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.

The sales representatives committed an offence under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) offence if they had submitted false documents i.e. claims of commissions or entertainment expenses to deceive their principal i.e. the company.   

Furthermore, the offering of illegal commissions to agents of business clients with a view to obtaining or securing business might constitute a bribery offence under the POBO.   Agents of clients should obtain permission from their principals, i.e. their employers, for accepting advantages or commissions in relation to their work.  As approval should be given by the principal of the acceptor not the offeror, the Managing Director’s approval on the expense payments would not be considered the principal’s approval in this case.  

Although the clients were located in the Mainland, if any part of the act of bribery (including offering, soliciting or accepting a bribe) takes place in Hong Kong, the case may still be pursued by the ICAC under the POBO.  In any case, customary trade practice could not be a defence in any proceeding for a bribery offence under the POBO.  

Andrew should bring the issues to the attention of the company management and avoid involve in any acts that might call his integrity and professionalism into question. He should take into account his own views on ethics and legality and offer advice to the management if there were better alternatives.  

If corruption involving senior management was suspected, and all his attempts to find legal and ethical alternatives were rejected, then Andrew should consider resigning from the company and refuse to carry out any illegal transactions. He should consider reporting corruption to the ICAC and other crimes to the police.

The school secretary might have committed an offence under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if he had submitted false documents, i.e. false PTA accounting records, to deceive his principal, i.e. the school.     

Though being a voluntary treasurer, Mike still has professional obligations to the PTA.  Mike should bring the issue to the attention of the PTA or consider reporting the suspected fraud to the school or law enforcement authorities. He should also avoid involve in any acts that might call his integrity and professionalism into question. He must take into account his own views on ethics and legality and offer advice to the PTA if there were better alternatives.  

As a professional accountant serving as a volunteer, Mike should always observe the Code of Ethics of Professional Accountants and comply with the fundamental principles of integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care and avoid any conflict of interest. 

The offering of “reward” by Billy as an inducement for Jimmy to misrepresent the financial position of B&B Co. Ltd. was a breach of Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  Jimmy should refuse Billy’s offer and make it clear to Billy that while B&B Co. Ltd. was an important and valued client of his firm, no financial inducement or veiled threat would cause him to compromise his independence and professional integrity in connection with either the company's forthcoming audited financial statements or any other professional engagements carried out for B&B Co. Ltd.

Jimmy might consult a fellow partner at this stage in considering his alternative responses to this sensitive situation and in clarifying his own professional responsibilities in the circumstances, although remaining mindful at all times of the need to preserve client confidentiality.  In the event that Jimmy had no appropriate internal channel for such consultation, he might consider consulting the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

As Billy’s close friend, Jimmy should explain to Billy that the use of “whatever device he could to improve the financial position of B&B Co. Ltd.” was inappropriate, and that he and his firm would endeavor to help the company overcome the current challenges by legitimate means.

If Billy was unwilling to change his position and insisted on carrying through his threats, Jimmy should point out that, having substantially completed the audit that they were engaged to perform, his firm would propose to issue a qualified report if B&B Co. Ltd.’s financial statements did not give a true and fair view. 

Having fulfilled their statutory responsibility by reporting to the shareholders, Jimmy should explain that his firm would tender their resignation.  Details of these circumstances would also be given to any proposed successor firm of auditors in etiquette correspondence.  In the event that B&B Co. Ltd. attempted to remove Jimmy's firm from office, Jimmy should explain that he would consider making similar representations to the shareholders as entitled under the Companies Ordinance.

Jimmy was suggested to report the attempted bribe to the ICAC to safeguard his own interests.