PROJECT REPORT

ON
WHISTLEBLOWING

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. DEFINITION
3. HISTORY
4. EVOLUTION
5. WHO IS WHISTLEBLOWER
6. EXERCISES OF WHISTLEBLOWING IN CORPORATE SECTOR
7. SWOT ANALYSIS
8. FAMOUS WHISTLEBLOWERS
9. FAMOUS WHISTLEBLOWERS IN INDIA
10. HOW TO BLOW THE WHISTLE
11. WHISTLEBLOWER TYPES
12. WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
13. BARRIERS
14. PROCEDURES
15. FOCAL AREAS FOR A PERSON
16. COMPONENTS OF EFFECTIVE WHISTLEBLOWING POLICY
17. IS WHISTLEBLOWING ETHICAL
18. 2G SPECTRUM SCAM
19. BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS
20. ARWIND KEJRIWAL CASE STUDY
21. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
22. RANBAXY CASE STUDY
23. SATYAM FRAUD CASE
24. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
25. LATEST NEWS
26. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to place my sincere thanks to all those persons who helped me in completing my
seminar report successfully.
I am highly indebted to Mrs. Azizinder Kaur Sekhon for giving her precious advice as & when I
needed as well as giving me her valuable time and expertise guidance at every step of my
dissertation Report.
Lastly I owe my report success to my parents who always motivated me throughout my seminar
report & to my college Librarians, my seniors, friends for helping me in my seminar and thankful
to all the person, who directly or indirectly helped me in accomplishing my dissertation report.

SHIVANI BANSAL

Introduction

We live in a complex world. Every day, decisions are made that can affect our health, safety,
economic and human rights. Some of these decisions are made for the worst of reasons. They are
made by the corrupt, the incompetent or the lazy. Accidents happen or corruption flourishes
because employees who know about wrongdoing are afraid to say anything in fear of losing their
jobs.
There has been a substantial increase in the recognition of the importance of whistleblowing as a
means of reducing corruption and dangerous situations by improving the disclosure of
information about illegal, dangerous or unethical activities by government and private
organisations. It can also be a means of improving the internal organisational culture of
organisations in both the public and private sector to prevent or reveal mistakes and accidents
and improve internal management and efficiency.
Around the world, whistleblowers have been hailed as heroes for revealing corruption and fraud
in organisations and preventing potentially harmful mistakes from leading to disasters.
Over 50 countries have now adopted specific whistleblower protections. Others have adopted
protections through other laws such labour laws or public sector employment rules. Only a
handful of countries have adopted comprehensive whistleblowing laws. These have two major
themes - a proactive part which attempts to change the culture of organizations by making it
acceptable and facilitating the disclosure of information on negative activities in the organisation
such as corrupt practices and mismanagement and a second aspect made up of a series of
protections and incentives for people to come forward without fear of being sanctioned for their
disclosures.
It is difficult to say if these laws are working. Most are too narrow, only applying to the public
sector or certain types of wrongdoing. There is considerable evidence in most countries that
retaliation against whistleblowers regularly occurs and that many workers concerns about it
persuade them to keep silent. However, there is some positive news. Whistleblowers are also
being seen in a more positive light and there is a possible positive culture shift in seeing them
more as an important part of fighting corruption and preventing mismanagement, abuses and
accidents.

DEFINITION
Whistleblowing has many different facets. Among other things, it can be an act of free speech, an
anti-corruption
tool,
and
an
internal
management
dispute
mechanism.The disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private e
nterprise, to the public or to those in authority, ofmismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some
other wrongdoing.

This has led to a number of different definitions.

1.One of the first modern uses was by US consumer activist Ralph Nader in 1971 who described
it as An act of a man or woman who, believing that the public interest overrides the interest of
the organization he serves, blows the whistle that the organization is involved in corrupt, illegal,
fraudulent or harmful activity.
2.US academics Marcia P. Miceli and Janet P. Near set the academic standard for whistleblowing
in 1982 as the disclosure of organizational members (former or current) disclosure of illegal,
immoral or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers to persons or organizations
that may be able to effect action.They describe whistleblowing as a four state process:
A triggering event occurs, involving questionable, unethical, or illegal activities, and this leads
an employee to consider blowing the whistle.
Second, the employee engages in decision making, assessing the activity and whether it
involves wrongdoing, gathering additional information, and discussing the situation with others.
Third, the employee exercises voice by blowing the whistle; alternatively, the employee could
exit the organization, or remain silent out of loyalty or neglect.
Fourth, organization members react to, and possibly retaliate against the whistleblower.
Other academics have focused on whistleblowing as mostly an element of free speech and the
right of individuals to express dissent. Australian academic Peter Jubb defines it as being
necessarily a public action:
Whistleblowing is a deliberate non-obligatory act of disclosure, which gets onto public record
and is made by a person who has or had privileged access to data or information of an
organisation, about non-trivial illegality or other wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or
anticipated which implicates and is under the control of that organisation, to an external entity
having potential to rectify the wrongdoing.
A pair of the leading experts in the field, Guy Dehn from the UKs Public Concern at Work and
Richard Calland of the South African Open Democracy Advice Centre, describe it as:
The options available to an employee to raise concerns about workplace wrongdoing. It refers to
the disclosure of wrongdoing that threatens others, rather than a personal grievance.
Whistleblowing covers the spectrum of such communications, from raising the concern with
managers, with those in charge of the organisation, with regulators, or with the public the
purpose is not the pursuit of some private vendetta but so that risk can be assessed and, where
appropriate, reduced or removed.

EVOLUTION

The Government of India has been considering adopting a whistleblower protection law for
several years. In 2003, the Law Commission of India recommended the adoption of the Public
Interest Disclosure (Protection of Informers) Act, 2002. In August 2010, the Public Interest
Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was introduced into the
Lok Sabha, lower house of the Parliament of India. The Bill was approved by the cabinet in June,
2011. The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill,
2010 was renamed as The Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 by the Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. The Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 was
passed by the Lok Sabha on 28 December 2011. The Bill is however currently pending in the
upper house of Parliament, Rajya Sabha for discussion and further passage. The Bill was
introduced in Rajya Sabha on 29 March 2012 by V. Narayanasamy, Minister of State for
Parliamentary Affairs. As of December 2013, India does not have a law to protect
whistleblowers; however, The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the
Disclosures Bill, 2010 was approved by the Cabinet of India as part of a drive to eliminate
corruption in the country's bureaucracy and Passed by Lok Sabha.Whistleblower protection
refers to laws and policies meant to protect anyone who exposes alleged wrongdoing. The
wrongdoing might take the form of fraud, corruption or mismanagement.

HISTORY
In the United States, whistleblowers attained their first protections in 1863, under the False
Claims Act. The purpose of the act was to bring to light fraud by government suppliers.
Whistleblowers received a portion of the funds recovered by the government.
In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act enhanced these initiatives in order to prevent more large-scale
business failures, such as Enron and Worldcom. Those who reported improper acts were
protected from dismissal or other reprisals by their employers. Publicly-traded companies were
required to set up internal procedures to allow employees direct and confidential access to the
company's audit committee, and outlined the steps the committee was required to take to
investigate and remedy the issues.
In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act increased both
incentives and shielding for whistleblowers working for companies that report to the Securities
Exchange Commission.

WHO IS WHISLEBLOWER?
Any person who blow a whistle and inform to public or concerned person of any of inappropriate
activity going on inside the organization. He could be an employee or any person who is insider
or outsider of an organization. Anyone can raise a voice if any illegal or inappropriate activity
going on inside the organization. If person is a inside whistleblower than he has to report directly

to Chief executive officer or any of concerned authority or if he is an outsider than he must be

reported to the media, enforcement agencies of public interest groups.

