.e. the Hospital Authority (HA).  Dr M, who instructed David to take part in the fictitious quotation plot might also be charged with an offence of conspiracy to defraud.

Dr M might face disciplinary action taken by the Medical Council of Hong Kong and his fitness to practise might be questioned.

At the same time, the HA would also take follow-up action against Dr M and David who might breach the HA’s code of conduct which requires the procurement of goods to be the best value for money in terms of price, quality, delivery time and service.

Also, Dr M should, as far as possible, avoid any actual and perceived conflict of interest. When a situation of conflict of interest cannot be avoided, he should as soon as possible declare all relevant details of such situation to his organisation, i.e. his relationship with the sales manager of the potential supplier.

Dr J, Tony and the construction workers would commit an offence of conspiracy to defraud by colluding in making bogus insurance claims to deceive Tony’s insurance company for personal gain.

Dr J might violate Section 26.3 of the Code of Professional Conduct (Oct 2022) issued by the Medical Council of Hong Kong for issuing documents containing untrue information.

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.