Six people, including a former senior entrepreneurship official at Hong Kong’s Cyberport, have been charged over an alleged bribery and fraud scheme involving about HK$20 million in government technology subsidies. Investigators allege that the group used false information about small and medium sized enterprises to secure funding through the Digital Transformation Support Pilot Programme.
The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) brought charges against Alice So Nga-lai, 59, who was Head of Entrepreneurship at Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited, and Viola Lam Yuen-lee, 39, the sole proprietor of Find Solution Ai Limited. The case also involves Lam’s younger brother, Paul Lam Kin-ho, 35, who worked as the company’s secretary, and three vendors linked to the business: Daniel Lee, Chan Hoi-tsun and Tsang Wai-ping, aged between 31 and 52.
The allegations centre on two suspected offences: bribery involving a public servant and a conspiracy to defraud Cyberport through subsidy applications. The ICAC alleges that the scheme involved at least 400 applications and led to the approval and payment of around HK$20 million in public funding.
Former Cyberport official faces bribery charge
So faces one count of accepting an advantage as a public servant. Lam is charged with one count of offering an advantage to a public servant. Lam and the other four defendants, excluding So, also face one count of conspiracy to defraud.
According to the allegations, Lam provided gifts to So in return for remaining favourably disposed towards Find Solution when the company submitted applications under the subsidy programme. The alleged gifts included several return air tickets between Hong Kong and Thailand and Japan, branded handbags and a smartphone.
The bribery allegations also concern how complaints about Find Solution were handled and how quickly subsidy payments were processed. The ICAC investigation alleges that So accepted bribes in exchange for curtailing the investigation of complaints against the company and expediting the release of approved subsidies.
These are allegations made in the case, not findings of guilt. The charges will need to be tested through the judicial process, and the defendants are entitled to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Alleged scheme involved hundreds of applications
The conspiracy charge focuses on claims that the defendants misrepresented the circumstances behind applications submitted to Cyberport. The ICAC alleges that the group falsely presented various small and medium sized enterprises as having applied for subsidies, engaged Find Solution to provide services and paid half of the relevant service fees.
Under the alleged arrangement, these representations were intended to persuade Cyberport to approve the applications and pay the remaining half of the service fees through the programme. Investigators say the arrangement involved at least 400 applications and approximately HK$20 million in subsidies.
The alleged conduct raises questions about the checks used to verify applicants, confirm that services were genuinely commissioned and establish whether businesses had met the programme’s requirements. Subsidy schemes rely on accurate declarations from applicants and service providers, as well as effective review by the bodies responsible for approving public money.
However, the charges alone do not establish that every application was fraudulent or that all the defendants played the same role. The court process will determine which allegations, if any, can be proved against each individual.
Find Solution and its vendors named in case
Lam, as the sole proprietor of Find Solution Ai Limited, is accused of offering an advantage to So and participating in the alleged conspiracy. Her brother, Paul Lam, is also charged in connection with the alleged conspiracy. The three vendors named in the case are Daniel Lee, Chan Hoi-tsun and Tsang Wai-ping.
The prosecution alleges that the defendants worked together to submit or support applications containing false representations about the participating businesses and their use of Find Solution’s services. The alleged plan was designed to obtain subsidy payments from Cyberport by presenting applications as meeting the programme’s conditions.
The available allegations do not establish the precise role attributed to each vendor in every application. The prosecution will need to present evidence connecting the defendants to the alleged scheme and showing how the applications were prepared, supported or submitted.
The scale cited by investigators, at least 400 applications and around HK$20 million, indicates the breadth of the suspected activity. The court proceedings are expected to address the evidence supporting the charges, including the alleged false declarations, service fee arrangements and interactions between So and Lam.
Bail granted as case adjourned to January 2027
No pleas were entered when the case came before the court. The proceedings were adjourned to January 4, 2027, and the defendants were granted bail ranging from HK$20,000 to HK$100,000.
Their bail conditions include travel restrictions and a prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses. Such conditions are intended to ensure that defendants attend future hearings and do not interfere with witnesses while proceedings continue.
The adjournment means the case will return to court in January. Until then, the defendants remain subject to their bail conditions, and the allegations remain matters for the court to determine.
Why oversight of technology subsidies matters
The Digital Transformation Support Pilot Programme is intended to support eligible small and medium sized enterprises in adopting digital solutions. When public funding is distributed through service providers, the process depends on clear eligibility rules, accurate records and checks that confirm services were actually purchased and delivered.
Allegations of false applications can therefore affect more than the individuals and companies named in a prosecution. If public funds are approved on the basis of inaccurate information, money may be diverted from businesses that meet the programme’s requirements. Investigations can also lead to greater scrutiny of how applications are assessed, how service fees are documented and how complaints are handled.
The ICAC’s allegations concerning the handling of complaints are particularly significant because oversight depends on concerns being assessed independently and promptly. Any claim that an official accepted benefits to influence those processes must be examined through evidence, not assumption. The court will need to assess the alleged gifts, the claimed understanding between the parties and the connection between those allegations and the subsidy decisions.
For businesses using government support programmes, the case also serves as a reason to keep clear records of applications, contracts, invoices, service delivery and payments. Applicants should ensure that all declarations reflect genuine transactions and that they understand the conditions attached to public funding.
The next scheduled court date is January 4, 2027. As proceedings continue, what evidence will emerge about the alleged applications, the service fee arrangements and the conduct attributed to each defendant?