<p>香港保险业监管局前执行董事因被指控强迫保诚保险公司雇佣其儿媳而被判无罪，法官裁定她的行为并未对公众对监管机构的信任造成 “实际损害”。法官 Minnie Wat Lai-man 于周四裁定 Carol Hui Mei-ying 和数字战略顾问 Chan Tsz-wai 在公职行为不当的共谋罪上无罪。两人此前在东区法院受审，反贪污委员会（ICAC）指控她们共谋利用 Hui 在监管局的职务，施压保险公司在 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 3 月期间以更高薪资雇佣 Chan。法庭早前听取了证据，Chan 于 2021 年与 Hui 的儿子结婚，申请保诚的数字战略高级经理职位，并要求年薪 130 万港元，比她当时的报价高出 30%。在她的申请处理期间，Hui 与保诚首席执行官 Lawrence Lam 及其他高层讨论公司面临的技术风险和人才问题。根据一些与会者的证词，年约六十多岁的 Hui 要求保诚关注其人才问题，因为公司未能以具有竞争力的薪资招聘技术风险管理人才。在会议中，Hui 表示，如果公司未能跟进此问题，监管局将要求公司进行技能绩效评估。保险公司的招聘经理作证称，年约三十多岁的 Chan 在申请中提到她与一位监管局高管关系密切，如果被雇佣，她可以提供内部信息以利于公司。法官在审查证词后表示，无法排除 Chan 并未直接从 Hui 那里获得此类内部信息的可能性，因为她对其岳母的工作有 “基本了解”。至于 Hui 被指控的不当行为，Wat 还裁定证据不足以证明她 “明知” 提及评估是为了强迫高层雇佣其儿媳。她认为 Hui 敦促保险公司认真处理招聘问题是合理的。尽管 Hui 在帮助 Chan 获得工作机会时可能做出了 “错误判断”，但她的行为并未严重偏离可接受的标准，以至于构成对公众信任的侵犯。Wat 表示：“她只是要求保诚改善相关人才的薪酬和福利，这并不会限制公众的就业机会。” 她认为 “公众对保险业监管局的信任并未必遭受严重的实际损害。” 因此，她判决两名被告无罪。她裁定检方也未能在合理怀疑之外证明 Hui 的公职行为不当的替代指控。</p>

英国保诚集团

英国保诚

保诚

<p>香港保险业监管局前执行董事会成员许美英（Carol Hui Mei-ying）因涉嫌强迫保诚（Prudential）雇佣其儿媳陈子慧（Chan Tsz-wai）而面临的不当行为指控被判无罪。法官裁定，许的行为并未对公众对监管机构的信任造成实际损害。法院认为证据不足以证明许故意施压保诚，指出她对改善招聘实践的要求是合理的，并未违反公众信任。两名被告均被判无罪，未构成公职不当行为的共谋</p>

<p>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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>香港保险业监管局前执行董事因被指控强迫保诚保险公司雇佣其儿媳而被判无罪，法官裁定她的行为并未对公众对监管机构的信任造成 “实际损害”。法官 Minnie Wat Lai-man 于周四裁定 Carol Hui Mei-ying 和数字战略顾问 Chan Tsz-wai 在公职行为不当的共谋罪上无罪。两人此前在东区法院受审，反贪污委员会（ICAC）指控她们共谋利用 Hui 在监管局的职务，施压保险公司在 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 3 月期间以更高薪资雇佣 Chan。法庭早前听取了证据，Chan 于 2021 年与 Hui 的儿子结婚，申请保诚的数字战略高级经理职位，并要求年薪 130 万港元，比她当时的报价高出 30%。在她的申请处理期间，Hui 与保诚首席执行官 Lawrence Lam 及其他高层讨论公司面临的技术风险和人才问题。根据一些与会者的证词，年约六十多岁的 Hui 要求保诚关注其人才问题，因为公司未能以具有竞争力的薪资招聘技术风险管理人才。在会议中，Hui 表示，如果公司未能跟进此问题，监管局将要求公司进行技能绩效评估。保险公司的招聘经理作证称，年约三十多岁的 Chan 在申请中提到她与一位监管局高管关系密切，如果被雇佣，她可以提供内部信息以利于公司。法官在审查证词后表示，无法排除 Chan 并未直接从 Hui 那里获得此类内部信息的可能性，因为她对其岳母的工作有 “基本了解”。至于 Hui 被指控的不当行为，Wat 还裁定证据不足以证明她 “明知” 提及评估是为了强迫高层雇佣其儿媳。她认为 Hui 敦促保险公司认真处理招聘问题是合理的。尽管 Hui 在帮助 Chan 获得工作机会时可能做出了 “错误判断”，但她的行为并未严重偏离可接受的标准，以至于构成对公众信任的侵犯。Wat 表示：“她只是要求保诚改善相关人才的薪酬和福利，这并不会限制公众的就业机会。” 她认为 “公众对保险业监管局的信任并未必遭受严重的实际损害。” 因此，她判决两名被告无罪。她裁定检方也未能在合理怀疑之外证明 Hui 的公职行为不当的替代指控。</p>
</div>

香港保险监管机构的前高管被判无罪，不存在不当行为