<p>香港保險業監管局前執行董事因被指控強迫保誠保險公司僱傭其兒媳而被判無罪，法官裁定她的行為並未對公眾對監管機構的信任造成 “實際損害”。法官 Minnie Wat Lai-man 於週四裁定 Carol Hui Mei-ying 和數字戰略顧問 Chan Tsz-wai 在公職行為不當的共謀罪上無罪。兩人此前在東區法院受審，反貪污委員會（ICAC）指控她們共謀利用 Hui 在監管局的職務，施壓保險公司在 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 3 月期間以更高薪資僱傭 Chan。法庭早前聽取了證據，Chan 於 2021 年與 Hui 的兒子結婚，申請保誠的數字戰略高級經理職位，並要求年薪 130 萬港元，比她當時的報價高出 30%。在她的申請處理期間，Hui 與保誠首席執行官 Lawrence Lam 及其他高層討論公司面臨的技術風險和人才問題。根據一些與會者的證詞，年約六十多歲的 Hui 要求保誠關注其人才問題，因為公司未能以具有競爭力的薪資招聘技術風險管理人才。在會議中，Hui 表示，如果公司未能跟進此問題，監管局將要求公司進行技能績效評估。保險公司的招聘經理作證稱，年約三十多歲的 Chan 在申請中提到她與一位監管局高管關係密切，如果被僱傭，她可以提供內部信息以利於公司。法官在審查證詞後表示，無法排除 Chan 並未直接從 Hui 那裏獲得此類內部信息的可能性，因為她對其岳母的工作有 “基本瞭解”。至於 Hui 被指控的不當行為，Wat 還裁定證據不足以證明她 “明知” 提及評估是為了強迫高層僱傭其兒媳。她認為 Hui 敦促保險公司認真處理招聘問題是合理的。儘管 Hui 在幫助 Chan 獲得工作機會時可能做出了 “錯誤判斷”，但她的行為並未嚴重偏離可接受的標準，以至於構成對公眾信任的侵犯。Wat 表示：“她只是要求保誠改善相關人才的薪酬和福利，這並不會限制公眾的就業機會。” 她認為 “公眾對保險業監管局的信任並未必遭受嚴重的實際損害。” 因此，她判決兩名被告無罪。她裁定檢方也未能在合理懷疑之外證明 Hui 的公職行為不當的替代指控。</p>

英國保誠集團

英國保誠

保誠

<p>香港保險業監管局前執行董事會成員許美英（Carol Hui Mei-ying）因涉嫌強迫保誠（Prudential）僱傭其兒媳陳子慧（Chan Tsz-wai）而面臨的不當行為指控被判無罪。法官裁定，許的行為並未對公眾對監管機構的信任造成實際損害。法院認為證據不足以證明許故意施壓保誠，指出她對改善招聘實踐的要求是合理的，並未違反公眾信任。兩名被告均被判無罪，未構成公職不當行為的共謀</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>香港保險業監管局前執行董事因被指控強迫保誠保險公司僱傭其兒媳而被判無罪，法官裁定她的行為並未對公眾對監管機構的信任造成 “實際損害”。法官 Minnie Wat Lai-man 於週四裁定 Carol Hui Mei-ying 和數字戰略顧問 Chan Tsz-wai 在公職行為不當的共謀罪上無罪。兩人此前在東區法院受審，反貪污委員會（ICAC）指控她們共謀利用 Hui 在監管局的職務，施壓保險公司在 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 3 月期間以更高薪資僱傭 Chan。法庭早前聽取了證據，Chan 於 2021 年與 Hui 的兒子結婚，申請保誠的數字戰略高級經理職位，並要求年薪 130 萬港元，比她當時的報價高出 30%。在她的申請處理期間，Hui 與保誠首席執行官 Lawrence Lam 及其他高層討論公司面臨的技術風險和人才問題。根據一些與會者的證詞，年約六十多歲的 Hui 要求保誠關注其人才問題，因為公司未能以具有競爭力的薪資招聘技術風險管理人才。在會議中，Hui 表示，如果公司未能跟進此問題，監管局將要求公司進行技能績效評估。保險公司的招聘經理作證稱，年約三十多歲的 Chan 在申請中提到她與一位監管局高管關係密切，如果被僱傭，她可以提供內部信息以利於公司。法官在審查證詞後表示，無法排除 Chan 並未直接從 Hui 那裏獲得此類內部信息的可能性，因為她對其岳母的工作有 “基本瞭解”。至於 Hui 被指控的不當行為，Wat 還裁定證據不足以證明她 “明知” 提及評估是為了強迫高層僱傭其兒媳。她認為 Hui 敦促保險公司認真處理招聘問題是合理的。儘管 Hui 在幫助 Chan 獲得工作機會時可能做出了 “錯誤判斷”，但她的行為並未嚴重偏離可接受的標準，以至於構成對公眾信任的侵犯。Wat 表示：“她只是要求保誠改善相關人才的薪酬和福利，這並不會限制公眾的就業機會。” 她認為 “公眾對保險業監管局的信任並未必遭受嚴重的實際損害。” 因此，她判決兩名被告無罪。她裁定檢方也未能在合理懷疑之外證明 Hui 的公職行為不當的替代指控。</p>
</div>

香港保險監管機構的前高管被判無罪，不存在不當行為