Ken  should  clearly  know  that  the  orders  of  his  company’s  clients  are non-public information which will have a substantial effect on the trend of the futures market.   However, he still deliberately delays effecting transactions for clients and conspires with Anna to make use of this market-sensitive information for personal gain.   Both of them have engaged in front running and thus violate the *Codes of Conduct.

Ken and Anna may be guilty of a corruption offence too.   Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), Ken's sharing of the profit from the front running operation can be treated as accepting an advantage from Anna as a reward for his doing an act in relation to his principal’s affairs, i.e. passing the information of his company orders to Anna.

*Remarks: Codes of Conduct refer to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission, the Code of Conduct for Corporate Finance Adviser and the Fund Manager Code of Conduct.

Alan breaks the *Codes of Conduct and Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) as he agrees to abuse his official position as a member of the broker selection committee by persuading other members to offer business to Agnes and accepts rebate in return without permission from his employer. Likewise, Agnes also breaches the Codes of Conduct and the PBO for offering an illegal advantage to Alan.   Although Alan hasn’t executed the "under-the-table" deal, both of them still commit a corruption offence.   Under the law, a person will be found guilty even though the purpose of bribery has not been carried out.

*Remarks: Codes of Conduct refer to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission, the Code of Conduct for Corporate Finance Adviser and the Fund Manager Code of Conduct.

If the advantage offered, i.e. the antique watch, was not a reward for Margaret in abusing her official position, Margaret might not contravene the Codes of Conduct^[1] issued by Securities and Futures Commission and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).   However, she should be mindful of situations which might lead to the violation of the Codes of Conduct and the law.  Margaret should seek her principal’s (i.e. employer’s) approval before accepting the gift.  Moreover, she should decline the gift if she felt that the acceptance would put her in a position of obligation to the offeror.   In case of doubt, it would be prudent for her to consult her employer on whether she could accept the gift.

Although entertainment  is  common  in  business  practice  and is not  an advantage under the POBO, Margaret should avoid accepting excessive levels of entertainment which might affect her objectivity in dealing with clients.

[1] Codes of Conduct refer to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission, the Corporate Finance Adviser Code of Conduct and the Fund Manager Code of Conduct.

Peter violated the Codes of Conduct[1] issued by Securities and Futures Commission by abusing his official position to refer business to David in return for accepting an advantage in the form of a country club membership. Peter failed to fulfil his obligation to protect the interests of his employer and clients as David might not be the broker who provided the best service to his company, not to mention the excessive brokerage fee charged.

If Peter had not obtained prior permission from his employer to accept the advantage, both Peter and David breached Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Peter committed an offence of accepting a bribe and David committed an offence of offering a bribe.  

[1] Codes of Conduct refer to the Code of Conduct for Persons Licensed by or Registered with the Securities and Futures Commission, the Corporate Finance Adviser Code of Conduct and the Fund Manager Code of Conduct.

Bryan might breach the Code of Conduct[1] of the bank by accepting an advantage from Alan, i.e. the abnormally low price and the favourable repayment terms. Bryan should decline such an offer or seek approval from the bank's management.

Although the advantage did not seem connected to Bryan's official duties at the time of the offer, it might put him in a position of obligation to reciprocate in future and place him in a compromising situation when he was asked to return a favour.

[1] According to HKMA’s Supervisory Policy Manual CG-3, each authorized institute (bank) should develop its own Code of Conduct containing certain minimum conduct requirements which include “no member of staff should solicit, accept and retain personal benefits from any customer of the bank or any individual organisation doing or seeking to do business with it.”

Kim and Angela might have breached the Securities and Futures Ordinance for disclosing and acting on unpublished price sensitive information. They might have also exposed the bank to legal liability since the bank had bought the shares as a result of inside information.

Kim might have further violated the internal code of conduct^[1] of her bank as she leaked customer's information to a third party, even though in this case the third party was also a member of her bank.

^[1] According to HKMA’s Supervisory Policy Manual CG-3, each authorized institute (bank) should develop its own Code of Conduct containing certain minimum conduct requirements which include “no member of staff should release customer information to a third party without written consent from the relevant customer, unless the release complies with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance or he is required or permitted to do so by law.”

Jack was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as honesty, responsibility and compassion to challenge. In handling situation like this, Jack should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:

1. Any violation to his professional, industry specific, or company code of conduct?
2. Is it against the Law?
3. Does it correspond with his self-values such as responsibility, honesty, compassion, etc.?
4. Can he disclose his decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving his ethical dilemma.

Laura might violate the Code of Conduct[1] of the bank by taking up a directorship outside the bank without her employer's prior permission. On this issue, her directorship in Ricky's company gave rise to a conflict of interest with her official duties, so she might have breached the bank’s Code of Conduct for approving facilities to the company in which she is interested. Moreover, she might commit an offence of conspiracy to defraud if she was aware of the fraud committed by Ricky and assisted him in the approval process.

[1] According to HKMA’s Supervisory Policy Manual CG-3, each authorized institute (AI) (bank) should develop its own Code of Conduct containing certain minimum conduct requirements which include “no member of staff should take up any directorship, employment or part-time commercial duties, whether paid or unpaid, outside the AI except with prior written approval as required by the Code of Conduct.” The Code should also require that “no member of staff should grant credit to himself, his relatives or companies in which he or his relatives have a personal interest.”

Edwin might breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if he, as an employee of his bank, without the approval of his employer (i.e. the bank), accepted an advantage (i.e. special commission from the sales representative) for buying an obsolete printer model from the sales representative. The sales representative might also breach the same provision of the POBO for offering the bribe as an inducement to Edwin for abusing his authority at work. 

Edwin was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as honesty and responsibility to challenge. In handling situation like this, Edwin should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:

1. Any violation to his professional, industry specific, or company code of conduct?
2. Is it against the Law?
3. Does it correspond with his self-values such as loyalty, honesty and responsibility?
4. Can he disclose his decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

To uphold his professional ethics and avoid breaking the law, Edwin should say no to the sales representative’s offer and report the matter to the bank or the ICAC.  He could also refer to the ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model for solving his ethical dilemma and choosing the best course of action.

Peter might breach the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance or the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance as well as the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance. 

Peter also commits a corruption offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for soliciting from Joe an advantage as a reward for leaking confidential information from his bank. He may also violate the Code of Conduct^[1] of his bank as he fails to preserve the confidentiality of the bank's internal information.

^[1] According to HKMA’s Supervisory Policy Manual CG-3, each authorized institute (AI) (bank) should develop its own Code of Conduct containing certain minimum conduct requirements which include “no member of staff should, during or after termination of his employment with the AI, except in proper course of his duties or with the written consent of the AI, divulge or make use of any secrets or of any correspondence, accounts, connections or dealings of the AI or its customers or of any knowledge gained in relation thereto during his employment.”