Soliciting bribes from overseas companies is also subject to prosecution

Though the supplier, from which Mr Fong solicited bribes, was outside Hong Kong, Mr Fong might still commit an offence of soliciting an advantage under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) as he sent text messages requesting for loans to be deposited into his wife’s bank account in Hong Kong in return for placing more orders.

Businesspersons should be aware that the POBO can apply when part of the corrupt act, e.g. promising, agreeing, soliciting or accepting advantages without permission, takes place in Hong Kong.

Accepting bribes, whether directly or indirectly, is against the law

Loan is considered an advantage under the POBO. Accepting bribes regardless of whether the advantage is directly given to the acceptor or indirectly delivered to a third party is still against the law. In the case study, if the Mainland herbal supplier agreed to deposit the loans into Mr Fong’s wife’s bank account in Hong Kong, as long as it was proven that the receiving account was controlled by Mr Fong or that he was the ultimate beneficiary, Mr Fong would be considered as having accepted the advantage.

Flora was facing an ethical dilemma that might compromise her personal values such as honesty, responsibility, respect and compassion. In handling the situation, Flora 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 her professional, industry specific, or company code of conduct?
2. Is it against the Law?
3. Does it correspond with her self-values such as honesty, responsibility, respect and compassion?
4. Can she disclose her decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for her in solving the ethical dilemma and choosing the best course of action.

The plant engineer might contravene the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers if he concealed his personal interest in the supplier's company and secured business for the supplier who might not be the best capable service provider for his company.

Both the plant engineer and the supplier might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if the partnership, which could be an advantage under the POBO, was offered and accepted without the permission of the electronic product manufacturer.

Although entertainment is common in business practice, the plant engineer should avoid accepting excessive entertainment that may affect his objectivity in discharging duties.   He should also check whether his company has any policy on the acceptable level of hospitality offered by contractors/vendors to prevent any conflicts of interest or the potential for such a conflict.

Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), the principal's permission (in this case, the toy company) has to be given before an agent (Ivan) solicits or accepts an advantage; otherwise the agent has to apply for permission as soon as reasonably possible after the acceptance. In addition, for such permission to be lawful, the principal needs to carefully consider the details of the application before granting permission.

Ivan's company had not stated clearly in advance whether or not its staff members could accept advantages in relation to their official duties. In other words, Ivan did not have the company's permission when he accepted the commission. Furthermore, since he had not applied for retrospective permission from his company afterwards, and his acceptance of the commission was not known to and approved by all shareholders, such acceptance was considered without the principal’s permission.  

Some of the company shareholders recklessly claimed that they had given permission for Ivan to accept commission. However, they had not specified the details and scope of acceptance, and there was no record of the accepted rebates. They also did not take into account the fact that such a policy would affect fairness of competition among their suppliers. This was against both the spirit and requirements of Section 9 of the POBO, so the defence of "permission of the principal" was not substantiated.

As such, companies should proactively formulate rules and regulations to govern the acceptance of advantages by staff at all levels. They should also state clearly in writing the company policy on the nature and maximum amount of advantages staff are permitted to accept, conditions of such acceptance, declaration procedures and enquiry channels, etc. for staff compliance.

Besides breaching the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, the project engineer may put his employer's interest and public safety at stake if he compromises his objectivity in professional judgment and turns a blind eye to substandard works.

The project engineer should not accept a loan from persons who have business dealings with the company, placing him into a position of obligation that may lead to a conflict of interest.

The project engineer and the contractor may be liable to the charge of a corruption offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for offering and accepting a loan, an advantage under the POBO, in relation to the duties of the recipient's company without his employer's permission.

Both the sales manager who offered advantages to secure business and the greedy assistant service manager had committed a bribery offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

The procurement field has always been vulnerable to the risk of corruption, especially on high value goods and services such as information system and IT equipment that require frequent updating.  When a chain of purchases of IT equipment is initiatedor consulting services are outsourced, the situation is rife with opportunities for illicit deals if the procurement process is not properly administered. Furthermore, the fact that the assistant service manager was able to take home some IT equipment revealed that the company’s asset control was a complete failure.

Management usually rely on the expertise in their workforce to perform procurement duties. But that must not excuse, deter or prevent them from instigating the necessary checks and balances to minimise the danger of corruption and malpractice. For examples, managers should lay down procedures and safeguards to prevent tampering or leakage of quotations or tenders during the procurement process. Tender evaluation panel involving professionals can be formed to evaluate the bids of high value or special purchases and make recommendations for senior management to consider. Proper records of quotations/tenders as well as products/services delivered should be kept for checking and future audits. Separating procurement duties from storekeeping duties and conducting inventory check are also helpful to minimize risks of company’s assets being misappropriated.

The software engineer contravened the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, which require an engineer to offer complete loyalty to his employer and avoid engaging in business, investments or activities which conflict with the interests of his employer.

An employment or contract could be considered as an advantage.  As the software engineer's company neither approved the engineer to take up part-time job nor allowed him to accept any advantage in relation to his duties, the engineer had violated Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for assisting the software house to get the job and accepting the project fee in return.

Susanna's old school friend clearly tried to sweeten her with gifts. He was the offeror and Susanna was the recipient. Even though Susanna subsequently did not place orders with his company, both of them already breached the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).

Under Section 11 of the POBO, if it is proved that the offeror believes that the advantage given is an inducement or a reward of favours , the recipient of the bribe cannot use the defence that: (a) "he did not actually have the power to do so", (b) "he accepted the advantage without intending to do so" or (c) "he did not in fact do so". It is important to note that accepting any gift or sweetener is an offence under law, even if the final outcome or intent of the gift is not achieved.

Jonathan was facing a situation of conflict of interest as well as an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as loyalty and honesty to challenge. On one hand, his assistance to Leo could help Leo’s company maintain a good business relationship with Galaxy; on the other hand,  his taking up of the moonlighting job from Leo at the expense of his boss might create a conflict of interest.  In handling the situation, Jonathan 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 for himself:

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

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

Under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence if Man (an employee), without the approval of his employer, accepted advantage from Gordon for assisting him in getting the business contract. 

According to Section 2 of the POBO, advantage means any gift, loan, fee, reward or commission, employment, contract, service, favour, payment, release or discharge of loan or liability, etc. The set of free computer equipment offered by Gordon to Man can be regarded as advantage.

Gordon might also violate Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes to Man for the same purpose.