Disclosing Confidential Patent Information
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.
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.
If Mr Lee accepted advantages from Ms Wong, and agreed to divulge sensitive information to the latter, he would contravene Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). Ms Wong, who offered the bribe, would also commit an offence under POBO.
Protecting patent information is crucial for safeguarding the rights of inventors and organisations, and maintaining a competitive edge in the market. To prevent, detect and deter similar malpractices, companies are advised to adopt adequate corruption prevention measures in the relevant process.
Unwritten Rules
Desperate Measures
Ethical Governance of Senior Management
Dual Responsibility of Team Managers
Offering Advantages in Relation to Funding Application
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.
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.
Case Analysis
Tony may have committed fraud by submitting false quotations to inflate the costs of digital solutions and falsely representing that the applicants had borne the required portion of project costs under the scheme. Even if the applications were submitted by Tony on behalf of his clients, the SME clients may also incur criminal liability if they knowingly allowed the use of false quotations and supporting documents with the intent of securing approval of the subsidies.
On the other hand, Tony’s attempt to bribe a government official responsible for processing the applications may constitute an offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Section 4 prohibits any person from offering an advantage to a public servant as an inducement to or reward for that public servant’s performing or abstaining from performing any act in his or her official capacity.
To prevent, detect and deter similar malpractices, grantors and applicants of funding schemes are advised to adopt adequate corruption prevention measures in their operations.
帶領團隊衝業績 誠信底線不可越 (Only Chinese version available)
FAQs for Licensed Insurance Agents
FAQs for Licensed Insurance Brokers
Thank you for your feedback.