ICAC Cases
ILLUSTRATION 1
Director of public body involved in conflict of interest in procurements
A director of a public body, also the project coordinator of three research and development projects which received about $9.5 million government funding, was responsible for procurements, appointment of vendors and approval of purchase orders relating to the projects.
According to the Code of Conduct of the public body, staff members should avoid and declare any conflict of interest.
The director instructed a subordinate to obtain quotations from vendors A and B for procuring computer products and declared in the procurement exercises that he had no conflict of interest with the two proposed vendors. In fact, his wife was the owner of vendor A, and a close friend of him and the friend’s wife were the directors of vendor B. Investigation revealed that both vendors were actually controlled by the director and the quotations submitted were prepared by him.
Given the respective prices quoted by vendors A and B were the lowest, purchase orders, worth totaling about $540,000, were awarded to them.
Consequently, the director was convicted of misconduct in public office and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two and a half years.
Read more
According to the Code of Conduct of the public body, staff members should avoid and declare any conflict of interest.
The director instructed a subordinate to obtain quotations from vendors A and B for procuring computer products and declared in the procurement exercises that he had no conflict of interest with the two proposed vendors. In fact, his wife was the owner of vendor A, and a close friend of him and the friend’s wife were the directors of vendor B. Investigation revealed that both vendors were actually controlled by the director and the quotations submitted were prepared by him.
Given the respective prices quoted by vendors A and B were the lowest, purchase orders, worth totaling about $540,000, were awarded to them.
Consequently, the director was convicted of misconduct in public office and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two and a half years.
ILLUSTRATION 2
Hospital foreman accepting advantages from subordinates
A foreman employed by a public hospital was responsible for assigning duties to his subordinates, preparing duty rosters, and approving leave applications of those subordinates.
He had, on a number of occasions, accepted from some of his subordinates a bottle of red wine, and a total of 36 packets of duty-free cigarettes. The advantages were offered to the foreman for him to remain favourably disposed to the subordinates at work.
Consequently, the foreman, being a public servant, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for accepting an advantage, contrary to Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
The magistrate said the bribery was a serious offence which constituted a breach of trust.
Read more
He had, on a number of occasions, accepted from some of his subordinates a bottle of red wine, and a total of 36 packets of duty-free cigarettes. The advantages were offered to the foreman for him to remain favourably disposed to the subordinates at work.
Consequently, the foreman, being a public servant, was sentenced to four months' imprisonment for accepting an advantage, contrary to Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
The magistrate said the bribery was a serious offence which constituted a breach of trust.
ILLUSTRATION 3
Staff of public body making false claims of entertainment fees
A manager and two officers of a public body on various occasions submitted to the public body’s management expense claim forms for the reimbursement of expenses purportedly incurred in connection with meals with business associates at various restaurants.
Investigation revealed that these meals were in fact consumed by themselves or other staff, and that no clients or associates of the public body were present. Meanwhile, the staff members dishonestly induced the public body to reimburse them for taxi expenses which they had not incurred.
The trio had fraudulently obtained reimbursement totaling around $8,000 from the public body by using expense claim forms which contained false statements. Contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, the manager was jailed for three months, while the two officers were each sentenced to perform 60 hours of community service.
Read more
Investigation revealed that these meals were in fact consumed by themselves or other staff, and that no clients or associates of the public body were present. Meanwhile, the staff members dishonestly induced the public body to reimburse them for taxi expenses which they had not incurred.
The trio had fraudulently obtained reimbursement totaling around $8,000 from the public body by using expense claim forms which contained false statements. Contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, the manager was jailed for three months, while the two officers were each sentenced to perform 60 hours of community service.
ILLUSTRATION 4
Works supervisor and subcontractor of public transport company committing bribery over transportation system works
A public transport company (the main contractor) subcontracted water leakage repairing works to a construction company (the subcontractor), and tasked a works supervisor to supervise the works carried out by the subcontractor.
During the period, the works supervisor solicited $200,000 and accepted $40,000 from the subcontractor for rendering lax supervision and expediting the process of certifying the repair works conducted by the latter. At the same time, the subcontractor paid for expenses incurred by the works supervisor at a nightclub to reward the works supervisor for rendering lax supervision in respect of the same project.
Consequently, the works supervisor was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for accepting bribes, while the subcontractor was jailed for one year for offering bribes.
Read more
During the period, the works supervisor solicited $200,000 and accepted $40,000 from the subcontractor for rendering lax supervision and expediting the process of certifying the repair works conducted by the latter. At the same time, the subcontractor paid for expenses incurred by the works supervisor at a nightclub to reward the works supervisor for rendering lax supervision in respect of the same project.
Consequently, the works supervisor was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for accepting bribes, while the subcontractor was jailed for one year for offering bribes.
ILLUSTRATION 5
Assistant manager of public body committing bribery over redevelopment projects
An assistant manager of a public body of housing affairs provided confidential information in relation to upcoming redevelopment projects of the public body to a company director and accepted a bribe of $100,000 in return. The company director then purchased the related property in the belief that it would be acquired by the public body.
