Forging documents for personal gain

Vincent, an estate agent, forged a Provisional Agreement for Sale and Purchase with a view to embezzling his employer’s commission.
Cover
Image
Forging documents for personal gain
Media Feed Source ID
cases_130_cover_en
fade-up
container

Vincent, an estate agent of an agency, facilitated the sale of Mr Leung’s flat to Mrs Pong at a price of $34 million. In line with regular practice, both buyer and seller had to pay 1% of the purchase price as commission to the agency. After the transaction was completed, Vincent showed an agreement and a fax to Mr Leung and Mrs Pong. The agreement indicated that the transaction had been carried out through two estate agencies, Vincent’s agency and Agency B. The fax was issued by Vincent’s agency and indicated that Agency B would collect the commission on its behalf. As the agreement and fax bore the signatures of the persons responsible in both estate agencies as well as company chops, Mr Leung and Mrs Pong paid the commission accordingly. In fact, Vincent had forged the agreement and fax document with a view to embezzling his employer’s commission using Agency B’s account. Agency B was later to return 80% of the commission it received to Vincent. Meanwhile, Vincent told his employer that another estate agency had beaten him to the transaction. Vincent’s agency made a report to the ICAC after suspecting that Vincent had been bribed to refer business to another estate agency.

Case Analysis

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.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_130

The cost of incentive

Timothy, a tourist guide, was assigned to guide inbound Mainland tour groups. When bringing tourists to visit the jewellery shop prescribed by his company, Timothy solicited extra rebates from the shop proprietor on top of the agreed rebate to the company.
Cover
Image
The cost of incentive
Media Feed Source ID
cases_125_cover_en
fade-up
container

Timothy had been working as a tourist guide for a travel agent for nearly ten years.  All along, his company and several jewellery shops had agreed that the shops would rebate his company 10% of the total sales proceeds from tourists.  With the company’s expansion, Timothy was also assigned to guide inbound Mainland tour groups.  

One day, as usual, Timothy guided the tourists to the jewellery shop registered by his company.  After settling the tourists, he chatted with Tom, the shop’s proprietor.  Tom remarked that Mainland groups always brought him good profits.  In response, Timothy suggested that if Tom provided him personally with an additional 5% rebate on top of the 10% given to the company, it would give him higher incentive to promote Tom’s shop to the tourists.  He added that a tourist guide’s enthusiasm in promotion could significantly influence the tourists’ purchasing decisions.  Unable to bear the potential loss, Tom reluctantly succumbed to Timothy’s request.  To compensate for the extra commission, Tom began misleading tourists into purchasing newly launched brands, falsely claiming they were well-known models and selling them at inflated prices.

That evening after the tourists had returned to their hotel, Troy, the Mainland escort of the tour group, offered Timothy a red packet and hinted that it would bring him good luck and ensure their smooth cooperation in the future.  Thinking it was a “first-meeting gift”, Timothy accepted it gratefully.

Case Analysis

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for an employee to solicit or accept any advantage in relation to his official duty without the permission of his employer.  Timothy, as an employee of a travel agent, solicited and accepted an additional rebate from Tom without the permission of the travel agent while carrying out his duties.  Therefore, both Timothy and Tom might breach the POBO.

Tom should promptly report Timothy’s solicitation to the ICAC.  By misleading tourists into purchasing purported branded goods, Tom not only jeopardised his company’s reputation, but also put the integrity of Hong Kong’s tourism industry at risk.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, trade custom or practice does not constitute a defence for the offeror and the acceptor of an illegal advantage.  Timothy should adhere to the company’s policies regarding the acceptance of advantages to avoid engaging in illegal or unethical behaviour.  Despite his role as a Mainland tour escort, Troy should also comply with the POBO and other laws while escorting the group in Hong Kong.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_125

Partners in crime

A hotel chief engineer conspired with a spare part supplier by submitting false invoices to the hotel to deceive payment on goods never received.
Cover
Image
Partners in crime
Media Feed Source ID
cases_110_cover_en
fade-up
container

Michael, the chief engineer of the hotel, was responsible for purchasing spare parts for the repair of the hotel’s air-conditioning system.  According to the purchasing policy of the hotel, Michael was required to declare any conflict of interest and obtain quotations from various suppliers for each purchase and recommend a selected supplier to the hotel.

