According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence if Karson, a hotel employee, without the permission of his employer, accepted an advantage, i.e., the red packet and the 2% rebate of the project sum, for awarding the renovation project to Kenneth and turning a blind eye to the substandard work.  Kenneth might also violate POBO by offering bribes.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, it shall not be a defence to show that the acceptance of advantage is customary in any profession, trade, vocation or calling.  Although the red packet was offered during the customary “God Worshipping” ceremony, the court shall determine the legality based on whether the recipient had obtained the permission from his principal.

Although Karson did not actively solicit advantages and might not have ultimately received any commission from Kenneth, the verbal agreement between the two parties to conceal the substantial work still constituted corruption.  According to Section 11 of the POBO, once an agreement to offer and accept a bribe is reached, both the offeror and acceptor of the bribe shall commit an offence even if the acceptor claims that he did not actually carry out the act as agreed.

Karson might also breach the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE) which states that a member of HKIE shall discharge his duties with integrity and in accordance with the highest standards of business ethics; and neither give nor accept any gift, entertainment, payment or service of more than nominal value, to or from those having a business relationship with his employer or client without the consent of the latter.

Leo is regarded as an agent of the hotel.  Without the hotel’s permission, he accepted a rebate from Louis for abusing his official capacity to disclose other bidders’ information to the latter.  Leo might breach Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while Louis might also commit the offence by offering a bribe.  Accepting bribes, whether directly or indirectly through a third party, is against the law.  If the purpose of offering the advantage is to induce the agent to do an act in relation to his principal’s business, both the offeror and the recipient would commit an offence under the POBO.  Bidders’ or clients’ information is valuable to the hotel and staff members should strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the hotel for protecting confidential information.

On the other hand, hampers and gifts are advantages.  According to Section 19 of the POBO, custom or trade practice cannot constitute a defence.  If these gifts were offered to Leo with a corrupt motive, both Leo and Louis might commit a bribery offence, even if they were offered during festive occasions. Even if no corruption was involved, Leo should follow the hotel’s code of conduct regarding the acceptance of advantages to avoid conflict of interest.  He should be particularly cautious of the sweetening process initiated by Louis’ offer of gifts.  Accepting frequent gifts and favours will put the recipient in an obligatory position to reciprocate, compromising one’s objectivity in carrying out official duties and potentially leading to corruption.

It is an offence under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for any agent, without the permission of his principal, to accept any advantage as an inducement to or reward for him to abuse his authority in relation to his principal’s affairs or business.

Bruce, as the chief chef of the hotel, is regarded as an agent.  He might breach Section 9 of the POBO for accepting money from Bob for turning a blind eye to the substandard food quality without the permission of the hotel.  Bob might also commit an offence for offering bribes.

Bruce’s unethical behaviour constituted a serious breach of his employer’s trust and caused unfairness to other suppliers and customers.  Moreover, substandard food quality might also jeopardise food safety if not properly addressed.

According to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), any agent who uses false, erroneous or defective receipts, accounts or other documents with an intent to deceive his principal shall be guilty of an offence.  Emma intentionally concealed her conflict of interest and did not disclose her marital relationship with Eric in declaration documents.  She also deliberately altered the quotation documents submitted by other bidders, which contained false information to deceive the restaurant in awarding the contracts to her husband.  Emma might contravene Section 9(3) of the POBO or other criminal offences such as fraud and false accounting, and her husband might also be guilty of conspiracy to defraud.

Additionally, Emma invited her husband to submit bid for the tendering exercise, placing herself in a conflict of interest situation.  This would make it difficult for Emma to perform her duties impartially and may even lead to suspicions of corruption.   Employees should strive to avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations strictly adhering to internal guidelines.

Employees of restaurants should always exercise prudence and integrity when managing sales records.  If Daisy abuses her position to accept advantages for providing assistance to Diana in concealing the illegal misappropriation of the restaurant sales, she might commit Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) and conspiracy to defraud. Diana might also commit the offences.

Employees must uphold a high standard of integrity and refrain from reaping personal gain through corrupt or other illegal means.  When encountering corruption temptation or suspecting any malpractice in the workplace, employees should immediately decline and report the incident to the company and the ICAC.  Deliberately concealing or shielding unlawful behaviour may give rise to suspicions of involvement in illegal activities.  Hence, it is crucial to take a stand against corruption and report it to the ICAC.

