Former executive of Hong Kong’s insurance regulator acquitted of misconduct

A former executive director of Hong Kong’s Insurance Authority has been acquitted of misconduct after she was alleged to have coerced insurer Prudential into hiring her daughter-in-law, as the magistrate ruled that her actions did not cause “actual damage” to public trust in the regulator. Magistrate Minnie Wat Lai-man on Thursday found Carol Hui Mei-ying and digital strategy consultant Chan Tsz-wai not guilty of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office. The pair previously stood trial at Eastern Court after the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) alleged they conspired to use Hui’s capacity in the authority to pressure the insurance company to employ Chan on higher pay between September 2022 and March 2023. The court earlier heard that Chan, who married Hui’s son in 2021, applied to Prudential for the position of senior manager of digital strategy and asked for an annual salary of HK$1.3 million, 30 per cent higher than her offer at that time. While her application was being processed, Hui met Prudential CEO Lawrence Lam and other senior staff to discuss technology risk and talent issues the company was facing. According to the testimonies of some of the attendees, Hui, who is in her mid-sixties, asked Prudential to look into its talent issues as it had failed to recruit candidates for technology risk management with a competitive salary. During the meeting, Hui said the authority would order the company to undergo a skill performance review if it failed to follow up on the issue. The insurer’s recruitment manager testified that Chan, who is in her mid-thirties, had mentioned in the application that she was close to an authority executive and that she could give insider information to benefit the company if she was hired. After examining the testimonies, the magistrate said she could not rule out the possibility that Chan did not receive such internal tips directly from Hui, given she had a “basic understanding” of her mother-in-law’s job. As for Hui’s alleged misconduct, Wat also ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove she “knowingly” mentioned the review to Prudential as a means to coerce senior staff into hiring her daughter-in-law. She found that it was reasonable for Hui to urge the insurer to handle its recruitment issues seriously. Although Hui could have made a “wrong judgment” when helping Chan secure a job opportunity, her actions did not depart from acceptable standards to such an extent as to amount to a breach of public confidence. “She merely asked Prudential to improve compensation and benefits for relevant talent and that would not curtail public employment opportunities,” Wat said. “Public trust in the Insurance Authority did not necessarily suffer serious actual damage.” She acquitted the two defendants of the offence. She ruled that the prosecution had also failed to prove the alternative charge of misconduct in public office against Hui only beyond a reasonable doubt.