Case Studies
Accepting sub-standard Materials
Brian was interested in estate property management and spent the first few years of his career serving in a large well-established housing estate. His supervisors were experienced and taught him all the things to note in the trade. Brian worked hard and then switched to another property management firm. After a few months during which he successfully won his boss’s confidence, he was assigned to be assistant property manager and put in charge of a new low-rise housing estate in the suburbs.
Nevertheless, the new owners discovered numerous defects in the flats. Complaints flooded in as more and more units began to be occupied. Brian and his staff were soon building up a thick file of defects list and passing them to the contractor for action. Meanwhile he had a difficult time trying to pacify the residents and asking them to be patient and wait for things to be rectified.
Among all these, Brian noticed one latent defect which only a very small number of residents had reported so far. There were brown stains on the floor behind the water-closets in their bathrooms but no obvious leakage. After inspection and discussion with the foreman, Brian realised that this was because of a manufacturing defect in the pipes used for the water-closets. Salt water could easily corrode the pipes. The only way out was to replace all existing pipes. But this would involve work on more than a thousand water-closets and of course a considerable amount of money. Neither the contractor nor the developer wished to bear the responsibility and the costs.
A meeting was held in which the contractor told Brian that the best thing to do was to stall until the maintenance period offered by the property developer to the new estate expired. This was usually within one year of an estate's occupation. After that, it would be the responsibility of individual owners to change the pipes in the toilets. Things would be simpler then.
Brian thought it grossly unfair. But he was no match against the contractor and the representative from the property developer, especially when the latter hinted that if Brian colluded this time, he would be recommended for the post of property manager of another new luxurious housing estate in the near future. By the time those pipes burst or disintegrate, he would have nothing to do with the sorry mess. Should Brian turn a blind eye?
Case Analysis
Under Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO), it would be an offence if Brian (an employee), without the approval of his employer (the property management firm), accepted an advantage for turning a blind eye on the defects caused by the contractor’s substandard work.
According to Section 2 of the POBO, advantage means any gift, loan, fee, reward or commission, employment, contract, service, favour, payment, release or discharge of loan or liability, etc. Therefore, a post of property manager offered by the representative of the property developer can be regarded as an advantage.
The representative of the property developer might also violate Section 9(2) POBO for offering bribes for the same purpose.