It might seem that Bill was being clever, but actually he was being foolish. He committed a criminal offence of fraud under the Theft Ordinance and seriously undermined professional ethics by disregarding the interests of his clients. 

Bill’s unethical behaviour breached the Code of Ethics promulgated by the Estate Agents Authority. His failure to observe and comply with the law and the Code of Ethics might render him not being a fit and proper person under the Estate Agents Ordinance to hold license and disciplinary action might be taken against him. 

On the other hand, the management of the estate agency showed zero tolerance for such malpractices by treating Anna’s complaint seriously and taking action against Bill’s unethical and illegal behaviour. Its integrity management enabled staff to understand clearly the ethical standards the company required of them and whistle-blow any misconduct in confidence. This could deter staff from further unethical behaviour. It could also attract and help retain ethical employees, thus helping the company to earn greater profits and goodwill in a long run.

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.