Bribery and corruption behind Football match fixing in Malaysia

Online gambling on football matches in Asia has reached hundreds of millions of dollars each season – with the risk that those involved in making or receiving large scale bets would seek to manipulate the results by threats or bribes of the players, managers or officials.

Malaysia and the Malaysia Super League (Liga Super Malaysia) is a keen target for such match fixers seeking to cream off winnings from the illegal bookmakers.

To combat this threat, the Football Association of Malaysia (FAM) has engaged FIFA’s Early Warning System (EWS) in an effort to combat the issue of match fixing in the country. The FIFA Early Warning System was implemented in August 2016 by the Malaysia Super League (MSL) and will also be extended to international matches hosted in Malaysia. The Football Association of Malaysia have been given a good deal as they won’t have to spend any money on the system, which normally sells for RM100,000 per football season.

The Early Warning System, which was started operations in 2007, is a fraud detection system that monitors betting trends to spot rapid changes in odds being offered and also provides match result analysis. The Early Warning System monitors FIFA competitions, including the World Cup and all qualifying matches, and also works closely with the Asian Football Associations.

Rumours of match-fixing in the Malaysia Super League are nothing new as a number of corruption scandals have surfaced in the past.

The low point for Malaysian football came in 1994-95, when more than one hundred footballers were disciplined with punishment ranging from life bans to suspensions from playing for up to four years. Investigations by Royal Malaysian Police found that there had been gross interference by gambling syndicates to fix the results of games – allegedly physically threatening players who refused to assist. Among those involved included Malek Rahman, Matlan Marjan and Azizol Abu Hanafiah. The arrests and punishments came under a law then known as ‘Emergency Ordinance’, where players could be detained and banished from the game if suspected of fixing matches [the law has since been repealed].

Malaysia came under the football match fixing spotlight again in 2009, when the Malaysian national team played friendly matches against Zimbabwe in Kuala Lumpur – but the games were arranged by notorious convicted match-fixer Wilson Raj Perumal, a Singapore national.

Malaysia managed to beat a higher-ranked Zimbabwe side 4-0 and 1-0 – raising suspicion with the Early Warning System and so the games were investigated by FIFA.

Following an investigation, FIFA revoked the ‘A’ international classification for both matches once it was discovered that a Zimbabwean club team, Monomotapa United, was masquerading as the Zimbabwean national team and were not approved by the Zimbabwean Football Association.

Also in 2009, Lesotho were beaten 5 to nil by Malaysia in a friendly game – with many Lesotho players witnessed going on a shopping spree after the game; generating suspicion as to whether the match result had been interfered with by outsiders.
Since this debacle in 2009, the Football Association of Malaysia has been working with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) to investigate suspect results and monitoring players, support staff and identified match fixers. In addition to providing data of betting trends, the Early Warning System will also provide

  • a confidential whistle-blower system
  • a dedicated integrity phone number and email address for anonymous tips to be submitted
  • a monitoring process for all matches in the Malaysian Super League to identify results which may suggest match fixing has been involved
  • an investigation unit to follow up on leads

The Football Malaysia Limited Liability Partnership (FMLLP) Chief Executive Kevin Ramalingam said the implementation of a fraud detection system would uphold the league’s integrity. Kevin Ramalingam added the system will be able to pinpoint players who are likely involved in fixing matches.

Pen drive `of allegations’
Corruption and dishonesty within Malaysian football became a hot topic in September 2016 after
Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin submitted a pen drive, supposedly containing documentary evidence of misconduct, to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.

Khairy Jamaluddin stated that he had received the pen drive from the Tengku Mahkota of Johor, Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, in August 2016. The pen drive purportedly contained a 280-page report detailing misconduct and corruption within the Football Association of Malaysia.

However, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission investigation director Azam Baki later reported the commission had examined the contents of the pen drive, but found no evidence under the MACC Act 2009.

 

Air India Found Wanting – Designing a Robust Fraud Prevention Program

Stelios Haji-Ioannou, founder of budget airline EasyJet once uttered the famous phrase “If you think safety is expensive, try an accident”. This was based upon his dire experience in 1991 when a tanker belonging to his father’s shipping company spilled 50,000 tonnes of oil in an environmental catastrophe that claimed five crew members’ lives. As chief executive, Stelios Haji-Ioannou barely escaped incarceration in Italy for manslaughter.