Michael’s high school classmate, Mike, was a spare parts supplier of the hotel but Michael never declared the conflict of interest to the hotel.  They agreed that for each procurement exercise, Michael would first disclose the quotations from other companies to Mike, who would then submit his quotation before the submission deadline.  Mike’s company often won the supply contract with the lowest bid.  In case where no quotations were received for minor purchase items, they falsified multiple quotations, and Mike’s company secured the contracts with the lowest bid.

On the other hand, Mike submitted false invoices to the hotel, falsely claiming that he had delivered all the parts according to the quoted quantities.  In reality, the amount of goods delivered was insufficient and Michael assisted in concealing the under-delivery. 

Case Analysis

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. 

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_110
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Building a problem

Karson, a Chief Engineer of a hotel, was offered a red packet by the proprietor of a construction company for his assistance in awarding a hotel renovation project.
Cover
Image
Building a problem
Media Feed Source ID
cases_109_cover_en
fade-up
container

Karson, the Chief Engineer of a hotel, was assigned to oversee a $5 million renovation project for the hotel’s main lobby.  Kenneth, the proprietor of a construction company, was selected as the contractor for the renovation work.

During the traditional “God Worshipping” ceremony that marked the project’s commencement, Kenneth offered Karson a red packet of $30,000 as a token of gratitude for his assistance in awarding the contract.  Karson gratefully accepted the offer.

One month later, while inspecting the project’s progress, Karson noticed that the quality of the marble used in the lobby was substandard and did not meet the tender specifications.  Due to the tight schedule and cost implications, Kenneth was reluctant to replace the marble.  To cover up the issue, he proposed giving Karson a rebate of 2% of the project sum in exchange for Karson turning a blind eye to the substandard work.  Although bewildered by the offer, Karson verbally agreed to the arrangement to avoid damaging the harmonious working relationship with Kenneth.

Case Analysis

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence if Karson, a hotel employee, without the permission of his employer, accepted an advantage, i.e., the red packet and the 2% rebate of the project sum, for awarding the renovation project to Kenneth and turning a blind eye to the substandard work.  Kenneth might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, it shall not be a defence to show that the acceptance of advantage is customary in any profession, trade, vocation or calling.  Although the red packet was offered during the customary “God Worshipping” ceremony, the court shall determine the legality based on whether the recipient had obtained the permission from his principal.

Although Karson did not actively solicit advantages and might not have ultimately received any commission from Kenneth, the verbal agreement between the two parties to conceal the substantial work still constituted corruption.  According to Section 11 of the POBO, once an agreement to offer and accept a bribe is reached, both the offeror and acceptor of the bribe shall commit an offence even if the acceptor claims that he did not actually carry out the act as agreed.

Karson might also breach the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE) which states that a member of HKIE shall discharge his duties with integrity and in accordance with the highest standards of business ethics; and neither give nor accept any gift, entertainment, payment or service of more than nominal value, to or from those having a business relationship with his employer or client without the consent of the latter.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_109
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Sector / Industry Priority display

Bidding low

Alpha, the director of a restaurant group, relied on his engineering expert Ayden to select contractors, but Ayden exploited this trust by soliciting bribes from contractor and manipulating contract sizes to evade oversight.
Cover
Image
Bidding low
Media Feed Source ID
cases_103_cover_en
fade-up
container

A restaurant group operated a chain of ten restaurants in Hong Kong.  The Director of the group, Alpha, was highly experienced in the food and beverage industry but was not familiar with renovation and related issues.  As a result, he relied on his staff Ayden, an expert in engineering, when selecting contractors for the company.  Ayden was authorised to approve renovation works valued up to $300,000 and contracts exceeding $300,000 would require Alpha’s endorsement.

Later, Ayden approached one of the contractors, Andy, and convinced him to offer a 5% commission on the contract price in return for providing Andy with quotation information submitted by other bidders during each quotation exercise.  With this information, Andy constantly secured the contract with the lowest bid.  Ayden also split contracts worth $300,000 or above into smaller contracts to avoid Alpha’s scrutiny.

Case Analysis

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Ayden, an agent of the restaurant group, without the permission of his principal, to solicit and accept rebates from Andy for providing him with quotation information submitted by other bidders.  Andy might also commit an offence as the offeror of the bribes.  Even if the contracts were not awarded to Andy in the end, once the offering and acceptance of the bribe was established, both of them would be guilty of an offence under the POBO.

Ayden intentionally split contracts to circumvent the established approval procedures, reflecting that the company had not set up an effective checks and balance system.  The company should establish an internal audit team to conduct regular and surprise checks to prevent any non-compliance and detect such irregularities at an early stage.

