According to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) S.4(1), it is an offence for the owner of the consultancy company to offer advantages (i.e. a loan) to induce a public servant (i.e. the inspector of the government department) to abuse his official capacity by leaking confidential information.  The inspector also violated POBO S.4(2) for accepting bribes in his capacity as a public servant.

Although the department may allow staff to copy information from the computer system into removable storage media for operational need, such arrangement opens up opportunities for information to be leaked.  The use of these media and mobile devices should be properly managed in workplace.  Guidelines alone cannot foster a culture of compliance. Corruption results from inadequately implemented controls and staff misconduct. This case demonstrates that rules are of limited use if no checks are carried out for compliance.  Therefore, managers should always keep a careful eye on subordinates and remind staff to handle conflicts of interest properly.  Misuse of personal data may be a breach of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and can expose the company to damaging lawsuits.  Coaching staff is essential for preventing problems.

Commission is a kind of advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  The sales manager might have breached Section 9 of the POBO for accepting the commission as a reward for him to divulge company’s emails or information to the rival company. The offeror of the advantage might also breach the same law.

Management may take system security for granted, but this kind of oversight can prove costly – business may be diverted to competitors and security controls bypassed with just a few keystrokes.

The web design company should have adopted the necessary safeguards to ensure that the digital information was stored safely and under the control of authorised personnel. Proper audit trail should be maintained to detect and deter fraudulent practices.   Professional consultants can also be hired to review and enhance IT security on a regular basis.  Where these are not done, criminals can carry out acts which may not leave any trace, for example by abusing e-mails to commit crimes.

As a licensed estate agent, Timmy should observe the Code of Ethics of the Estate Agents Authority. Estate Agents and salespersons, in engaging and accepting an appointment as an agent, should protect and promote the interests of their clients, carry out the instructions of their clients in accordance with the estate agency agreement and act in an impartial and just manner to all parties involved in the transaction. Also, they should avoid accepting an appointment involving a property in which they have a beneficial interest. Any pecuniary or other beneficial interests in relation to the property shall be disclosed fully to all parties concerned. 

Timmy’s dishonest behaviour not only caused loss to Mrs Chung and Ms Lam but also tarnished the reputation of the trade. Timmy’s conduct might constitute a criminal offence of fraud under Section 16A of the Theft Ordinance.

It might seem that Bill was being clever, but actually he was being foolish. He committed a criminal offence of fraud under the Theft Ordinance and seriously undermined professional ethics by disregarding the interests of his clients. 

Bill’s unethical behaviour breached the Code of Ethics promulgated by the Estate Agents Authority. 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.

On the other hand, the management of the estate agency showed zero tolerance for such malpractices by treating Anna’s complaint seriously and taking action against Bill’s unethical and illegal behaviour. Its integrity management enabled staff to understand clearly the ethical standards the company required of them and whistle-blow any misconduct in confidence. This could deter staff from further unethical behaviour. It could also attract and help retain ethical employees, thus helping the company to earn greater profits and goodwill in a long run.

Clement had been entrusted with handling the village-type house development project and should have cherished the opportunity to show his abilities. Unfortunately, his gambling habit led him to personal finance problems. Driven into a corner, he conspired with Mr Shum to deceive Mr Lai’s company and abused his employer’s trust in him. Clement knew very well that the $500,000 solicited by Mr Lai was not for donation purpose. By using a false receipt to deceive his principal Mr Lai, Clement might be in breach of Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Mr Shum might also commit a deception offence under the Theft Ordinance for falsely represented himself to Mr Lai as a village representative. 

As Clement and Mr Shum had business dealings, socialising might have been unavoidable. But Clement should have kept a suitable distance from Mr Shum and, above all, should not have had any pecuniary associations so that he would not have to show favouritism, or to get caught in a work dilemma where it was difficult to stay neutral, or to do illegal acts for personal gain. He should avoid engaging in frequent gambling activities with his clients to avoid involving in any monetary dealings that might lead to conflict of interest situation.

Clement 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.

Ronald had become entangled in debt and deliberately used his own consultancy firm to embezzle commission due to his employer. Under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for any agent to use false/ erroneous/ defective receipt/ account/ other document with the intent to deceive his principal. Ronald wilfully used a false document with intent to mislead the estate agency about Ms Yeung’s transaction.  He might violate Section 9(3) of the POBO.

Ronald was disloyal to his employer. He defied the law out of greed and ruined his own future.

As a licensed estate agent, Ronald might also breach the Code of Ethics of the Estate Agents Authority which states that estate agents and salespersons shall refrain from activities during their practice which may infringe the law.

Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for any agent, without the approval of his principal, to solicit or accept an advantage as a reward for or an inducement to perform an act in relation to his principal’s interest or business.

Gordon privately accepted a reward of $150,000 from his relative Johnny without the permission of his principals (namely the estate agency and Mr Yu). Hence, he might commit the offence of accepting a bribe under Section 9 of the POBO. Johnny might also commit an offence by offering a bribe.

Gordon and Johnny were relatives. Gordon should have declared this conflict of interest to the estate agency and Mr Yu.

When handling a transaction involving a relative and a client, Gordon should have remained neutral. Instead, he favoured his relative, resulting in loss to both Mr Yu and Mr Pau, the other buyer. Although Mr Yu had set a minimum average transaction price per square foot, Gordon should have tried to obtain the best possible price for the seller according to market conditions. Mr Pau had to acquire units at a higher price because of Gordon’s corrupt act.

Gordon’s behavior might also violate the Code of Ethics of the Estate Agents Authority which states clearly that estate agents or sales persons shall refrain from activities during the practice which may infringe the law. They shall provide services to clients with honesty, fidelity and integrity and protect and promote the interest of their clients, carry out the instruction of their clients in accordance with the estate agency agreement and act in an impartial and just manner to all parties involved in the transaction. Furthermore, any conflict of interest in relation to the property shall be disclosed to their clients that they are so acting.