EXERCISES OF WHISTLEBLOWING IN CORPORATE SECTOR

1.The Wipro Company has adopted an Ombuds process policy where in it has established
procedures for receiving, retaining and treating complaints received, and procedures for the
confidential and anonymous submission by employees of complaints regarding possible
violations of the code of conduct and ethics. Under this policy, Wipro employees are encouraged
to report questionable accounting matters, any reporting of fraudulent financial or other
information to the stakeholders, any conduct that results in violation of the company's code of
business conduct and ethics, to management (on an anonymous basis, if employees so desire).
Likewise, under this policy, the company has prohibited discrimination, retaliation or harassment
of any kind against any employees who, based on the employee's reasonable belief that such
conduct or practice have occurred or are occurring, reports that information or participates in the
investigation.
2.Tata Motors Whistle Blower Policy has been formulated with a view to provide a mechanism
for employees of the Company to approach the Ethics Counsellor/ Chairman of the
AuditCommittee of the Company if they found any irregularity going on. The audit committee
will investigate the matter as a neutral fact finding process. The outcome of the investigation
may not support the conclusion of the Whistle blower. The identity of Whistle Blower will be
kept confidential and give him all legal protection. The investigation will be done by the
committee in 45 days. After investigation, committee will disclose its result with investigation
report and report shall be kept by the company for a minimum period of 7 years.
3.The Steel Authority of India Limited, whistle Blower policy provide safeguard for the
protection of employees from reprisal or victimization. SAIL decided to follow the Whistle
Blower Policy of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). So, CVC will received complain and
then forwarded to organization for investigation. CVC will not disclose the identity of informant.
The commission shall be authorized to call upon CBI or police authority as need arises. If
commission thought about legal protection to informant than they will approach to concerned
government authorities.
4.Reliance Industries Limited recognizes that issues concerning such breaches can sometimes be
extremely sensitive and it's vital to deter employees from open communication on it. Company
has also mentioned in their policy without sufficient evidence of misconduct, employee can file
report. If any employee has reasons to believe that any employee of Reliance has displayed
inconsistent behavior. Then, he has inform to Ethics office and can handover facts which support
to complain. The Ethics office will acknowledge receipt of the report/ complain. The office will
investigate the matter and they have right to involve any other investing agency. The
investigation will be completed in not more than 90 days. If investigation concluded that it is

really breach of code, the ethics office will take immediate action against it. The Ethics Office
will maintain a log of all cases whether or not accused found guilty. The log and copies of related
documents will be retained in organization for a period of 2 years.
5.Tata Consultancy Service has a Whistle Blower Policy, with the necessary mechanism for
employees to directly without fear of reprisal or victimization, report concerns about unethical
behavior. If an employee wishes to 'blow the whistle' in the matter of a significant dishonesty or
other inappropriate behavior in TCS or any other Tata Company, he or she can make 'protected
disclosures' directly to the highest authority for this purpose, namely, the Chairman of the Audit
Committee who is a member of the Board of Directors of TCS. This policy protects the rights of
the employees who make protected disclosures to the Company. In FY 2006/07, one case under
this policy was reported; the Audit committee closed this case after a detailed investigation.

SWOT ANALYSIS OF WHISTLEBLOWER

S - He was a ethical and robust person who had the confidence to rise voice against unethical and
wrong activities in the company.
W He perceived the things so quickly and took action on it , he also became greedy for money.
O He had the opportunity to stop the company from involving in unethical or illegal activity
and get a big amount of money.
T He will never be appointed by any other company in future.

FAMOUS WHISTLEBLOWERS
Many seemingly ordinary people have left a lasting mark for speaking up and blowing the
whistle on various corporate and governmental wrongs. Below is a list of some of these
courageous individuals, and a brief explanation of what they did.

Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)

Robert Rudolph (Eli Lilly)

John Kopchinski (Pfiser)

Jeffery Wigand (Big Tobacco)

Frederic Whitehurst (FBI)

Bunnatine Greenhouse (Haliburton)

Cynthia Cooper (WorldCom)

Sherron Watkins (Enron)

JULIAN ASSANGE- Julian Assange is the founder and editor-in-chief of Wikileaks. Since
2006, Wikileaks has published anonymous submissions of documents from whistleblowers,
including material about:

Extrajudicial killings in Kenya

Toxic waste dumping in Cte d'Ivoire

Church of Scientology manuals

Guantanamo Bay procedures

Banks such as Kaupthing and Julius Baer

Iraq and Afghanistan War documents about American involvement in the wars

U.S. diplomatic cables

Assange and his Wikileaks organization helped to expose questionable activities occurring
throughout the world, thus blowing the whistle on wrongdoing and providing information and a
more transparent look at government to the public.
ROBERT RUDOLPH- In 2009, healthcare whistleblower Robert Rudolph filed a qui tam
lawsuit against Eli Lilly for illegally marketing the drug Zyprexa for uses not approved by the
FDA notably, the treatment of dementia in the elderly. Eli Lilly pled guilty to actively
promoting Zyprexa for off-label uses
JOHN KPCHINSKI- John Kpchinski worked as a Pfizer sales representative. His 2009 qui tam
lawsuit launched a massive government investigation into Pfizers illegal and dangerous
marketing of Bextra, a prescription painkiller.
JEFFERY WIGAND- Jeffery Wigand is the former executive of Brown & Williamson who
exposed his companys practice of intentionally manipulating the effect of nicotine in cigarettes
to the television program 60 Minutes.Wigand is known as the man who blew the whistle on Big
Tobacco, almost single-handedly revealing the health dangers of smoking to the public.

FREDERIC WHITEHURST- During the 1990s, Frederic Whitehurst was a chemist and
explosives residue expert at the FBI crime lab. Whitehurst became the first modern-day FBI
whistleblower when he reported a lack of scientific standards and serious flaw in the FBI lab that
affected findings in such high-profile cases as the first World Trade Center bombing and the
Oklahoma City bombing.
BUNNATINE GREENHOUSE- Bunnatine Greenhouse is the former chief civilian contracting
officer for the United States Army Corps of Engineers who blew the whistle on the defense
contracting company Halliburton. In 2005, Greenhouse testified before Congress, citing specific
instances of defense contracting waste, fraud, and irregularities by Halliburton, including the
corporations granting of no-bid contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
CYNTHIA COOPER- Cynthia Cooper is a corporate whistleblower who formerly served as the
Vice President of internal audit at WorldCom. WorldCom had been using fraudulent accounting
methods to hide its declining earnings in order to maintain the price of its stock.
SHERRON WATKINS- Sherron Watkins is a corporate whistleblower, and the former Watkins
became an internal whistleblower when she wrote a concerned internal email message to Enron
CEO Kenneth Lay discussing misstatements in financial reports and warning him of potential
whistleblowers in the company. Five months later, the email went public, exposing Enrons
illegal financial practices.Watkins would later testify against Enron before committees of the
U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

FAMOUS WHISTLEBLOWERS IN INDIA

VIBHISHAN- Younger brother of the king of Lanka,Ravana,informs Ram about the wherabouts
of Sita,joins Ram's army and fights against Ravana.
SATYENDRA DUBEY- Satyendra Dubey (1973-2003) was a project director at the National
Highways Authority of India (NHAI).Spots huge financial irregularities in handling of GQ
project.Sends an anonymous letter to the PMO with a separate CV attached telling the PM how
many contractors had "submitted forged documents to justify their technical and financial
capabilities" to win bids for the contract.Requests PM not to reveal his identity.Letter is
forwarded along with the CV to the Ministry of Road,Transport and Highways.On Nov
27,2002,Shot dead in Gaya. Case is presented as that of robbery by CBI.
SHANMUGAM MANJUNATH- Shanmugam Manjunath (19782005) was a marketing
manager (grade A officer) for the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) who was murdered for sealing a
corrupt petrol station in Lakhimpur Kheri, UP. This incident inspired several students at IIM, IIT
and other institutes culminating with the IIM students setting up the "The Manjunath
Shanmugam Trust".

