Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence for Mr Wong (an employee), without the approval of his employer, to accept advantages (i.e. RMB575,000 illegal kickback from the two manufacturers) for placing more production orders with the two manufacturers. The offeror of the bribe would also be guilty of the offence. It shall be an offence under POBO if any act of bribery (includes promising, agreeing, soliciting or accepting advantages without permission) takes place in Hong Kong. By depositing the bribe money back into the bank account in Hong Kong, Mr. Wong might still violate the POBO. 

Mr Wong’s close relationship with the manufacturers had affected his objectivity when discharging his official duties. Though entertainment is an acceptable form of business behaviour, many past cases have shown that small favours such as free meals and small gifts etc. always breed corruption. It is therefore important for business manager to remind their staff of the need to handle their relationships with care, and to avoid accepting excessively frequent or lavish entertainment from them. 

Furthermore, business organisations should also establish clear policies on acceptance of advantage and declaration of conflicts of interest, and inform their suppliers or subcontractors of such policies. In the event that staff have violated the law or company policies, prompt action should be taken to report the case immediately.

In Hong Kong, according to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it is an offence for any agent (generally the employee), without the permission of his principal (generally the employer), to solicit or accept an advantage as a reward for doing an act on relation to his principal’s business. Moreover, if any part of the bribery act takes place in Hong Kong, it shall still be an offence under the POBO. Although Chung was one of the shareholders of the enterprise, he was still an agent as defined by the law. He therefore must seek approval from the company before accepting any advantages. 

Business organisations should take the initiative to govern the acceptance of advantages by all levels of staff (including directors) in relation to company businesses. The company should state clearly amounts of advantage that the staff are permitted to accept, and conditions of such acceptance. The policy should also list out the declaration procedures and enquiry channels for staff compliance. 

Moreover, the company should establish detailed procurement procedures in order to ensure that the products purchased are of good quality and to prevent staff from abusing their authority or engaging in corrupt practices in the purchasing process. Staff should be reminded constantly of the importance of selecting suppliers in a fair and impartial manner.

In this case study, the project manager, an employee (agent) of the bank (the principal), accepted an advantage from the Mainland contractor, as a reward for making a recommendation to the bank’s head office in Hong Kong to accept the contractor's substandard works and employ the same contractor to renovate other branches (an act in relation to the bank’s business and took place in Hong Kong), might contravene Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). The Mainland contractor might also contravene Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes. If any part of the act of bribery (including offering, soliciting or accepting a bribe) takes place in Hong Kong, it may still be pursued by the ICAC under the POBO. 

Procurement of goods and services is one of the most corruption-prone business processes, in particular those involving high values or specialist knowledge and specialised products or services, e.g. renovation and maintenance works. 

It is common for banks to send staff members to work in the Mainland office. The staff members are exposed to significant risk of temptation due to their perceived remoteness from the main office in Hong Kong and the absence of supervisory control measures. Relying on a single staff member, who is a specialist, without effective checks and balances and segregation of duties, also increases the corruption risk. 

Banks should lay down guidelines for key procurement stages. They should also assign supervisors to conduct site inspections to ensure compliance with the laid down guidelines and to detect malpractice, such as connivance of substandard performance of contractors. It is also important to circulate the staff code of conduct regularly to remind staff members to refrain from accepting frequent/lavish entertainment from contractors/suppliers which may otherwise affect one’s objective commercial judgment. In addition, it is also advisable to communicate to suppliers/contractors, in particular non-local ones, on the bank’s policy regarding anti-bribery, acceptance of advantages/entertainment, zero tolerance to corruption and channel(s) for feedback/enquiry.

In this case, the senior credit manager, an employee (agent) of the bank (the principal), without the permission from the bank, accepted an advantage (a watch) from factory owner as a reward for turning a blind eye to the out-dated equipment and giving him a favourable site inspection report (an act in relation to the bank’s business). Although the acceptance of gifts took place outside Hong Kong, part of the bribery act occurred in Hong Kong (e.g. submission of a favourable report to the bank). The senior credit manager might breach Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for accepting bribes, whereas the factory owner might contravene Section 9(2) of the POBO for offering bribes. The senior credit manager might have also contravened the Banking Ordinance. 

Although the senior credit manager was the supervisor of the credit manager, he did not have the authority to permit his subordinates to accept the advantage. 