Likewise, any substantial business or organisation is tempting fate by failing to have a Robust Fraud Prevention Program in place. The risks may not be an oil spill but can be equally costly to the bottom line and damaging to the reputation of the business.

As an example for failing to have an adequate Fraud Prevention Program in place, the state owned airline Air India has recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons. Allegations of rampant theft, fraud and maladministration have been widely circulated. These have included tales of repeated thefts of liquor from flights, diversion of spare parts for illicit sales, kick-backs related to the orders of goods plus pilots being paid for duties not performed.

State owned Air India is now facing the reality of job cuts or cease flying certain routes. The failure by executives and management to inculcate an atmosphere of anti-corruption as well as implement an anti-fraud structure has set the scene for wide scale waste and theft.

Any company, institution or organisation –must create and implement a robust fraud prevention programs that is staffed and overseen by capable fraud examiners.

A fraud prevention program will help to protect a company or organisation by:

  1. Instituting a whistle-blower hotline whereby employees and contractors can make confidential tip-offs regarding fraudulent behaviour;
  2. Setting the principled “tone at the top” so that the whole business or organisation embodies the anti-fraud ethos;
  3. Developing a code of conduct and a confirmation process to structure anticipated behaviour for all personnel and contractors
  4. Creating an environment that ensures audit trails for purchase, orders etc. are in place;
  5. Hiring and promoting appropriate employees via a Pre-Employment Screening program;
  6. Instituting suitable anti-fraud and graft training programs;
  7. Identifying and measuring fraud risks;
  8. Implementing and monitoring internal controls;
  9. Having a strong and independent audit committee;
  10. Contracting independent external auditors;

Stopping fraud before it occurs is the ultimate goal of a successful fraud prevention and awareness program.

Hotlines Run Hot
Honest and responsible employees & contractors will utilise hotlines to report irregularities and suspicions anonymously without fear of retaliation. Anti-fraud surveys by the ACFE have reported that hotlines can cut an organization’s fraud losses by approximately up to one half.

An independent third-party vendor can set up whistle-blower hotlines; receive, screen and log confidential calls before passing along relevant information to investigative entities for their action.

Extra effort should be made to communicate the existence, contact channels and benefits of the hotline to all employees and contractors on a regular basis to report any suspect or improper business practices.

Three fraud mitigation actions
Fraud experts have outlined three main actions to mitigate fraud: create a culture of honesty and high ethics, evaluate anti-fraud processes and controls, and develop an appropriate ongoing oversight process.

Setting the Tone at the Top
A company or organisation’s executive and management team sets the moral and ethical direction for all employees and contractors to follow. Employees need to know that the upper echelons believe and submit to a high level of ethical behaviour. Management must clearly communicate a zero tolerance for fraud and the need to follow the pronouncement with education and awareness campaigns to reinforce policies and procedures.

Develop a Code of Conduct
The keystone of an effective fraud prevention program is a culture with a strong value system founded on integrity. This value system can be reflected in a code of conduct. The code of conduct should be created with the involvement and input of employees so that they can be guided whilst making appropriate decisions during their workday.

A code of conduct should include written standards that are designed to deter dishonest or immoral behaviour, promote honest and ethical conduct by all employees plus advise employees what they can and cannot do. The code of conduct should be provided in both a soft and hard copy to all employees, circulated regularly and translated into appropriate languages for overseas locations.

Confirmation Process
People with low integrity or external pressures may be deterred from committing fraud if they know that there is an oversight and confirmation process which increases the likelihood that they will be caught. After issuing the code of conduct to all employees, each should be required to sign a statement indicating that they have read and understood the code’s requirements and will comply with them. This will have the effect on those who have signed the statement can’t later hide behind the claim of ignorance.
Do you need to know more about our services and how Regents can assist you with preventing internal theft and corrupt activities?

Simply go to our Internal Theft or Corruption Investigation pages for our phone numbers or else send an email to contactus@regentsriskadvisory.com with your contact details and we will respond at once.

Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson resigns amid controversy over his resume

The spotlight has been brought to shine on the issue of executives lying in their resumes after allegations were levelled against Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson that he lied about his college degree. Research showed that in a series of published biographical statements going back some year, Scott Thompson claimed that he “holds a Bachelor’s degree in accounting and computer science” from Stonehill College, Boston.