LALIT MEHTA- Lalit Mehta (19722008) was an Indian RTI activist, who was killed brutally
near Palamau on May 14, 2008.A civil engineer by qualification, Lalit, 36, blew the lid off
widespread corruption in NREGS in Palamu.He had become a threat to the contractor lobby and
corrupt government officials. Social audit of NREGA he undertook under economist Jean
Dreze's supervision was proving to be the final nail in the coffin of the contractor lobby. But he
was killed just a day before that.The Chhatarpur Police found his body at Kandaghati in
Chhatarpur on May 15. His mutilated body and a belt around his neck suggested he was
strangled and his face smashed to deform it beyond recognition. The police buried the body as
unidentified the same day. It was later exhumed by his colleagues and taken to his native village,
where his last rites were performed.
SASEENDRAN- Saseendran had written to the Chief Minister, the Industries Minister and the
Vigilance Director about rampant corruption in the loss-making company, where he had worked
for 12 years. He alleged that the managing director's secretary, P Suryanarayanan, was leaking
vital company information outside.Five days later, however, he wrote to them again, regretting
he had raised such allegations.The following month, he quit.Family sources say Saseendran had
been forced to withdraw his initial allegations.In 2007, an audit report had found that the firm
had lost Rs 400 crore in corrupt deals since 2001. Vigilance authorities registered 11 cases, with
Saseendran as the prime witness in four of these. In fact, his death came a week after Vigilance
submitted the charge-sheet in a case involving the loss of Rs 16 crore.
Subramaniam swamy- In November 2008, Subramanian Swamy amongst others wrote the first
of five letters to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking permission to prosecute A. Raja in
regard to the 2G spectrum scam. However, Singh took no action,leading Swamy to file a case on
his own in the Supreme Court of India regarding the matter, which then asked the Central Bureau
of Investigation to produce a detailed report on it.He further called on the Indian government to
re-auction the 2G spectrum without the involvement of Communications Minister Kapil Sibal.
Subramanian Swamy demanded that an independent committee should be formed to check
the security and safety of the Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) to avoid any rigging or
tampering. He argued that countries like US, Japan, UK, Germany and Netherlands have
abandoned EVMs and are using paper-ballot system and demanded that a printed receipt should
be given to every voter after casting the vote.He is the founder and chairperson of Action
Committee Against Corruption in India (ACACI). ACACI's goal is to take specific action against
corruption at very high places of government and Indian black money stashed abroad.

HOW TO BLOW THE WHISTLE

1.DO IT ANONYMOUSLY- let the evidence speak for itself and protect yourself f possible.
2.DO IT IN A GROUP- charges have more weight and wont seem like a personal vendetta.

3.PRESENT JUST THE EVIDENCE- leave interpretation of facts to others.

4.WORK THROUGH INTERNAL CHANNELS- start with your immediate supervisor or
follow the standard reporting procedure.
5.WORK THROUGH EXTERNAL CHANNELS-go public(biggest risk)

WHISTLEBLOWER TYPES
Fraud against the government can occur in nearly any industry, corporation, government, or
organization. Fortunately, individuals from many different backgrounds can blow the whistle to
help bring an end to these destructive practices. There are many different types of
whistleblowers, and laws that specifically protect them, including:

Corporate Whistleblowers

Defense Contractor Whistleblowers

Faulty Products Whistleblowers

FCPA Whistleblowers

FDA Whistleblowers

Government Whistleblowers

Healthcare Fraud Whistleblowers

IRS Whistleblowers

Medicare Fraud Whistleblowers

Nursing Home Whistleblowers

OSHA Whistleblowers

SEC Whistleblowers

We have substantial experience in handling whistleblower lawsuits in all of these fields, and are
well-equipped to provide excellent representation in your whistleblower claim.
CORPORATE WHISTLEBLOWERS

There are many actions corporate whistleblowers can help prevent, stop, or correct. Corporate
waste, fraud, abuse and corruption are problems that too often occur even at the highest levels of
corporate management. By becoming a corporate whistleblower, you can protect hardworking
taxpayers from paying the price for corporate greed.
Common fraudulent practices within corporations include:

Fraud in the reporting of quarterly profits, or liabilities

Engaging in high-risk accounting procedures

Misleading the board of directors or shareholders

Fraud in reporting costs/expenses/corruption

Corporate waste or mismanagement

Corporate tax fraud

Corporate wage and hour abuse of its employees

DEFENSE CONTRACTING FRAUD

In addition to healthcare fraud, defense contracting fraud is one of the biggest areas for False
Claims Act litigation today. With the United States spending billions of dollars to fund the War
on Terror, opportunity for defense contractors to defraud the government is high. This type of
fraudulent activity not only cheats taxpayers, but puts our troops and our security at risk.
Common fraudulent practices in defense contracting include:

Over charging

Defective pricing schemes

Substituting inferior parts

Failure to adhere to specifications, testing, or quality control procedures

Violations of Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), which requires a contractor to truthfully

disclose all relevant costs and provide a certification to the government

Intentionally inflating costs

Falsely accepting minority contracting set-asides

FAULTY PRODUCT WHISTLEBLOWERS

The False Claims Act protects against businesses that fail to test a product as required by
government specifications or that sell defective products. The whistleblower provision of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 provides additional protection against
retaliation from their employers when reporting defective and hazardous consumer goods.
Common areas in which people have blown the whistle on faulty products include:

Vehicle defects

Medical products

Construction materials

Common consumer products

Toxic exposure

Safety should never be compromised just so greedy corporations can make a profit or avoid an
expense..
FCPA WHISTLEBLOWERS
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) prevents individuals or corporations from bribing
foreign officials to assist in gaining or maintaining business. The anti-bribery provisions of the
FCPA prohibit:

Making an offer

Making a payment

Promising to pay

Authorizing the payment of money or anything of value

in order to:

Influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity

Induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty

Secure any improper advantage in obtaining or retaining business

FDA WHISTLEBLOWERS
Fraud committed by pharmaceutical companies has been a common type of False Claim Act
violation in recent years. Oftentimes, pharmaceutical companies disregard Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulations in pursuit of higher sales.
The FDA determines which medical problems medications may be used to treat. Uses approved
by the FDA are known as the drugs label. Though doctors may prescribe a drug for treatment
of a different medical condition, known as off-label use, pharmaceutical companies cannot
legally market or promote their drugs for any use other than that approved by the FDA.
Additionally, violations of FDA regulations can occur in-house. Bribery, bending to political
pressure, or mismanagement can all create substantial dangers to public health or safety.
GOVERNMENT WHISTLEBLOWERS
The broadest protection for government whistleblowers comes from the Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978 and the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act. To prevent whistleblower retaliation,
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 established the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to help
eliminate fraud, waste, abuse and unnecessary Government expenditures. Whistleblowers can
file a prohibited personnel practices (PPP) complaint with the OSC to report wrongdoing
within the government.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was further strengthened by the Whisteblower Protection
Act of 1989. These Acts provide protection to whistleblowers by:

Mandating that employees not suffer adverse consequences as a result of PPP

Establishing the OSC to protect and act in the interest of employees who seek assistance

Prohibiting disclosure of the identity of whistleblowers by the OSC, except when

necessary to prevent imminent danger or criminal activity

Establishing compensation for whistleblowers who win their cases to prevent delays
while appellate court reviews are pending

HEALTHCARE WHISTLEBLOWERS
Health care fraud has become one of the most common areas for False Claims Act litigation,
representing over 60% of the cases filed. Healthcare fraud can take many different forms, with
targets ranging from hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, clinical labs,
insurers, and the Medicare program.
There are an immense number of fraudulent healthcare practices. Some common fraudulent
healthcare schemes include, but are not limited to:

Charging for services not provided

Claiming services provided were more intense and expensive than they actually were
(known as upcoding)

Furnishing medically unnecessary services

Lying to the government about the cost of treating Medicare and Medicaid patients

Bribing or providing kickbacks to induce referrals

Running unnecessary lab tests

Billing at doctor rates for work that was actually conducted by a nurse or resident intern

Prescribing a medicine or treatment in order to win kickbacks from hospitals, labs, or

pharmaceutical companies

Health insurers wrongfully discouraging high risk individuals from seeking Medicaid
coverage

Medicare fraud

IRS WHISTLEBLOWERS
The IRS deals with underpaid taxes or neglected fees owed to the government. Modeled after the
False Claims Act, the Tax Relief and Health Act of 2006 provides individuals who report
companies or wealthy individuals engaged in tax fraud the same reward as other types of
whistleblower cases. Tax fraud whistleblowers may be rewarded 15% to 30% of the amount the
IRS collects as a result of information about tax fraud provided to the IRS.

To qualify:

The tax fraud or underpayments must exceed $2 million (including tax, penalties, and
interest)

The annual income of an individual committing tax fraud must exceed $200,000

In order to obtain a reward/full reward value, the whistleblower must not have initiated or
planned the tax fraud, and his or her allegations should not have been previously
disclosed.

MEDICARE WHISTLEBLOWERS
Companies in the healthcare industry regularly submit false claims to Medicare, making these
types whistleblower lawsuits some of the most common filed under the False Claims Act. Not
only are they common, but Medicare whistleblower cases have also resulted in some of the
biggest rewards for whistleblowers.
The ways people or companies cheat Medicare are numerous, but some common examples
include:

Billing Medicare for services that are never given to patients

Up-coding, or changing the code used to bill Medicare to reflect that a more expensive
procedure was performed

Unbundling, or separating billing for multiple procedures instead of placing them in a

group with a lower rate

Billing Medicare for drugs, services or procedures that are not medically necessary

Submitting fraudulent cost reports to Medicare to gain greater government

reimbursement

NURSING HOME WHISTLEBLOWERS

Oftentimes, Medicare fraud can occur in nursing homes, where patients or caregivers are less
likely to notice or report wrongdoing. Common fraudulent activities in nursing homes may
include:

Not providing healthcare, but charging for it

Neglecting to update patient care plans when called for

Overcharging or double-billing for medical care or services

Getting kickbacks for referrals to other providers or for prescribing certain drugs

Overmedicating or undermedicating

Recommending fraudulent remedies for illnesses or other medical conditions

Medicaid fraud

OSHA WHISTLEBLOWERS
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, employers have the responsibility to:

Provide a workplace that is free from serious hazards

Follow all OSHA safety and health standards

Correct safety and health problems

Eliminate or reduce hazards by making changes in working conditions, beyond solely

relying on personal protective equipment

SEC WHISTLEBLOWERS
In the wake of the headlining corporate scandals of the early 2000s and the late 2000s recession,
the Dodd-Frank Act was passed in 2010 to implement financial regulatory reform. The DoddFrank Act contains legislation that provides for whistleblower incentives and protection similar
to the False Claims Act in regard to the reporting of securities laws violations to the Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC). In short, the Dodd-Frank Act provides additional safeguards for
corporate whistleblowers.

WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
Thinking about blowing the whistle on fraud? There are many different state and federal laws
offering special protections and incentives for whistleblowers. The links below offer overviews
of some prevalent whistleblower laws to help you gain a better understanding of your rights as a
whistleblower.

Whistleblower Protection Act

Whistleblower Retaliation

Federal Whistleblower Laws

State Whistleblower Laws

Bribery Act

False Claims Act

Dodd-Frank Act

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT

The Whistleblower Protection Act prevents agencies from taking personnel action against federal
whistleblowers who work for the government. The Act protects any government employee who
comes forward with information he or she reasonably believes evidences:

a violation of a law, rule, or regulation

gross mismanagement

gross waste of funds

an abuse of authority

or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safe

WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION ACT
Employer retaliation continues to be a major discouraging factor for would-be whistleblowers
who witness fraud or corruption within their company or organization. Fortunately, many laws
today contain provisions designed to protect whistleblowers from being blacklisted or retaliated
against in the workplace. We have the extensive knowledge and experience with these types of
cases to help ensure our clients protection from employer retaliation.
FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
Today, there are many federal laws in place to protect and encourage whistleblowers, including:

Bribery Act

False Claims Act

Dodd-Frank Act

Whistleblower Protection Act

STATE WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS

In addition to federal whistleblower laws, the Illinois Whistleblower Act further protects
whistleblowers (including government employees) in the state of Illinois. State Whistleblower
Laws.
BRIBERY ACT
The Bribery Act is a federal law that amends the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA),
explicitly making it illegal for a citizen or corporation of or acting within the United States to:

influence

bribe

or seek an advantage from a public official of another country.

FALSE CLAIM ACT

The False Claims Act is the oldest of the whistleblower laws. Originally enacted by President
Lincoln in 1863 to protect the Union Army from fraudulent suppliers during the Civil War, the
Act was amended in 1986 to encourage a coordinated effort between the government and its
citizens to combat fraud. Since the 1986 Amendments, the False Claims Act has become the
single most successful tool in the governments fight against fraud and abuse.
Under the 1986 amendments, qui tam whistleblowers are entitled to between 15% and 35% of
the damages recovered from successful False Claims Act cases. Oftentimes, this means
substantial financial rewards for those who successfully blow the whistle on fraud.
THE DODD FRANK ACT
The Dodd-Frank Act authorized the SEC to reward whistleblowers who provide information
regarding violations of the federal securities laws. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, SEC

whistleblowers are eligible to receive between 10% and 30% of any monetary penalty in excess
of $1 million, as a direct result of their assistance, cooperation and knowledge.
The Dodd-Frank Act also allows whistleblowers to anonymously file an initial report by filing a
claim through an attorney.
The Act further prohibits employers from retaliating against whistleblowers. Employers cannot:
fire, demote, suspend, threaten, harass or discriminate against whistleblowers within their
company.