Additionally, a company should implement an effective quotation system to enable the selection of the most suitable contractor for each project as well as to prevent leakage of tender information.  To minimise the risk of information exposure, all received quotations should remain sealed until the official deadline for submission.  Furthermore, the opening of the quotations should involve at least two authorised persons to prevent any potential tampering with the submitted prices.

As a construction professional, Ayden should not engage in any corruption or malpractice.  Greed not only exposed him to criminal liability but also jeopardised his professional career.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_103

Fraud in procurement of medical equipment

Dr M, the Chief of Service of the Paediatric Department of a public hospital, asked David, the Department Operations Manager, to mark up the quotations of other companies so that he could secure the contract of the medical equipment to his girlfriend’s company.
Cover
Image
Fraud in procurement of medical equipment
Media Feed Source ID
cases_096_cover_en
fade-up
container

Dr M, the Chief of Service of the Paediatric Department of a public hospital, has the approving authority for purchases not exceeding $100,000. His girlfriend Phoebe is a sales manager of a large medical equipment company.

Recently, David, the Department Operations Manager, recommended a replacement of a medical equipment and the sourcing was in progress. As Dr M knew that Phoebe was being pressured by her boss to secure more business for the company, he offered to help her.  After going through the quotations obtained by David, Dr M found that the price quoted by Phoebe was not the lowest.  He thus asked David to mark up the quotations of other companies so that he could secure the contract of the medical equipment to Phoebe’s company.   In order to please Dr M, David agreed to the proposal.

Case Analysis

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.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_096

Hidden agenda in sponsorship

During the procurement of equipment for oculoplastics, Billy, the sales director of a potential supplier, asked Dr E, a consultant ophthalmologist in a public hospital, to comment favourably on the equipment produced by his company.
Cover
Image
Hidden agenda in sponsorship
Media Feed Source ID
cases_095_cover_en
fade-up
container

Dr E is a consultant ophthalmologist in a public hospital who is often involved in the procurement of expensive medical equipment for his department.  The procurement department of the hospital will seek Dr E’s views while drafting the specifications and in the course of purchase.   He has a strong influence on the final selection of supplier through his assessment on the performance of the equipment.

During the procurement of equipment for oculoplastics, Billy, the sales director of a potential supplier, asked Dr E to comment favourably on the equipment produced by his company.  He proposed to pay for the passage and accommodation for Dr E to visit the company’s laboratory in New  York  and  take  the  convenience  to  attend  an  important  medical conference there.   After the trip, Dr E recommended the hospital to offer the contract to Billy’s company.

Case Analysis

Dr E would violate Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance as he accepted an advantage i.e. the sponsorship for visiting the company's laboratory and attending a conference without  the  permission  of  his  employer,  and  in  return  recommended  the medical  equipment  of  Billy’s  company  to  the  hospital.    Billy  would  also commit an offence of corruption for offering the bribe to Dr E.

Dr E might breach Section 15.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct issued by the Medical Council of Hong Kong (Oct 2022) which specifies that doctors should avoid accepting pecuniary inducement from commercial firms that might compromise the independent exercise of their professional judgement.

According to the Hospital Authority's (HA) guidelines on acceptance of donation and sponsorship, overseas site visit relating to the selection of medical equipment before or during tendering exercises should be funded by the HA and should not be sponsored by any of the potential vendors.  In any case, HA employees should not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any advantage or gift which would, or might reasonably be seen to, compromise their integrity or judgement or influence the discharge or non-discharge of their duties and responsibilities.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_095

Accepting rebates from diagnostic laboratories

Shortly after starting his private practice, Dr C was approached by Ms WONG, the proprietor of a medical laboratory, who requested for the referral of all his patients to her. Ms WONG suggested that an arrangement could be made for a sum to be offered to Dr C by the laboratory for each patient referred.
Cover
Image
Accepting rebates from diagnostic laboratories
Media Feed Source ID
cases_094_cover_en
fade-up
container

Shortly after starting his private practice, Dr C was approached by Ms WONG, the proprietor of a medical laboratory, who requested for the referral of all his patients to her.   Ms WONG suggested that an arrangement could be made for a sum to be offered to Dr C by the laboratory for each patient referred.   She emphasised that it was in no way unfair to the patients since they had to do the tests somewhere in any case. She also said that a number of other doctors in the same building had already made such arrangement with her.

Prior  to  the  referral  of  patients  to  Ms  WONG‘s  laboratory, their agreement was brought to light by the nurse of Dr C’s clinic and the case was then reported to the ICAC.

