An associate professor of economics and finance at the City University of Hong Kong was found guilty of offering an advantage to an agent at the Sha Tin Magistrates' Courts on Tuesday (Mar 10).
The charge alleged that Du Du — the 48-year-old defendant — offered a bribe of HK$1,000 to a female estate agent of Midland Realty and requested her to conceal from the estate agency that he had defaulted on a tenancy agreement to avoid giving up his HK$16,000 deposit as compensation.
The court heard that the defendant viewed a residential flat in Tai Wai for rent on November 6, 2022, and confirmed to rent the flat at HK$16,000 per month by signing a provisional tenancy agreement with the flat owner on the spot.
The defendant subsequently viewed another flat in the same estate through another channel. On the same afternoon, he contacted the estate agent expressing his wish to cancel the provisional tenancy agreement.
According to the terms of the agreement, the party cancelling the agreement had to pay compensation equivalent to the deposit. The defendant then offered a bribe of HK$1,000 to the estate agent and requested the latter to assist in concealing from Midland Realty that he had signed the provisional tenancy agreement.
The estate agent did not accept the bribe and reported to the company, which rendered full assistance to the ICAC during its investigation into the case.
The defendant claimed that the estate agent did not remind him of the legal effect of the provisional agreement and that no deposit was paid on the same day. Therefore, Du concluded that what was signed at that time was a "letter of intent."
Magistrate Jeffrey Sze Cho-yiu countered that even ordinary people without a legal background know that provisional agreements have legal effect, and the wording in such agreements clearly showed, including clauses such as that the deposit will be forfeited if the tenant fails to fulfill the contract and the breaching party must promptly pay the agent HK$16,000 in losses.
Sze pointed out that the clauses are clear, indicating the responsibilities of both parties under the provisional agreement and the consequences of non-compliance.
Furthermore, given the defendant's extensive experience renting properties and his status as a business professor, his claim of ignorance regarding the legal effect of provisional agreements is illogical, said Sze.
The case was adjourned to March 25, pending a background report.
