The relationship manager (agent) might have contravened Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) by using a false document (forged customer instruction) to deceive the bank (the principal).  He might also be liable of a series of other crimes including theft, fraud and forgery.

Some elderly customers may be vulnerable to exploitation as they may trust bank staff members (e.g. the relationship manager) to execute transactions on their behalves (e.g. signing blank instruction forms or giving their e-banking passwords) so as to save physical visits to the bank.

The practice of keeping account advices for customers to collect later on is vulnerable to falsification or concealing irregularities.

Furthermore, inactive, dormant accounts with a large balance or credit line are subject to the risk of exploitation, as the account owners may not monitor their accounts properly or may have changed addresses without informing the bank.

Banks should devise control measures to protect dormant accounts from possible abuse and to avoid fraud. These control measures may include alerts on unusual fund movements, verification and confirmation with the customers, requirements for supervisors’ review/ override for transactions on inactive accounts, and requirements for identification of account holder when making withdrawals in person.  Moreover, implementing requirements for staff members to take annual vacation leave, arranging and introducing a backup/ second officer to vulnerable customers, and practising staff rotation (say, on a three-year basis) may also help detect irregularities and misconduct at an early stage.

Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Mr To (an employee), without the approval of his employer (the listed company) to accept advantage (i.e. $100,000 offered by Tony) as a reward for leaking out confidential information relating to the company’s property acquisition plan.  He had also abused the trust placed on him by his employer for misusing the company’s information for personal gain.  Tony might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

Furthermore, according to the Code of Ethics of Estate Agents Authority, estate agents or salespersons shall refrain from activities during their practice which may infringe the law. They shall, in the course of business, provide services to clients with honesty, fidelity and integrity, and protect their clients against fraud, misrepresentation or any unethical practices in connection with real estate transactions. Tony had breached the Code of Ethics for offering bribes and engaging in fraudulent activities in deceiving compensation.

Mr Kwok, as an employee, might commit an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for, without the approval from his employer, soliciting and accepting an advantage (i.e. the ‘under-the-table’ commission offered by Raymond and Freddy) for recommending the listed company to buy their properties.  Meanwhile, Raymond and Freddy both might also violate Section 9 of POBO for offering bribes.

Individual ethics and corporate culture are among the key factors which shape a company’s corporate governance. Company directors and senior executives serving the company should serve as role models.

Mr Kwok, who held an influential position at the company’s property investment, should have used the power bestowed on him by the listed company to protect its interests.  However, Mr Kwok abused his company’s trust for personal gain and violated the law instead.  

It is important for the company to work on an ethical culture at the corporate level through practicing ethical leadership, giving clear guidance on ethical standard expected of staff, managing integrity training and putting in place a comprehensive internal control system which helps company prevent and detect crime or malpractices as early as possible.

Leonard could refer to the ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model in solving his ethical dilemma at work. 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, fairness and honesty?
4. Can he disclose his decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

As far as professional conduct is concerned, Leonard should observe the fundamental principles of integrity, professional competence and professional behavior and comply with the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (HKICPA Code) when carrying out his duties as the accounting manager.  As the company policy stated very clearly that padding travel expenses was strictly prohibited, he should perform a guardian role and report any non-compliance to the management. He shall discuss with his immediate superior or a higher authority in the company, take appropriate steps to rectify or mitigate the consequences of the non-compliance, and decide whether it should be disclosed to the external auditor.

Moreover, it is an offence under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for any employee to use false documents / receipts / account records with an intention to deceive the employer.  Customary behavior or ignorance of law is no defence. Department heads might have committed the above offence for using false expense vouchers and invoices to deceive the company. They might also have committed a criminal offence of deception contrary to Section 17 of the Theft Ordinance.

Professional accountants have a guardian role in safeguarding the governance of the company and protect the interests of different stakeholders. They should take remedial actions to help the company foster an ethical culture and enforce any related policies.