However, it has come to light that Scott Thompson only holds a Degree in accounting. Following the disclosure, Yahoo issued a statement saying references to Thompson earning a computer science Degree were an “inadvertent error.”  If so, it’s an error that Thompson made repeatedly forsome years without being called out on. Yahoo took action to quickly strip all references to Thompson’s degree out of his official bio on Yahoo’s website.

Yahoo’s board responded by forming a special three-person committee to review Thompson’s academic credentials “as well as the facts and circumstances related to the review and disclosure of those credentials” in connection with his appointment as chief executive of Yahoo. Days later, Thompson stepped down as part of a shakeup at the top of the troubled Internet company.

All this has seriously hurt the reputation of Yahoo and diverted the board from rebuilding the company. The brand has been damaged and morale within Yahoo has most certainly suffered. Had a modicum of Pre Employment Screening been applied, this error would have been spotted and rectified before it managed to topple the Yahoo CEO.

This most recent incident of resume padding by an executive underlines the importance of conducting full and robust pre employment screening for all significant hires within a corporation or organisation. At best, this has damaged Yahoo in the short term, but the threat for derailing a business due to unqualified personnel undertaking crucial tasks is self evident.

Government run Queensland Health in Australia managed to hire a surgeon from the USA who had already been reprimanded by USA health authorities and barred from certain surgeries.  Dr Patel was convicted by a Queensland Court of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in gaol for the deaths of patients under his care. Some basic pre employment checking could have avoided the deaths and millions of dollars lost due to compensation, inquires and legal costs. A very painful lesson to learn.

To reduce the threat of resume padding and false claims made by candidates, it is strongly advised that all organisations should utilise Pre Employment Screening procedures.

PES is the abbreviation commonly used for `Pre Employment Screening’. PES generally refers to the process whereby a prospective employer arranges for information relating to a potential candidate to be checked and verified to confirm the suitability of the candidate for employment or as a contractor.

PES provides an objective assessment as to the potential candidate’s capacity and capability to undertake the duties & responsibilities as per their experience and qualifications. The prospective employer has the ability to assess whether the candidate has fully disclosed their attributes and or any negative incidents such as a bankruptcy record or having being terminated by a previous employer. Any false claims by the candidate as to education qualifications, previous employment or experience will be exposed.

Resume padding is also known as résumé fraud. A recent survey found that over 55 percent of hiring managers claim that they have caught a lie on a candidate’s application. Ninety-three percent of those hiring managers who spotted the lie did not hire the candidate because of it.

The top five ways candidates lie on their résumés are as follows:

1.    Lying about getting an education qualification

2.    Falsely claiming membership of a professional association

3.    Altering dates of employment to cover up periods of unemployment

4.    Lying about technical abilities

5.    Inflating job titles and position responsibilities

Below are some of the résumé padding adventures of top executives:

Ronald Zarrella, Bausch & Lomb chief executive officer
Zarrella falsely claimed an MBA from New York University’s Stern School of Business. He attended the program from 1972 to 1976, but never earned his MBA. His claim was never checked by his prior employers.

Richard Li Tzar Kai [younger son of Li Ka Shing] and Chairman of  Pacific Century CyberWorks Ltd.
The Pacific Century CyberWorks website claimed that Li “graduated from Stanford University with a degree in computer engineering.” Li actually left after three years without graduating.

Kenneth Lonchar, chief financial officer of Veritas software
Lonchar invented his education, claiming he earned an accounting degree from Arizona State University and was a Stanford MBA graduate — in fact, he simply held an undergraduate degree from Idaho State University.

The fallout was Lonchar resigned and Veritas stock price fell about 16 percent.

Are you seeking assistance with Pre Employment Screening of employees or contractors? If so, we at Regents can help you – just visit our Pre Employment Screening Webpage for further information

Major corruption payments to Singapore Ikea manager

 

A Singaporean businessman who paid an incredible SGD $2.4 million to Singapore Ikea’s food services manager over six years has pleaded guilty to 12 counts of corruption involving $761,020. Andrew Tee Fook Boon, owner of business AT35 Services, gave monthly bribes to Mr Chris Leng Kah Poh, then Ikano’s food services manager [Ikano is the local franchisee of Inter Ikea Systems B.V. which operates Ikea in Singapore.

The purpose of the payments was to influence Mr Chris Leng to favour him in placing orders for food products with AT35 and later Food Royale Trading.

