Facing keen competition in the industry and pressure to secure loan business in the bank, a bank staff may cross the line. Over reliance on sales staff to provide borrowers’ information without counter checks would increase the risk of manipulation.

The Sales Executive, an employee (agent) of the finance company (the principal), intended to deceive/mislead the company by using invoices which contained false information. Notwithstanding he did not receive any bribes, he might have contravened Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).

The Sales Executive, machine supplier and SME owners could be charged with fraud against the finance company, or conspiracy to defraud the finance company.

The Sales Executive rationalized his acts by regarding his practice as helping the finance company to secure more loan business, at the same time helping the SMEs to overcome difficult situations. However, the fact that customers had to obtain higher loans through a fraudulent means suggested that they are high risk customers. Granting them higher loans increased the risk exposure of the finance company.

Approving a higher loan based on inflated collateral value or bogus transactions might also result in an unusual increase in bad debt cases, and internal review by the finance company would detect the irregularity involved.

Banks should adopt good control practices such as setting up a central team to conduct vigilant due diligence on high credit risk customers, conducting independent assessment of machine suppliers involved in HP transactions to ascertain their reliability, gauging reasonableness of the sales prices on invoice, and conducting regular assurance check to detect irregularities/unusual trend.

Philip must obtain the consent from his principal to accept the commission, otherwise both Philip and Ken would breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Without the approval of Philip’s principal, Ken would commit an offence of offering a bribe while Philip would commit an offence of accepting.

Although at the end of the day Philip might not be able to fulfil the agreement and Ken might not reward him, they were still liable to prosecution if a verbal agreement of corruption had been reached.

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.

In this case, the relationship manager, an employee (agent) of the bank (the principal), without the permission of the bank, accepted monetary bonuses (advantages) from the acquainted client as a reward for his preferential service in managing the investment portfolio (an act in relation to the bank’s business). The relationship manager might violate Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for accepting bribes; whereas the acquainted client might contravene Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes.

The personal relationship between the relationship manager and the acquainted client would give rise to conflict of interest, which was conducive to favouritism towards the customer, e.g. providing first priority in the investment portfolio management.

To prevent corruption and malpractices, banks should enhance the awareness of integrity among staff members and promote ethical culture by:

• disseminating a clear message by top management on commitment to business ethics and integrity, and zero-tolerance to unethical practices;

• specifying the integrity standard expected of all staff members in a Code of Conduct, in particular, the restrictions on acceptance of advantages from bank customers, and the requirement for staff to declare and avoid conflict of interest.

It is also necessary to conduct regular (induction, refresher) staff trainings on integrity and anti-corruption and to communicate with customers, including non-local customers, about the bank’s policies on anti-bribery and acceptance of advantages policy.

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.

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.

To protect the interests of investors, the listed company prohibited their agents or employees from abusing their official positions for personal gain. Mr Chan and Jenny were commissioned by the listed company to sell the property. They had to comply with the listed company’s policy on acceptance of advantages and were not allowed to solicit or accept any work-related advantage. Under the 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 affairs or business. The offeror of the bribe shall also be guilty of the offence. Mr Chan and Jenny might commit an offence under Section 9 of POBO for accepting bribe. This went against the spirit of the tender system and also prejudiced the buyer’s interests.

By attempting to secure business through corrupt means, Sidney’s action went against the spirit of fair competition and damaged the reputation of estate agency trade. He might also commit an offence under Section 9 of POBO for offering bribe.

Furthermore, they all might have breached 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.

Financial Projection for Listing

Surely Patrick should handle the financial estimates and anticipated sales growth meticulously.  He should document his bases of assumptions and agree those with the Managing Director.  All these would be reviewed by the merchant bank which sponsored the listing as well as the reporting accountant, and the eventual delivery of the forecasts would be a matter of public and regulatory scrutiny once the company got listed.  Although the Managing Director did not bother which accounting method to use, Patrick should ensure that the accounting method followed all applicable Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standards, Hong Kong Accounting Standards and interpretations issued by the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Managing Director's Request for Manipulation of Management Accounting Data

Patrick should explain to the Managing Director that, first of all, a wilful act of manipulation of accounting data is a criminal offence.  Secondly, accounting information presented to banks would most likely be audited.  Once the banks realised that there were significant discrepancies between management accounting data previously presented and the audited accounting data, they would ask for explanations which would well call into question the credibility of the company.  In the worst case, banks could withdraw financial support to the company.

Request for a Cheque by the Assistant to General Manager

It would be a breach of the Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if the General Manger used false document e.g. false reimbursement records, to deceive his company. Furthermore, if the cheque payment was offered by the General Manager to the Mr Wong as an advantage in disguise to induce or reward for latter’s assistance in granting credit facilities to the company, both the General Manager and Mr Wong would breach Section 9 of the POBO.

Patrick should report the matter to the Managing Director and explain the legal consequences of being involved in such an act.  Patrick should take the opportunity to urge the Managing Director to issue a set of code of conduct to strengthen internal control of the company. He should report to the ICAC if corruption was suspected.

Offering of ‘Valuable Information'

The valuable information provided by Benny is likely to be insider information which, if used to deal in listed securities, could have severe legal consequences.  Patrick should make it clear to Benny that his evaluation of the banks was done in an objective manner and there would be no need for Benny to reciprocate with any 'gift' as a result of OPQ bank being appointed.  If Patrick's dinner with Benny is no more than a social entertainment, Patrick does not need to avoid it.  If by accident Patrick had heard of the valuable information from Benny but he did not deal, counsel nor procure other persons to deal in the securities, he would not breach the insider dealing provisions under the Securities and Futures Ordinance.