Operations Department Review 2002 - å»æ¿å ¬ç½²
Operations Department Review 2002 - å»æ¿å ¬ç½²
Operations Department Review 2002 - å»æ¿å ¬ç½²
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
piling contractor had chosen to conceal the substandard<br />
piles by replacing cored logs before testing and tampering<br />
with measurement tapes to fabricate records.<br />
Two directors and a site agent of a piling company<br />
were charged with conspiracy to defraud the Hong Kong<br />
Government. In July <strong>2002</strong>, the directors were convicted at<br />
the Court of First Instance and were sentenced to 12 years'<br />
imprisonment. The site agent, who pleaded guilty and testified<br />
against his co-accused, was given a jail term of three<br />
years and three months. In passing a deterrent sentence,<br />
the trial judge commented that:<br />
" Their conduct strikes at the very heart of the construction<br />
industry. The damage they did is enormous and<br />
it is also absolutely unthinkable that anyone would commit<br />
such a crime, creating such hazard to life and property, for<br />
a comparatively small gain. I would not be performing my<br />
duty if the sentence I give does not adequately reflect public<br />
disapproval and abhorrence for such kind of irresponsible<br />
and fraudulent conduct."<br />
Inflated claims<br />
A common corruption related fraud in the construction<br />
industry is the corrupt approval of inflated claims for<br />
interim payments. One such case involved a subcontractor<br />
responsible for maintenance of government buildings in<br />
Western Hong Kong and South Kowloon. He was<br />
convicted of bribing officers of the Architectural Services<br />
<strong>Department</strong> for lax supervision and was sentenced to ten<br />
months' imprisonment. Three of his employees were convicted<br />
of conspiring to defraud the Hong Kong<br />
Government by submitting inflated claims of several hundred<br />
thousand dollars for maintenance work. They were<br />
sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from six to 15<br />
months. In the same case, three officers of the<br />
Architectural Services <strong>Department</strong> were fined and ordered<br />
to perform community service after their conviction for<br />
accepting advantages.<br />
Corrupt award of contract<br />
The case, last reported in the 2001 <strong>Operations</strong><br />
<strong>Department</strong> <strong>Review</strong>, involving a Chief Building Services<br />
Engineer of the Housing <strong>Department</strong> has resulted in his<br />
being charged with one count of misconduct in public
Change language