BARRIERS TO WHISTLEBLOWING
1. Fear of Retaliation
The largest barrier to whistleblowing is the concern that retaliation will result from the
disclosure. Retaliation can vary from minor harassment at the workplace to much more severe
consequences. Typically, once an employee has blown the whistle, increasing pressure will be
placed on them to rescind their statement and refrain from further disclosures.
Most employees greatest concern is to be fired. In a jurisdiction with an at will employment,
the employee can just be fired without justification. In most jurisdictions, some reasons will need
to be found. These could include violations of minor rules or general findings of incompatibility.
More often, the employees are placed under severe pressure to force them to resign their job.
Some common practices as listed by the US Project on Government Oversight:
Take away job duties so that the employee is marginalized.
Take away an employee's national security clearance so that he or she is effectively fired.
Blacklist an employee so that he or she is unable to find gainful employment.
Conduct retaliatory investigations in order to divert attention from the waste, fraud, or abuse
the whistleblower is trying to expose.
Question a whistleblower's mental health, professional competence, or honesty.
Set the whistleblower up by giving impossible assignments or seeking to entrap him or her.
Reassign an employee geographically so he or she is unable to do the job.21

Fear of retaliation is still common even in jurisdictions with well established systems for
protecting whistleblowers. A review in 2007 by the Ethics Resource Center found that 36
percent of employees that did not report corruption did so because they feared retaliation.23 12
percent of those that did report did experience retaliation.
2. Legal Liability
There are also significant legal barriers to the unauthorized disclosure of information in many
countries. These include traditional notions of responsibility to employers, secrets acts and other
laws. These laws are often used to punish whistleblowers and deter further ones from speaking
out.
a. Duty of loyalty and confidentiality
A traditional barrier in many countries is based on a duty of loyalty and fidelity to the employer.
This can prevent an employee from expressing a personal opinion or revealing internal
information. The US Supreme Court ruled in May 2006 that public employees were not protected
by the Constitution when speaking as part of their official duties
b. Secret acts
These laws are often a significant barrier to anti-corruption efforts by generally prohibiting the
disclosure of any information without permission. In Kenya, the whistleblower who revealed the
billions of shillings of fraud in the Goldenberg affair was fired and charged under the OSA and
spent years defending himself
c. Other laws
There is also the possibility of criminal or civil charges for the release of information under other
laws such as theft or trade secrets. In the US, an employee of the Drug Enforcement Agency was
sentenced to one year in prison for leaking information to a reporter under the law on theft of
government property.40 In Australia, a former official was convicted in 2007 of revealing
official information without lawful authority or excuse after disclosing sever security threats at
Australian airports that were not being remedied
3. Cultural Barriers
There is also a significant opposition to whistleblowers in many societies that needs to be
overcome. Whistleblowers are often seen negatively as sneaks, narks, informers or
dobbers. Some of this comes from the abuses of informants going back in history. Informants
and anonymous denunciations were often used as a means of maintaining power during regimes

such as the Inquisition, in the Nazi occupied countries, the Soviet Union and Apartheid-era South
Africa.
Equally significant is the culture inside organisations. Whistleblowers can face social sanctions
for their disclosures. The disclosure of information to outsiders can feel like a betrayal. Even in
the absence of formal sanctions, being excluded from social events or being shunned in an
organisation can place significant pressure on individuals. Fellow employees may even engage in
harassment or other retaliation without the awareness or permission of the employer.
Recent research by American academics suggest that a key factor is that top managers in
organisations take a lead role in promoting ethical behaviour. They have made the following
recommendations:
Before concerns are expressed
1.Encourage the development of moral identity and moral agency.
2.Create a tough anti-retaliation policy that permits disciplining or dismissing employees who
retaliate against whistle-blowers.
3.Disseminate the policy through the intranet, in orientation materials, and elsewhere.
4.Search for and select employees who possess attributes associated with observation of
wrongdoing, and whistle-blowing.
5.Orient and train employees about what the organization considers wrongful, and what to do if
wrongdoing is observed.
6.Consider building incentives for valid internal whistle-blowing into the reward structure.
Once concerns are expressed
1.Focus on the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint and not on the complainant.
2.Investigate reports fully and fairly.
3.Take swift corrective action when the complaint is well-founded.
4.Provide feedback so that management gets credit for taking action.

PROCEDURE FOR DISCLOSURES

A fundamental question in promoting whistleblowing is what types of procedures there should be
on the release of information and who should be authorized recipients. An overly prescriptive
law which makes it difficult to disclose threatens to undermine the basic philosophy of
promoting the disclosure of wrongdoing and encourages informal or anonymous releases.
However, at the same time, a law that allows for unlimited disclosures will not encourage
internal resolution and promote the development of a better internal culture of openness.
Most sectoral whistleblower laws only authorize disclosures to a limited number of external
bodies, such as the national anti-corruption commission. The more comprehensive
whistleblowing laws set out detailed internal procedures that must be followed with standards
before information can be released in particular circumstances.
a. Good Faith
An initial requirement in most whistleblower laws in that reporting be made in good faith. This
is also recognized in most of the international treaties that promote whistleblowing. This is
designed to prevent the airing of vexatious or harassing disclosures.
However, good faith can also pose a barrier to whistleblowing by focusing on the motives of the
reporter rather than the information. Many whistleblowers are likely to have mixed motives
which may include some unhappiness on how they have been treated along with an interest in
revealing wrongdoing.
b. Internal disclosures
There are a number of different possible internal recipients. These could include supervisors,
higher level superiors including heads of organisations or their boards, directors, legal counsel
and agency Inspector Generals. The Canadian Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act requires
that the Chief Executive of every government body appoint a senior officer to receive and handle
these disclosures. The US Sarbanes-Oxley law requires that public companies must establish
audit committees. The audit committee is required to receive confidential, anonymous
submissions by employees of the issuer of concerns regarding questionable accounting or
auditing matters.
c. External Disclosures
Most whistleblowing laws also provide for an alternative to internal disclosures to an external
body still within the government. Typically there is a higher threshold required. For instance, it is
often required that the individual have both a good faith belief that a serious problem exists and
also that they attempted to disclose internally or reasonably believed that if they had made an

internal disclosure that it would have resulted in retribution or the destruction of evidence.In this
we include external bodies ,releases and the media
Focal Areas for a person before whistle Blowing?
1. Is the situation of sufficient moral importance to justify whistle-blowing?
2. Do you have all the facts and do you properly understand their significance?
3. Have all internal channels and steps short of whistle-blowing been exhausted?
4. What is the best way to blow the whistle?
5. What is my responsibility in view of my role within the organization?
6. What are the chances for success?

COMPONENTS OF EFFECTIVE WHISTLEBLOWING POLICY

Whistleblowing policies should have the following components as a minimum:
1. A clear statement that employees who are aware of possible wrongdoing within the
organization have a responsibility to disclose that information to appropriate parties
inside the organization;
2. The designation of specific individuals or groups outside the chain of command as
complaint recipients;
3. A guarantee that employees who in good faith disclose perceived wrongdoing to the
designated parties inside the organization will be protected from adverse employment
consequences; and
4. The establishment of a fair and impartial investigative process.
The Legal Imperative
The legal trends developing in the United States make whistleblowing policies an important part
of organizations' overall ethics code. Increasing statutory protection at the federal and state
levels, and court decisions that protect whistleblowers under the public policy exception to
employment-at-will, lead to the statement of a legal imperative regarding whistleblowing.
1. Increasing Federal protection for whistleblowers- Employees of most organizations are
expressly guaranteed protection against reprisals from their employers when they disclose

