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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Both Robert and Eva might have breached Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for offering and accepting bribes.  It was unlikely that Eva’s employer would permit her to accept an advantage (i.e. $10,000) for disclosing patients’ information to a third party. In addition, Eva might have committed an offence of accessing the computer with criminal or dishonest intent, contrary to Section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance.

Since Dr. K and his partners failed to adopt security measures to protect patients’ information, they might have liabilities under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance which requires appropriate security measures to protect clients’ personal data.

Section 1.1.3, 1.1.4 and 1.1.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct issued by the Medical Council of Hong Kong (Oct 2022) also requires doctors to take every step to strengthen the control system to protect patients’ information from misuse.

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.