Andrew Tee had been operating a scrap metal and waste material disposal business in 2002 when he accepted a business proposition to supply food – mostly raw marinated chicken wings – to Ikea. Yes, those chicken wings consumed by the plateful at Ikea Tampines and Alexandria with plenty of chilli sauce.

Between January 2003 and July 2009,  Tee and his alleged accomplice  Lim Kim Seng had on over 80 separate occasions, given Mr Leng sums of money derived from the profits made by AT and/or Food Royale from the business dealings with Ikea. Following the discovery of the fraud, Mr Tee paid $1 million compensation to Ikano. He could have been fined up to $100,000 and/or jailed for up to five years on each charge.

The fraud case is believed to be one of the biggest amounts involved in a private corruption case in recent years. The corrupt relationship existed from 2003 through to 2009 before being discovered.

Some commentators have questioned how the corrupt relationship was allowed to flourish and continue for such a long period and such large sums were paid to the Ikea manager without being detected.

Possible red flags that could have arisen and, had they been noted by Ikea management at the time, may have led to the corrupt relationship being exposed sooner include:

The Big Spender
The recipient of large corrupt cash payments resort to buying luxury items or else taking expensive holidays [though some chose to pay down debt and keep a low profile]

The Gift Taker
The manager who is willing to accept inappropriate or questionable gifts from suppliers is likely to succumb to corrupt approaches

The Rule Breaker
The recipient of corrupt payments will often take it upon himself to make decisions relating to the contract and payments and seek to exert total control. The recipient will merrily bend or break rules to suit himself or else have subordinates turn a blind eye. Some may involve themselves in areas that are not part of their responsibility and interfere in an attempt to control the contract.

The `Odd Couple’
Corrupt payers and recipients often appear to have friendly relations and meet up socially, though they don’t seem to make a normal fit. The lure of cash and profits outweighs the social awkwardness.

The Explainer
The corrupt receiver will frequently take steps to cover up any failings of the payer’s products or services; the receiver will explain away the poor quality, later delivery or excessive prices as necessary because the payer is `specially qualified’.

The Needy One
The corrupt receiver may have financial pressures resulting from gambling, substance abuse, debt problems or else family pressures. Observing these pressures may help pre-empt them and take away the need for corrupt payments.

Do you need to know more about our services and how Regents can assist you with preventing fraud and money laundering? Simply go to our Fraud Investigation page for further details and us send an email to contactus@regentsriskadvisory.com with your contact details and we will respond at once.

New Victorian anti workplace bullying laws

New laws under which workplace bullies will be imprisoned for up to 10 years have been welcomed by the family of a 19-year-old woman who committed suicide after being tormented by workmates.

The shocking suicide of Brodie Panlock, a 19 year old woman, in 2006 after suffering prolonged workplace bullying has been the catalyst to pass new workplace bullying laws in the state of Victoria. Brodie jumped to her death after she was victimised by colleagues at Cafe Vamp in Hawthorn over a long period.

Under proposed new laws, workplace bullies could be imprisoned for up to ten years. A Victorian government spokesperson said the Government’s amendments will add workplace and cyber bullying to Victoria’s Crimes Act.

The family of Brodie has lobbied government to seek to make workplace bullying the subject of criminal charges ion the future.  The Victorian Attorney-General agreed and said that “serious bullying was a serious crime” and should carry a significant jail term.

The ACTU [Australian Council of Trade Unions] President, Ged Kearney, said employers, governments and workers all shared a responsibility to make workplaces safe, secure and free of harassment.

“These laws will hopefully help deter people from undesired behavior but it shouldn’t suggest to employers that it’s no longer their job to provide a safe workplace for all employees,” Ms Kearney said.

Ms Kearney said she hoped that the increased penalties would deter all people from workplace bullying, but she wanted the Government to also send a strong message to employers that holding individual bullies to account would not absolve workplaces of their obligations.

It is anticipated that other states and territories governments across Australia will review their own work place bullying acts. This is likely to provoke companies and organizations to enhance their own anti bullying procedures to avoid the adverse publicity plus the likelihood that they took make be liable for increased fines or other regulatory punishments.

