If Daniel and Michael did not obtain their principal's permission to accept the advantage, both of them and Calvin would be in breach of Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. It also constituted a breach of Section 124 of the Banking Ordinance. In this case, Daniel should clarify with his bank as his principal rather than follow his supervisor's advice.

Although the corrupt transaction happens outside Hong Kong, both of them commit a corruption offence in Hong Kong since the application of credit facilities is processed in Hong Kong. The location where the acceptance or offering of an advantage takes place is only one of the factors to be considered for prosecution.

They may also violate the Code of Conduct of their bank by accepting personal benefits from a customer. They should have actively discouraged their customer from offering them personal benefits of any kind.

Adam might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if he, as an employee of his company, without the approval from his employer, accepted advantages offered by Philip (i.e. the shares of his uncle’s new company) for turning a blind eye to the unqualified loan application.  Philip might also violate the POBO for offering bribes.

As an accounting professional, Adam should observe and comply with his professional code of conduct.  The Hong Kong Institute of Chartered Public Accountants (HKICPA) requires a professional accountant to comply with relevant laws and regulations, and avoid any conduct that the professional accountant knows or should know might discredit the profession.  Also, a professional accountant needs to comply with the fundamental principles of integrity and objectivity as stipulated in the HKICPA’s Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants which requires an accountant to be straightforward and honest in all professional and business relationships and avoid any conflict of interest situations.   

Meanwhile, Adam also needs to observe his company’s code of conduct governing loan applications.  He may consider report the attempted bribe to the management and to the ICAC.

Ken had followed Stephen's advice and issued a post-dated cheque for HK$810,000 for the specific purpose of offering a bribe. So long as the offeror believes that the advantage is a reward for favours done in relation to one's duties, he has already committed an offence of offering a bribe under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. This is true, regardless of whether the target of the bribe receives the advantage or not.

Since Stephen was not the person responsible for approving the loan application, he was not actually accepting a bribe directly, but he was guilty of deceiving the businessman of HK$810,000. He contravened the law, even though the post-dated cheque was never honoured.

In the above case, Louis was an employee of the bank as the manager of the loans department, i.e. an agent under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while the bank was his principal. 

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 bank certainly would not allow Louis to accept advantage (i.e. 5% rebate from the loan granted) related to his official position, thus the rebate was an illegal advantage and the acceptance of which would constitute an offence of accepting a bribe.  As such, Louis might commit an offence under Section 9 (1) of the POBO for accepting bribes whereas Clark might also commit a bribery offence under Section 9 (2) of the POBO for offering illegal advantage. 

Furthermore, Louis may also violate the Banking Ordinance and the Code of Conduct[1] of his bank by accepting personal benefits from a customer doing business with the bank.

According to HKMA’s Supervisory Policy Manual, each authorized institute (bank) should develop its own Code of Conduct containing certain minimum conduct requirements which include “no member of staff should solicit, accept and retain personal benefits from any customer of the authorized institute (bank) or any individual or organisation doing or seeking to do business with it.”

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.

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.

It is evident that Howard had received an unsatisfactory answer from the Managing Director.  Assuming his findings were accurate, he should present a report to the other directors of the company, setting out the details of his findings of the wrongdoings of Mr Szeto, the Purchasing Manager.

Mr Szeto might have committed offences under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordnance (POBO) for using false procurement documents to deceive the company and claiming private expenses through company’s accounts. He might have also breached Section 9 of the POBO for accepting secret commissions from suppliers without the approval from the company. 

If the board did not take appropriate action to follow up on the case, Howard should consider reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities after seeking legal advice.  While maintaining confidentiality of company matters was an important consideration, Howard had to weigh this consideration against the public interest in disclosing such matters to the appropriate authorities.

Howard might consider resigning from the company in the worst case scenario that he no longer had confidence in the integrity of those charged with governance of the company.

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 honesty, compassion and responsibility?
4. Can he disclose his decision to others openly and honestly without misgivings?

Dicken could refer to the ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model for solving his dilemma.

As far as professional conduct is concerned, Dicken, as a professional accountant, should observe the fundamental principles of integrity, confidentiality and professional behavior when carrying out his duties as a professional accountant. He might have breached the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants for using confidential information for personal gain or for the financial gain of others. 

For legal compliance, Dicken might breach the Securities and Futures Ordinance if he, as a senior management of the listed company, had intentionally, recklessly or negligently disclosed unpublished price-sensitive information to Lawrence for the latter to deal in the company’s shares.

Dicken was regarded as an insider under the law because he was a person who, being the financial controller of Good Men Investment Co. Ltd, had access to and knowledge of certain information relating to the company which the public did not have and would have an impact on the price of the company’s shares. 

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.