actions that violate specific federal statutesIn addition, in 1989 President Bush signed a federal
"Whistleblower's Protection Act" which extends protection available to federal employees who
disclose government waste, fraud, and abuse. This law does not directly affect private sector
employers.
2. The increasing number of state whistleblower protection laws- In the meantime, states are
moving quickly to fill the void left by the lack of comprehensive federal legislation. Michigan
passed the first "Whistleblower's Protection Law" in 1981, and the majority of states now have
such statutes. Many of these apply equally to public and private sector employees. Most of these
laws specify that employees have a right to report the illegal or illegitimate actions of their
employers to regulatory agencies, government officials, law enforcement officials, and the like.
They generally provide remedies, including reinstatement and back pay, for employees who can
show that they have suffered adverse employment consequences as a result of their
whistleblowing activities. Some states also allow successful plaintiffs to collect punitive
damages. Organizations should be aware of the law regarding employee whistleblowers in states
in which they operate.
3. The increasing erosion of the employment-at-will doctrine- In addition to the legal trends
toward whistleblower protection at the federal and state levels, the courts are increasingly
recognizing exceptions to the traditional at-will doctrine which has governed most private sector
employer-employee relationships for well over 100 years. For example, courts have found
"implied contracts" in employee handbooks or in statements made by company officials when
hiring individuals which limit the right to terminate except for"just cause." Some courts have
found that some employers have shown "malice and bad faith" when discharging employees and
have provided relief to the employees. Other courts have held that certain personnel decisions by
employers violate "public policy" and that such actions are exceptions to the traditional doctrine
of employment-at-will.
The Practical Amperage
Although the legal factor discussed make a good case for the need to treat whistleblowing as a
policy issue, I believe there is a practical imperative also. In the following discussion, I explain
why I believe this, and then state the practical imperative.
1. The inevitability of wrongdoing- One executive, responding to my questions concerning
whistleblowing policies, said words to this effect; "We don't have a policy. We don't have any
need for one in our company, because no one is engaged in wrongdoing." This seems a
particularly naive view considering what we know about the state of ethical behavior in business
and government.
2. The likelihood of increased whistle blowing- Although empirical evidence is difficult to come
by, there is a general perception that whistleblowing is on the rise, for several possible reasons.

First, there is a continuing problem of unethical conduct in business and government. One cannot
read the newspaper or turn on the television without hearing of a new scandal, and there is little
need to list the numerous well-publicized cases of recent years.
The second reason whistleblowing may be increasing is that our society seems to sanction
blowing the whistle as a way to promote more ethical behavior in business. Big business and
government are generally regarded as too powerful, and as exercising too much control over our
lives.
Finally, the world is becoming increasingly complex. Business organizations must deal with
diverse and demanding stakeholder groups. More and more conflict between business and these
groups can be expected concerning controversial issues such as the environment, civil rights,
product safety, animal rights, and many other issues
3. The ineffectiveness of retaliation- Although it seems that organizations sometimes punish
whistleblowers to silence them or to persuade other employees to keep silent, there is little if any
empirical evidence that such tactics work. In fact, employees who blow the whistle to parties
outside the organization generally do so because their efforts at internal resolution have been
frustrated by unconcerned or hostile supervisors, top managers, etc.
4. The potential for internal resolution- As the cases cited earlier clearly show, when
organizational "dirty laundry" is exposed publicly, it can do great harm. The reputation of the
firm suffers. The financial performance of the company may be affected. The organization may
find itself sued by those who feel they have been harmed by the actions of the company.
The Ethical Imperative
We have offered both a legal and practical imperative for orgalizations to establish
whistleblowing policies
1. The potential for improving the ethical climate- I have already noted the continuing problem
of unethical behavior in business and government. Many business leaders express concern about
improving the ethical climate within their organizations but do not know how to do it.
2. The need for fairness- Most companies develop a wide variety of policies concerning issues
such as selection, performance appraisal, promotion, and compensation. One of the key reasons
for developing such policies is the need to provide equitable treatment to employees. In other
words, the objective of many personnel policies is to ensure that employees are treated fairly.
Whistleblowing policies also should be motivated by the desire to treat employees fairly. First,
individuals concerned about possible wrongdoing within the organization, who honestly express
their concerns, should be treated fairly. Those who find themselves the target of whistleblowers'

accusations should be treated fairly. Whistleblowing policies can help ensure that all employees
concerned receive equitable treatment by standardizing the way such situations are handled.
What if your company doesnt have an effective whistleblower policy?

From a liability perspective, media, public interest groups and private litigants are likely to
compare an organizations policies and practices with the applicable legal and best practice
standards, and challenge those organizations which fall short.
An effective whistleblower policy demonstrates some degree of adequacy of internal controls or
at least provides evidence that safeguards exist. Conversely, the lack of such a basic policy can
suggest corporate mismanagement or at least a general lack of interest in preventing and
responding to corporate abuses. A properly implemented whistleblower policy can only reflect
well on the organization.
From a risk management perspective, internal reporting should produce more effective
management and governance, and ultimately provide better protection to the organization, its
directors and officers against future liability. If the organizations culture promotes such
reporting, problems can be addressed before they escalate, can be handled proactively, and
external reporting and qui tam filings might be avoided.
Such a policy dissuades rather than encourages external reports by encouraging proactive,
internal reporting before things deteriorate. A strong whistleblower policy should help prevent
claims from disgruntled employees.
The benefits of having a whistleblower policy, however, are only realized to the extent the policy
is implemented and enforced properly. Organizations should ensure the policy is disseminated,
staff is trained, and the policy operates effectively by documenting activities evidencing
implementation and auditing them on a periodic basis.
Ignoring any policy can be more damning to an organization than not having one at all.

CREATING AN EFFECTIVE WHISTLEBLOWING PROGRAM

Whistleblower tips are the most common method of detecting occupational fraud. Research by
the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners shows that more than 60 percent of frauds are
uncovered by tips in organizations with a hotline in place, tips expose more than half of all
frauds. Further, nearly 40 percent of tips are received from internal
The Ethics & Action Survey conducted by law firm Labaton Sucharow shows that fraud
detection could be bolstered by a well-designed whistleblower program. Specifically, 34 percent
of employees have observed or have firsthand knowledge of workplace misconduct, and more
than three-quarters would report known misconduct if they could:
1) remain anonymous,

2) do so without retaliation and

3) receive a financial reward for the tip.
These findings illustrate the need to encourage employees to report suspected wrongdoing. In
addition, many organizations face regulatory or legislative mandates governing the receipt of and
response to whistleblower claims, and having a reporting system in place is a requirement for an
effective compliance program under the U.S. Organizational Corporate Sentencing Guidelines.
For a program to be effective, it should include the following components.
Reporting Mechanism
The whistleblower program should provide individuals with every possible means to report
information, ideally through a variety of channels that are easily and cheaply accessible 24 hours
a day, 365 days a year.The mechanisms should accept tips from employees and outside parties,
such as vendors and customers, and provide assurances of anonymity for whistleblowers.
Possible communication methods include:

A telephone hotline

In-person reporting

Online forms

A dedicated email address

A dedicated fax number

A dedicated mail address (e.g., P.O. Box)

Telephone and in-person mechanisms involve interactions with whistleblowers and allow for
better information gathering, but they raise additional considerations. Specifically, intake
operators must be trained to handle sensitive reports and appropriately communicate with
whistleblowers including those who are hesitant, anxious or emotional to collect sufficient,
relevant information.
If management doubts whether in-house staff can adequately handle this function, using a thirdparty hotline provider is strongly recommended. Other considerations when determining whether
to employ an internal or external hotline include the costs of training, operations and technology;
the perception of trustworthiness; and the effect of the arrangement on organizational processes.