Carl, as the employee of the restaurant, accepted the watch from Charles as an inducement to abuse his authority by favouring Charles when arranging the work schedule without the permission of the restaurant.  He might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) while Charles might also be guilty of the offence as the offeror of the bribe.

Although the watch was given to Carl on his birthday, it does not constitute a defence of offering bribes.  If Carl accepted the gift in relation to his official duty without the restaurant’s permission, he would be liable under the POBO.

As a managerial staff, Carl should act as a role model and set a good example for his subordinates.  Managerial staff should refrain from accepting advantages from their subordinates to avoid conflict of interest and any perception of bias, ensuring they can carry out their supervisory duties impartially.  Charles’s behaviour caused unfairness to other colleagues and affect staff morale.

According to Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Ayden, an agent of the restaurant group, without the permission of his principal, to solicit and accept rebates from Andy for providing him with quotation information submitted by other bidders.  Andy might also commit an offence as the offeror of the bribes.  Even if the contracts were not awarded to Andy in the end, once the offering and acceptance of the bribe was established, both of them would be guilty of an offence under the POBO.

Ayden intentionally split contracts to circumvent the established approval procedures, reflecting that the company had not set up an effective checks and balance system.  The company should establish an internal audit team to conduct regular and surprise checks to prevent any non-compliance and detect such irregularities at an early stage.

Additionally, a company should implement an effective quotation system to enable the selection of the most suitable contractor for each project as well as to prevent leakage of tender information.  To minimise the risk of information exposure, all received quotations should remain sealed until the official deadline for submission.  Furthermore, the opening of the quotations should involve at least two authorised persons to prevent any potential tampering with the submitted prices.

As a construction professional, Ayden should not engage in any corruption or malpractice.  Greed not only exposed him to criminal liability but also jeopardised his professional career.

Although Xenia and Xaviera were good friends, their relationship conflicted with the company’s interest, placing Xenia in a conflict of interest situation.  She prioritised her personal relationship over professional integrity.  By recklessly marking up the prices of other airlines to aid the sales of Xaviera’s tickets, Xenia acted unfairly toward those airlines and jeopardised the credibility of her company.  If the truth was discovered, it may also lead to complaints from the airlines and clients.  Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declarations, strictly adhering to internal guidelines.  Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal guidelines.

Xenia might commit fraud under Section 16A of the Theft Ordinance by overstating the prices offered by other airlines when submitting quotation to the client.  If Xenia, without the permission of her travel agent, abused her position to favour Xaviera while accepting advantages, she might also be liable under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.  On the other hand, by deceiving her client with inaccurate information, Xenia breached the trust her company and her client placed on her.  As an employee of the travel agent, Xenia should diligently fulfil her duties and exercise discretion fairly and transparently. 

Sally, a purchasing staff member of an airline company, made use of her office to ask the supplier to inflate the service fee and accepted advantages from the supplier as a reward for assisting the latter in obtaining the cleaning service contract without obtaining the approval of the airline company.  Both Sally and Susan might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).

By inviting Susan to submit a bid for the tendering exercise, Sally found herself in a conflict of interest situation.  Sally intentionally concealed the conflict of interest and made false statements on the conflict of interest declaration form to deceive her company, which might also commit Section 9(3) of the POBO or other fraudulent offences.  If fraudulent acts are involved to conceal conflicts for personal gain or to benefit acquaintances, it may lead to other criminal offences such as deception, fraud, false accounting, etc.

Employees must adhere to the company’s guidelines and procedures when conducting procurement and tendering exercises, including the guidelines on handling conflicts of interest.  Employees should avoid conflict of interest as far as possible and make timely declaration strictly following the internal guidelines.  Otherwise, they may violate the company’s code of conduct or internal policies.

Concert tickets are advantages under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO).  If Rosanne, without obtaining the permission of her airline company, accepted the concert tickets from Rachel for providing preferential treatment in arranging the duty roster, both Rosanne and Rachel might breach Section 9 of the POBO.

According to Section 19 of the POBO, trade custom or practice does not serve as a defence for the offeror and the acceptor of an advantage.  Although the tickets were gifts given to the supervisor during Christmas, this would not be a defence in court.  The court would only consider whether Rosanne obtained the approval from her principal when accepting the concert tickets.

As a managerial staff, Rosanne should not accept advantages or entertainment that are excessive or frequent from subordinates to prevent any perception of bias and to ensure she can carry out her supervisory duties impartially.