Integrity Focus

A then Executive Director of the Insurance Authority (IA) and her daughter-in-law were charged by the ICAC today (March 7) with conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office (MIPO) by allegedly coercing and inducing an insurance company to hire the daughter-in-law with an enhanced salary package.

Hui Mei-ying, 61, former Executive Director and a member of the IA Board, and her daughter-in-law Chan Tsz-wai, 32, jointly face one count of conspiracy to commit MIPO, contrary to Common Law and Section 159A of the Crimes Ordinance. Hui further faces an alternative charge of MIPO.

The duo were released on ICAC bail, pending their appearance in the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts tomorrow (March 8) for mention.

The IA is a statutory body regulating and supervising insurance industry and all members of its Board are appointed by the Chief Executive. Executive Directors of the IA are required to observe the “Code of Conduct for Authority Members” and “Employee Handbook”. They are prohibited from using their official positions in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person to provide any benefit to them or their relatives or friends; and should avoid and declare any conflict of interest.

At the material time, Hui was the Executive Director, Long Term Business, of the IA cum a member of the IA Board. She oversaw the supervision and regulation of insurance companies carrying on long term business in Hong Kong, including Prudential Plc and Prudential Hong Kong Limited (collectively known as Prudential). Her daughter-in-law, Chan, was a digital consultant.

It is alleged that between September 2022 and March 2023, Hui and Chan conspired together for Hui, in the course of or in relation to Hui’s public office, without reasonable excuse or justification, to wilfully misconduct herself by using her official position in a manner that was intended to coerce or induce Prudential to offer employment to Chan with an enhanced salary package.

Apart from HUI’s misuse of her official position, the alternative charge also alleges that Hui had failed to avoid and declare to the IA a conflict of interest.

The IA referred the case to the ICAC after receiving a report on the matter filed by Prudential. The ICAC investigation revealed that Hui allegedly sent Chan’s curriculum vitae to a senior executive of Prudential to explore a job opportunity for Chan. When Chan and Prudential were discussing her salary package, Hui made negative comments to Prudential’s senior management on its failure to hire the right talents with market salaries. Hui added that if the issue was not properly addressed, she would exercise IA’s supervision power to institute a review on Prudential’s operation which could cause Prudential millions of dollars.

The ICAC investigation also revealed that Chan, who was earning about $960,000 annually at the material time, demanded a 30% increase of her salary to $1.3 million from Prudential. When Chan was discussing her salary package with Prudential, she also allegedly told an employee of Prudential that she could help Prudential maintain a good relationship with the IA and that she could share insider information of the IA with Prudential. Prudential subsequently terminated the employment process in view of the potential conflict of interest.

The IA and Prudential have rendered full assistance to the ICAC during its investigation into the case.

The ICAC reminds public officers that the powers which they are entrusted with should be used to serve the public good. They should uphold a high standard of integrity and discharge their duties honestly and impartially, and should never abuse their official capacity to obtain benefits for themselves, their relatives or friends.