When whistleblowers make a report, they should be given a case number for subsequent inquires
and a means to continue communicating. If they desire anonymity, callers can be given a predetermined time and/or specific phone number to use to contact the operator.
Education and Awareness
Most new employees dont anticipate using the hotline during their employment, meaning
continued awareness training for existing employees is crucial. Additionally, as many
whistleblowers are company outsiders, efforts to inform vendors, contractors, customers and
other third-parties are recommended.
Information that should be conveyed includes:

The organizations overall stance on fraud

Examples of fraud and of the behavior expected of employees

How fraud harms the organization and employees

Red flags of fraud

The importance of reporting suspected improprieties

How to make a report

Guarantees that reports will remain anonymous, if desired (and where legally
permissible)

The types of reports the mechanisms accept

What happens when a report is made

What to do if a supervisor or member of management is suspected

Assurance that all reports will be considered seriously and acted on appropriately

Support for Whistleblowers

As reflected in the Ethics & Action Survey, providing whistleblower support is arguably the most
important aspect of a whistleblower program; doing so can greatly increase the number of
individuals willing to report wrongdoings. Management must recognize that whistleblowers face

numerous risks real or perceived including being ostracized, losing their job, losing friends,
hurting their professional reputation and even suffering physical harm.
Fears of losing their livelihood coupled with some companies avoidance of hiring past
whistleblowers leaves a potential tipster with a difficult choice. Offering financial awards can
mitigate these fears and incentivize reports, and publicly recognizing known whistleblowers
(when they consent) can illustrate a commitment to acknowledging and supporting
whistleblowers.
Leadership Efforts
Like most initiatives, a whistleblower program is most effective when supported by the
organizations leadership. If the company has cohesive whistleblower and ethics policies and if
both are adhered to by management then individuals will be more willing to report suspicious
activities.
A senior-level hotline champion who owns and oversees the program also reinforces its
significance. The champion should be someone with authority to make decisions and act on tips;
if the organization has an Ethics or Compliance Officer, that individual is an ideal candidate.
Response Mechanism
Even in an organization with an ethical culture, many tips are, at best, without merit; others are
intentionally incorrect or misleading. Consequently, the response to reports often determines the
overall success of the whistleblower program.
The first step is assigning responsibility for all incoming tips to an individual or team. Depending
on the nature of tips, this might be appropriate for human resources, legal, internal audit, security
or some other function. In addition, incoming reports should be sent to at least two parties to
ensure that no tips are overlooked erroneously or intentionally. Preferably, the reports should
be sent to the party responsible for tips and to the hotline champion for a layer of oversight.
Reports should be preliminarily screened to assess the:

Merit of the facts and source

Relevance and type of issue involved

Meritless allegations should be noted as such and set aside to focus on legitimate claims. Highrisk reports those of a particularly sensitive or material nature, such as fraud by senior
executives should be escalated directly to the audit committee or another oversight body.

Investigation procedures should be dictated by the issues involved. For example, harassment
claims should be referred to human resources; employee theft to loss prevention or internal audit;
and external fraud to internal audit, loss prevention or risk management. Each of these functions
might operate differently, but the investigation and reporting protocols should be formalized.
Record Retention
Record-keeping processes are essential to easily retrieve information, reinforce the credibility of
the investigation processes and track the programs effectiveness. The record of each tip should
include:
A unique identifying number

The report date

The source, if provided

If anonymity is desired or waived

Contact information, if provided

Details of the allegation, including the suspect(s) involved

Any additional information provided, such as the location of evidence

Recommended action based on the initial assessment of the report

A formal case management system can be used to standardize records, but file security should
also be considered. A centralized database of whistleblower tips is clearly a hotbed of sensitive
information; access to the system should be tightly restricted, and data security measures should
be stringent.
Assessment Measures
Formal assessments should be conducted to evaluate program effectiveness, but management
must remember that a low-volume of reports is not the target; in fact, a low number of total
reports typically indicates employees discomfort or hesitancy to report, rather than a lack of
wrongdoing.

Employee surveys are particularly useful in gauging how staff perceives the program.
Additionally, certain metrics can be calculated and benchmarked across time or against similar
organizations, such as:

Complaints per period

Average number of complaints per employee

Complaints by location, division or claim type

Percentage of anonymous complaints

Average cost per complaint

Percentage of complaints investigated

Changes in reports received after new awareness efforts

IS WHISTLEBLOWING ETHICAL?
The act of whistleblowing can cause a conflict of interest between the personal, organizational
and societal spheres. Much of this conflict stems from the context in which a whistleblower is
viewed: whether as someone sharing knowledge of misconduct for the benefit of others or as
someone who is acting disloyal to their organization.

Ethics & Whistleblowing: The Public Perception

While most would agree with the value of reporting wrongdoing and approve of good
organizational governance, external contexts can color acceptance and perception. There are
elements of chicken-and-egg, as attitudes that are encouraged in the workplace extend to the
street -- if businesses promoted good corporate governance for all, whistleblowing wouldnt be
viewed negatively or as solely the preserve of business or community leaders.
When we vote, use services or entrust our money with banks, we want to know that they are
secure and working in our best interests. If an engineer at a water sanitation plant in your area
uncovered safety issues, we would hope they had ample opportunity to report this without fear of
reprisal, avoiding danger and allowing for the company in question to assess and improve their
practices.

The Personal Perception

The whistleblower is ultimately torn between loyalty to their employer (or the subject of their
revelation) and their moral commitment to the law and society at large. Many feel they have the
most to lose, at least in the first instance.
It could be argued that it is incongruous for human nature to display loyalty to a bureaucratic
organization because it is composed of so many different people. This dehumanizing
environment could distort the whistleblowers perception of their relevance within a company or
their ability to influence change, thus degrading their sense of responsibility and motivation to
report.
As long as the whistleblower is sure that their motivations are sound and that they are confident
in the system, they should not hesitate to relay such information and be pleased that they are
helping to create a safer working environment for their colleagues.
The Media
Whistleblowers and the media have enjoyed a somewhat symbiotic relationship. Although
agendas and motivations may vary, they share the ambition of exposing wrongdoing and
encouraging changes in systems that arent working in the interests of those they are supposed to
protect.
Recent high profile cases, such as the care homes scandal in the U.K., are excellent examples of
individuals reporting for altruistic reasons but if a whistleblower appears to be seeking a
soapbox for public attention or engineering an act of retaliation, it is of paramount importance
that the investigative body in question ensure that the case is conducted in the correct way.

The Business Perception

Even if an organization has a whistleblowing hotline in place it should not be complacent when it
comes to its usage and communication. If a company doesnt receive many whistleblowing
reports, it shouldnt assume that no news is good news.
In addition, if companies dont use the data collected from their reports in a progressive manner
(analyzing trends, investigation and resolution, etc.) it negates the benefits of the service
considerably. Businesses have a responsibility to the public to act on whistleblowing intelligence
or risk adverse consequences. They are additionally accountable to the governing bodies of their
sector, such as the Financial Services Authority, the Health and Safety Executive and, of course,
the Ministry of Justice. Where there are environmental concerns arising from a whistleblowing
report, these too must be addressed with the correct authorities.