Case Analysis

A principal and agent relationship exists between Dr C and his patients. As such, Dr C would breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) by accepting rebates from Ms WONG for referring his patients to her laboratory if Dr C did not have the permission from his patients.

Although the “under-the-table” dealing was not carried out by Dr C and Ms WONG, they would still be liable to prosecution.   Under the POBO, both parties can be found guilty of an offence when the agreement on solicitation and acceptance of advantages have been reached even though the purpose of bribery has not been carried out.

Dr C might also violate Section 14.1 of the Code of Professional Conduct issued by the Medical Council of Hong Kong (Oct 2022) which prohibits doctors from receiving rebates from diagnostic laboratories for referring patients.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_094

Corruption in the assessment of medicine

The CEO of a pharmaceutical company offered company shares to Dr A for his assistance in writing a favorable report for a new drug…
Cover
Image
Corruption in the assessment of medicine
Media Feed Source ID
cases_093_cover_en
fade-up
container

Dr A was a consultant of the Clinical Oncology Department in a public hospital.  His assessments of the effectiveness of medicines had a great impact on the clinical value as well as the future market value of the medicines.  Dr A attended the annual dinner of a pharmaceutical company on behalf of the hospital and met Terry, the CEO of the company.

They maintained close ties after the dinner and Terry always treated Dr A lavishly.  Lately, Terry invited Dr A to a dinner at a private club and he mentioned to Dr A that his company had recently developed a new antitumor drug, and the assessment of the effectiveness of the drug happened to be conducted by Dr A’s team.  Knowing that Dr A was responsible for the final assessment report of the drug, Terry requested Dr A to give a favourable  assessment result in the report.  Terry suggested to offer his company’s shares to Dr A in return.  Dr A found this an attractive offer as he had been planning to retire in five years.

Case Analysis

Dr A was a public servant as he is employed by a public hospital under the Hospital Authority. Terry had breached Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for offering Dr A an advantage, in the form of company shares as a return for Dr A’s favourable assessment result in the report . Dr A would also breach the POBO if he accepted the advantage without the permission from the Hospital Authority.

Although entertainment does not fall within the definition of advantage under the POBO, public servants should avoid accepting any lavish, unreasonably generous or frequent entertainment, as it may put them in an obligatory position in the discharge of official duties and compromise their impartiality or judgement.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_093

Misuse of proprietary information

A product engineer of a medical equipment company decided to develop an electronic thermometer for his employer based on the design of a similar product in his previous employment disregarding the confidential agreement signed.
Cover
Image
Misuse of proprietary information
Media Feed Source ID
cases_092_cover_en
fade-up
container

Anson, a product engineer at a medium-sized company, was the designer of an innovative electronic thermometer that later became the bestselling product of the company.  He left after his company was acquired by another company.

Later, Anson joined a medical equipment company which used to be a major competitor of his former employer.  He learnt that they intended to develop a new electronic thermometer.  He also noticed that a slight modification of the electronic thermometer he designed for his former employer could serve as a new product. In order to impress his new employer, Anson decided to design a new thermometer based on the product of his old company, neglecting the non-disclosure agreement he signed with his former employer on product information.

Case Analysis

What Anson did was a breach of trust of his former employer and he may face lawsuits from them for infringing intellectual property rights and breaching the non-disclosure agreement signed.

Anson may contravene the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE) if he is a member of the institution, which prohibit an engineer from making use of proprietary confidential information for personal gain.  When working with new clients or changing employment, an engineer has a moral obligation to honour confidential and proprietary information gained from his previous employment, particularly the specific business or technical information from clients or employers.

The Rules of Conduct of HKIE also require an engineer to offer complete loyalty to his employer, past and present, in all business affairs and discharge his duties with integrity and in accordance with the highest standards of business ethics. An engineer is expected to properly credit the contributions of others in engineering practice.

All Trades/ Industries
Off
migration_resource_id
cases_092
Show Only in Sector/Industry
False
Survey Questions
1. In which country or region are you currently located?
Hong Kong
Chinese Mainland
Other (please specify)
2. What type of organisation do you represent?
Listed company
Large private company
SME / start-up
NGO / non-profit
Public organisation
Chamber / trade association
Other (please specify)
3. What is the size of your organisation?
1 - 49 employees
50-99 employees
100 - 199 employees
200 or more employees
4. What is your staff level or position?
Executive / senior management
Middle management
Professional
Supervisory level
Frontline/Technical Staff
Other (please specify)

Thank you for your feedback.