Therefore, it is recommended that all executive and management teams review their own anti bullying procedures [or check that they even have one] as soon as possible. These procedures should at least include the following:

  • Make sure that they have clear written rules and regulations indicating that workplace bullying or harassment is contravention of company policy and may lead to the suspension or expulsion of those found to have engaged in bullying
  • Ensure that all personnel undergo training and provided with an information package to inform all employees, contractors, managers and executives  to prevent, detect and report on any bullying activity
  • Arrange for follow up reminders on work place bullying at regular intervals, usually combined with other personal training
  • Appoint a responsible officer to administer and review the training and reporting of bullying – recording progress and making these figures available to senior management
  • Senior management should review all anti bullying programs annually for improvements and in response to any reported cases
  • The responsible officer should also focus special attention on those that may be more vulnerable to bullying activities such as new younger employees or new recruits
  • The anti workplace bullying stance should be connected to an effective whistleblower program so that any victims or witnesses can report their concerns anonymously if necessary
  • A qualified and experienced investigation team should be available to make rapid inquiries into the allegations should an offence take place or be reported
  • A suitable executive should be on hand to make a rapid decision such as suspension of alleged perpetrators to prevent the bullying continuing and the contamination of any witnesses or  evidence
  • Have legal counsel review the legal environment to ensure the program is complaint across all states and territories

Do you need to know more about our services and how Regents can assist you with anti bullying issues and whistleblower programs? Simply go to our Whistleblower Page for our phone numbers or else send an email to contactus@regentsriskadvisory.com with your contact details and we will respond at once.

Benefits of Pre Employment Screening

Pre Employment Screening is a term often talked about among management without the full benefits and controls that it can bring to bear on a business being appreciated and understood. The following is a Q & A format to explain the issues that Pre Employment Screening can treat.

What is PES?
PES is the abbreviation commonly used for `Pre Employment Screening’. PES generally refers to the process whereby a prospective employer arranges for information relating to a potential candidate to be checked and verified to confirm the suitability of the candidate for employment or as a contractor.

Why do companies use PES?
PES provides an objective assessment as to the potential candidate’s capacity and capability to undertake the duties & responsibilities as per their experience and qualifications. The prospective employer has the ability to assess whether the candidate has fully disclosed their attributes and or any negative incidents such as a bankruptcy record or having being terminated by a previous employer.

Which companies use PES?
Some companies are required to undertake mandatory PES by the government, such as banks and insurance companies. Others choose to do as a risk mitigation and management planning tool and cover a wide spectrum of industries from retail, transport, manufacturing to mining. Many not for profit agencies and other volunteer organisations also conduct PES on prospective employees to screen out unsuitable or undesirable candidates.

Isn’t PES a method used to `catch people out?’
This is a common misconception among some potential candidates. PES is directed at verifying the potential candidates claimed attributes and highlighting any inconsistencies between what is stated and what is found during the PES process. It is for the employer to assess the suitability of the candidate for the position based on a host of considerations.

So how does PES work?
The general approach is to have potential candidate supply personal information in writing which relates directly to their employment such as education attainment, working history, job experience, references from previous employers etc. This information is usually supplied by submitting a standard form and supplying copies of any qualifications such as a Degrees or membership of a professional society.

Next is the verification process. Armed with a consent release from the candidate, contact is made with the relevant education intuitions [universities, colleges, TAFE, high schools etc], former employers and references provided by the candidate to ascertain whether the claims made by the candidate are accurate and valid. A report is compiled detailing these findings and submitted to the requesting potential employer or organisation. Any discrepancies between what the candidate has submitted and what was discovered during the verification process are given a `red flag’ for the client to consider.

Is consent from the potential candidate required?
Many countries have some form of Data Privacy law that requires that the candidate must first provide written consent before these PES checks can be undertaken. Most institutions will require viewing a copy of the consent release signed by the candidate before disclosing any information.

What other kinds of things can be checks can be performed?
There are a variety of background checks which can be undertaken for a prospective candidate depending on the country where the candidate is located and to what the prospective employer wishes to check the background. These checks include the following:

  • Record of directorships or shareholdings in private companies
  • Bankruptcy record
  • Previous residential addresses
  • Civil litigation history
  • Media profile
  • Criminal record
  • Record of any regulatory agency actions

How focused is PES?
PES is as focused as the requesting company or organisation wants it to be. For example, a transportation company would think it crucial to confirm that a potential candidate for a driver position should have a clean driving licence, whilst a different firm engaging someone as a financial assistant may consider this check unnecessary. A qualified PES firm should be able to advice as to which checks are germane to the position which the candidate has applied for.