It is very common for banks’ corporate clients to have their business operations such as production plants or other assets in the Mainland or elsewhere outside Hong Kong. When site inspection/ visit by bank staff is required in assessing a loan application, the staff members are exposed to significant risk of temptation, which may comprise bribes, gifts, and excessive entertainment or services. 

In fact, assigning staff members of the same unit (in particular one of them is the supervisor of the other one) to conduct high corruption-risk tasks is a formula of disaster. The credit manager did not decline the gift offer at the spot probably because of the pressure from his supervisor, and might eventually be tempted to collude with his supervisor. 

Due to the differences in various cultures, some customers from other regions may regard offering gifts/ rewards in return for assistance or favour as a common business practice. Banks should make it clear to their staff members that it is unnecessary and inappropriate for bank staff members to adopt local cultures which may violate the laws. Moreover, an independent, reliable and confidential channel of reporting malpractices should be established by banks to encourage whistle-blowing. Furthermore, it is essential for banks to communicate clearly to all staff members and customers, especially non-local ones, about the bank’s policies on anti-bribery, acceptance of advantages / entertainment and zero tolerance to corruption.

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.

Under 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 will also be guilty of the offence. Even if the acceptance of bribes takes place outside Hong Kong, if any part of the bribery act (including offering, soliciting or accepting a bribe) takes place in Hong Kong, the case can be pursued under the POBO. Furthermore, according to Section 11 of the POBO, as long as the offeror of bribes intends to induce the acceptor to extend his/her favour(s), both parties would have committed bribery offence even if the acceptor claims that he/she 'did not actually have the power to do so', 'did not intend to do so' or 'did not, in fact, do so'. Hence, Mr Lee might have committed the offence of offering bribes and could not claim in his defence that the purpose of the bribes had not been carried out. Similarly, if Mr Cheung had accepted the red packet without declaring it to the bank, he might also have committed an offence even if he had not ultimately helped Mr Lee. 

Entertainment means the provision of food and drink for immediate consumption, whereas dried seafood, spirits or red packets are advantages. The offeror cannot offer bribes in excuse of 'an established custom in the trade or 'trade practice'. According to Section 19 of the POBO, the court will not accept such defence on the part of either the offeror or the acceptor, but will only consider whether or not the acceptor has the permission of the principal. 

According to the guidelines laid down in the Supervisory Policy Manual — Code of Conduct (the Code) issued by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, a bank employee must declare any advantage received in the course of business. While the acceptance of mere entertainment does not constitute an offence, entertainment that is in any way luxurious is very likely a prelude to corruption or bribery. Hence, the Code further stipulates that a bank employee can only accept normal business entertainment such as an ordinary meal. 

When facing corruption temptation, Mr Cheung should make a declaration in compliance with the Code and report the offering of gifts and red packets offered by Mr Lee to the bank in order to protect himself from being implicated in a bribery case.

Under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), the principal of a company is the entire Board of Directors, while individual shareholders or directors are considered as agents. In this case, Mr Chow was an 'agent' as he was one of the shareholders and the paid General Manager of the factory. Prior to any solicitation or acceptance of any advantage in the course of business, Mr Chow should have obtained permission from the Board of Directors.

The principal’s permission should be definite and given in advance in accordance with Section 9 of the POBO. Otherwise, the agent has to apply for permission as soon as reasonably practicable after the acceptance. In addition for such permission to be lawful, the principal must have carefully considered the application before granting permission. 

Mr Chow’s company had not stated clearly in advance whether or not its staff members could accept advantages in relation to their duties. During the investigation, Mr Chow claimed that he had notified other shareholders that the rebates concerned were used to cover the entertainment expenses incurred in Chinese Mainland. Nevertheless, he had, in fact, only casually brought this matter to the attention of just two of the shareholders. Furthermore, the arrangement had not been discussed at any board meeting or formally approved, and there was no record of the accepted rebates, nor how they were dealt with. As such, Mr Chow was considered not to have obtained the company’s permission to accept the rebate at the material time. Moreover, he had not applied for retrospective approval from his company, and his acceptance of the rebates was not known to and approved by all shareholders. Thus Mr Chow accepted the rebates without the principal’s permission. 

To protect the interest of the companies and their stakeholders, companies should take the initiative to formulate rules and regulations governing the acceptance of advantages by their board members and staff and to state clearly in writing the company’s stance and policy regarding acceptance of advantages, and entertainment. The procedures for declaring acceptance of advantages and the channels for making enquiries should also be laid down and made known to all staff.