Subsequently, upon receiving the confidential information about four other redevelopment projects from the assistant manager, the company director arranged for a number of persons, purported to be tenants at those projects, to apply to the public body for cash compensation and defrauded the public body of totaling over $2 million. Out of the cash compensation, the assistant manager received around $270,000 as rewards.
Consequently, the assistant manager was sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment for conspiracy for public servant to accept an advantage and conspiracy to defraud.
Read more
Subsequently, upon receiving the confidential information about four other redevelopment projects from the assistant manager, the company director arranged for a number of persons, purported to be tenants at those projects, to apply to the public body for cash compensation and defrauded the public body of totaling over $2 million. Out of the cash compensation, the assistant manager received around $270,000 as rewards.
Consequently, the assistant manager was sentenced to 32 months' imprisonment for conspiracy for public servant to accept an advantage and conspiracy to defraud.
ILLUSTRATION 6
University associate professor deceiving housing allowance
An associate professor had filed four applications for Private Tenancy Allowance (PTA) to the university in six years in respect of a residential flat, and obtained PTA allowance totaling $1.5 million from the university.
He declared in his applications that neither he, his spouse nor any of his relations had a financial interest in the leased property. However, investigation revealed that the registered owner of the property was a company which was controlled by him, his relatives and his spouse's relatives.
Consequently, he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for agent using a document with intent to deceive his principal, contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
Read more
He declared in his applications that neither he, his spouse nor any of his relations had a financial interest in the leased property. However, investigation revealed that the registered owner of the property was a company which was controlled by him, his relatives and his spouse's relatives.
Consequently, he was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment for agent using a document with intent to deceive his principal, contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
ILLUSTRATION 7
Land surveyor cheating salary by falsely claiming extra work
A land surveyor, employed by a public body of the aviation industry, worked as a site operations staff responsible for surveying duties at the airport construction site. He was entitled to compensation allowances for extra days of work outside the standard schedule.
He falsely declared on a number of Monthly Work Related Allowance Record Sheets that he had worked for a total of 28 extra days over a year.
Investigation revealed that according to the Immigration Department's travel records, during the period, he had departed from Hong Kong to other places on numerous occasions and was absent from work.
Consequently, he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended for one year and fined by the court, for cheating salary and allowance of more than $78,000, contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
Read more
He falsely declared on a number of Monthly Work Related Allowance Record Sheets that he had worked for a total of 28 extra days over a year.
Investigation revealed that according to the Immigration Department's travel records, during the period, he had departed from Hong Kong to other places on numerous occasions and was absent from work.
Consequently, he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended for one year and fined by the court, for cheating salary and allowance of more than $78,000, contrary to Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
ILLUSTRATION 8
Property agent bribing public servant for business
A public body planned to purchase a shop premises as a customer service centre, thus entrusted a property agent to look for a suitable property. Subsequently, the property agent provided information relating to a property to the officer responsible for the purchase and offered to pay him one-third of the commission as a "secret commission" for closing the deal with her. The officer refused the offer on the spot, and reported the matter to the management of the public body.
Shortly afterwards, the property agent further offered to pay the officer one-third of her commissions in future if he could ensure that the public body would sell, purchase or lease properties through her company. The officer refused the offer again.
Consequently, the property agent was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for offering an advantage to a public servant, contrary to Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. The Judge said an immediate custodial sentence was warranted, in view of the serious nature of the bribery offences.
Read more
Shortly afterwards, the property agent further offered to pay the officer one-third of her commissions in future if he could ensure that the public body would sell, purchase or lease properties through her company. The officer refused the offer again.
Consequently, the property agent was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for offering an advantage to a public servant, contrary to Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. The Judge said an immediate custodial sentence was warranted, in view of the serious nature of the bribery offences.
ILLUSTRATION 9
Mortuary attendants accepting bribes from funeral service providers
A number of mortuary attendants of a public hospital accepted totaling over $630,000 in bribes in 15 years from some funeral service providers for giving preferential treatment to them, such as placing dead bodies at better positions at the mortuary, arranging for the funeral service providers to claim and remove the dead bodies from the mortuary before office hours, and taking extra care of the dead bodies.
The corrupt scam had become a long-standing practice. After receiving the bribes, the mortuary attendants shared the corrupt proceeds and each shared about $1,000 to $4,000 per month.
They were sentenced to jail terms ranging from 3 to 18 months for accepting advantages, contrary to Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, and were also ordered to make restitution to the government.
Read more
The corrupt scam had become a long-standing practice. After receiving the bribes, the mortuary attendants shared the corrupt proceeds and each shared about $1,000 to $4,000 per month.
They were sentenced to jail terms ranging from 3 to 18 months for accepting advantages, contrary to Section 4 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, and were also ordered to make restitution to the government.