How many years does a PES check go?
Generally a PES check goes back between 5 and 10 years for previous employment whereas records such as bankruptcy and civil litigation can go back 20 years or more. With employee turnover increasing in most industries and companies merging or being bought out, employment records are difficult to obtain longer than 10 years back

How many days does PES check take?
The actual time will vary depending on the number of attributes to be verified, the location and the type of checks involved. Generally, a PES report can be completed within five days but some component checks can take longer to complete [e.g. criminal history checks].

But I heard that recruitment agencies do PES?
Not really, no. Some recruitment agencies do undertake some basic background checks to corroborate the candidate’s history but few recruitment agencies conduct what can be considered a thorough PES. Unlike a PES firm, recruitment agencies are looking to fill a vacancy and focus on selecting a candidate.

What are the downsides to PES?
Very little. Other than having to pay a small fees for the PES check and a slight delay between choosing a candidate and having them confirmed as being suitable.

Compare with this the risks and damage caused when hiring the wrong or inappropriate candidate. The direct costs can include the waste spent on the recruitment and training of the person, costs and difficulties with terminating their employment and possible damages claims.

However, the risks can be even more severe than this including damage to the company’s brand or share price plus the machinations of deposing of an unsuitable employee when they hold a more senior role. Compensation paid to wronged parties can quickly escalate and there are multiple examples of how much harm a rogue employee can cause an organisation – examples include Dr Jayant Patel hired by Queensland Health as surgeon despite being restricted from certain operations by the State of Oregon, USA and New Zealand chief scientist Stephen Wilce having falsified his resume. A standard PES check should have raised these red flags prior to them being hired and causing harm and damage to the reputation of the organisations involved.

PES is recognised as an integral first step for anti fraud measures protecting an organisation. By screening any prospective employee or contractor the organisation can save itself some serious grief in the future. On occasions this first step of PES will ward off potential fraudsters / under achievers simply by demonstrating that the organisation takes PES serious. We have had instances whereby applicants have declined to submit their details and walk away – possibly an indication that they will move on and try to join an organisation that isn’t so particular.

Are you seeking assistance with Pre Employment Screening of employees or contractors? If so, we at Regents can help you – just visit our Pre Employment Screening Webpage for further information

More employees terminated for FaceBook postings

The divide between work place responsibilities and private time has become further blurred as employees’ FaceBook and other online postings are being monitored by their bosses. The number of terminations of employees for their inappropriate postings is expected to grow as more teenagers who have grown up on social networking move into the workforce. They have different views on what can be texted and posted in public.

Some of these employee terminations have been highlighted in the media after the terminated employee has contested the decision at employment tribunals. However, most of the decisions have gone against the employees, including:

  • A barman who was on two days sick leave over New Year posted photos of himself celebrating the New Year with friends. The boss saw the photos online and terminated him despite the barman having a medical certificate
  • A new clerical employee griping that the work was dull and mundane. A supervisor spotted the online comments on FaceBook and she was terminated

These incidents suggest that employers are beginning to pay serious attention to what their employees do and write online. A study by Proofpoint, an Internet security firm in the US, found that 17 percent of medium to large size companies in the US reported having issues with employee’s use of social media. 8 percent of these companies reported having terminated employees for their online behaviour on sites such as FaceBook and LinkedIn.

Other findings of note from the study showed that:

  • 15 percent of surveyed companies have disciplined an employee for violating multimedia sharing / posting policies
  • 13 percent of surveyed US companies investigated an exposure event involving mobile or Web-based short message services
  • 17 percent of surveyed companies disciplined an employee for violating blog or message board policies

With the advent of sites such as Wikileaks exposing thousands of confidential messages between US diplomats, we have to recognise that there is a possibility that sometime in the future our own emails, reports, photos or postings may become public. In an effort to avoid an embarrassing or career jarring incident, it is advisable to:

  • Be aware that any messages or reports created during worktime is behind the corporate firewall and there’s a good chance that anything you do write is being logged or monitored
  • Keep your comments general and do not divulge any corporate information or personal likes / dislikes which you wouldn’t discuss openly at work
  • Remember that others may retweet your comments or post photos without your knowledge [or permission] so keep the common sense flowing when you post.

Are you seeking assistance with an Employee Misconduct matter or computer misuse problem? If so, we at Regents can help you – just visit our Employee Misconduct Webpage for further information