2G SPECTRUM SCAM
Following is a primer on the second generation teleom spectrum allocation case that has resulted
in the arrest of former telecom minister A Raja and his DMK party colleague and daughter of
former Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi's daughter Kanimozhi and 12 others:
The issue dates to 2008 when nine telecom companies were issued scarce airwaves, a national
resource, and licences for 2G mobile phone services at Rs 1,658 crore (less that $350 million) for
a pan-India operation. As many as 122 circle-wise licences were issued.
The opposition said by giving airwaves cheap and in a controversial manner of first-cum-firstserved basis, the exchequer had lost billions of dollars. It also objected to the arbitrary
advancement of the cut-off date for filing applications to suit some firms.
But Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself defended Raja's decision and said on May 24 last
year that his communications minister (Raja) had done no wrong and had only implemented the
policy that was already in place. No norm was flouted, he added.
The opposition nevertheless stepped up its attack with two examples on 2G spectrum sale:
* A new player, Swan Telecom, bought licences for 13 circles with the necessary spectrum for
$340 million but managed to sell a 45-percent stake in the company to UAE's Etisalat for $900
million. This swelled its valuation to $2 billion without a single subscriber.
* Another new player, Unitech, paid $365 million as licence fee but sold a 60-percent stake to
Norway's Talenor for $1.36 billion, taking its valuation to nearly $2 billion, again without a
single subscriber.
Similarly, another licensor, Datacom, later became Videocon Mobile and Stel now has a large
stake by Bahrain Telecom. The other companies are Tata Tele, Idea Cellular, Loop Telecom,
Shyam Telelink and Spice.
The issue cropped up again after the auction of airwaves for third generation (3G) services that
fetched nearly $15 billion and for broadband access, which secured over $8.5 billion to the
exchequer. Accordingly, the the notional loss on 2G was estimated at $12.8 billion to $38 billion.
This estimate was arrived at by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and leaked to some
sections of the media, forcing Raja, who was holding the communications and IT portfolio, to
resign Nov 14 from he union council of ministers.

The official auditor also said the entire process of spectrum allocation was undertaken in an
extremely arbitrary manner and that the advice of industry watchdog, Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI), was ignored and misused.
Meanwhile, Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking
judicial intervention in giving directions to the government and probe agencies to act against
Raja.
Acting on the petition, the Supreme Court had asked the solicitor general last October why Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh had not responded in a timely manner to a request by Swamy to
sanction proceedings against Raja.
Then in December, the apex court itself decided to monitor the probe that was being conducted
by multiple agencies, including the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate.
The CBI immediately raided the house of Raja as also the premises of his former aides
Siddhartha Behura and R.K. Chandolia in New Delhi.
Then on February 2, it arrested Raja, Chandolia and Behura, and filed charges against nine
people. Apart from Raja, Chandolia and Behura, the others named are Swan Telecom promoter
Shahid Balwa and director Vinod Goenka, Unitech director Sanjay Chandra and three officials
from the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group -- Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and Surendra
Pipara.
They were all then taken into custory after the courts rejected their bail pleas.
Then, in the last week of April, former Tamil Nadu chief minister M Karunanidhi's daughter
Kanimozhi was also named co-conspirator, along with Sharad Kumar of Kalaignar TV, Karim
Morani of Cineyug Films, and Asif Balwa and Rajiv B Agarwal of Kusegaon Realty.
The probe agency claimed to have unearthed an illegal money trail that moved from Kusegaon to
Cineyug, all part of the DB Group that promoted Swan Telecom, ending with Kalaignar TV.

BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF WHISTLEBLOWING

Whistle-blowers feel positive and negative impacts when they reveal corrupt practices.When a
government employee, private company employee or independent contractor releases news of
illegal, unsafe or unethical conduct about his employer, that employee "blows the whistle" on
that employer for his behavior. Whistle-blowers have changed the course of history, from "Deep
Throat" during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s to former Enron executive Sherron Watkins

releasing details of the company's accounting practices. The act of blowing the whistle on
corrupt organizations can have strong effects, both positive and negative, on those who step
forward. Every organization desires honesty from and among its employees. The presence of
honesty allows for complete dedication to the organizations mission and success. By
encouraging a whistle blowing culture, the organization promotes transparent structure and
effective, clear communication. More importantly, whistle blowing can protect the organizations
clients. For example, if a hospital employs a number of negligent staff members, other, more
ethically inclined, employees would need to bring such issues to the hospitals attention,
protecting the organization from possible lawsuits or severe mishaps resulting in a patients
demise.
As with most matters, there are positives and negatives. Whistle blowing, too, has some
negative aspects. For instance, in a 1972 case, an arbitrator told a whistle-blowing employee that
the employee could not, Bite the hand that feeds you and insist on staying on the banquet. If
the entire organization does not have the same positive attitude in regards to whistle blowing,
employees may fear speaking up.
A second consideration includes employees taking advantage of whistle blowing. Forbes.com
cites an example of Douglas Durand. As vice president of sales at TAP Pharmaceutical Products,
Durand suspected the company was conspiring with doctors in overcharging Medicare. Instead
of gathering evidence and blowing the whistle, Durand spent 7 months gathering information,
quit, and then filed a lawsuit against TAP. Durand spent the next 8 years in cooperation with the
government in order to build the case. Durand received $126 million in the case settlement.
Trouble surfaced after the settlement, when prosecutors filed criminal fraud charges against TAP
executives. Durands story fell apart as defense attorneys poked holes in his claims. Durands
example shows the ugly side of whistle blowing resulting from greed.
Although these two negative aspects of whistle blowing can be quiet unsettling, both can be
curbed. By promoting a whistle blowing culture within the organization, employees will feel
comfortable speaking up when necessary. Here are some tips for promoting a whistle blowing
culture:
Create and publicize a whistle blowing policy.
Emphasize communications about bans on retaliation for whistle blowing activities.
Top Management must demonstrate the inclusion of whistle blowing in the culture.
The organizations commitment to whistle blowing must be emphasized and promoted.
Follow through with a complete investigation after a whistle blowing event.
Discuss with employees their personal thoughts on topics to make sure everyone has a similar
mindset.

Arvind Kejriwal targets 25 corrupt netas

NEW DELHI: Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal on Friday provoked the political establishment and
earned their ire by dubbing 25 influential politicians as "corrupt", and said his Aam Aadmi Party
will field strong candidates against them in the Lok Sabha elections.
Kejriwal virtually launched his Lok Sabha campaign as he released a list of "corrupt" at the
meeting of AAP's national council. "We trusted these parties for 65 years and thought that they
will do good to the nation, but they betrayed us. After 65 years, we have an opportunity that a
common man will go inside Parliament and talk about his
rights."
The list of politicians he accused of corruption includes UPA ministers Sharad Pawar, P
Chidambaram, Kamal Nath, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Veerappa Moily, Praful Patel, Farooq
Abdullah, Salman Khurshid, Sriprakash Jaiswal and G K Vasan, former BJP chief Nitin Gadkari
and his party colleagues B S Yeddyurappa and Ananth Kumar, chiefs of SP and BSP Mulayam
Singh Yadav and Mayawati, and Congress leader and Assam CM Tarun Gogoi.

The Whistle Blower Act Of Arvind Kejriwal

Being new entrants into the field of politics, the duo, Arivind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan are
looking to bomb the citadels of power. Robert Vadra, the soninlaw of the Congress
chairperson Sonia Gandhi is directly in the line of attack owing to his business deal with the DLF
group. They have alleged that DLF extended an interest-free loan of 65 crores, heavily
discounted flats which are currently valued at 100 crores and gave a fifty percent share in Delhis
Hilton Hotels to Mr Vadra, collectively propelling his assets from 50 lakhs to more than 300
crores in three years. Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd. is the centrifuge of his business empire and
is under the scanner. The news first broke out eighteen months ago, in The Economic Timesbut
the homily was neither supported by the media nor by the principal opposition, the Bharatiya
Janata Party.
A novice in politics has decided to take the plunge at the seasoned businessman, Robert Vadra.
On the face of it the deal raises many eyebrows. As the annual report of DLF reconciles
something fishy in the deal signed between the two parties. The companys final report suggests
that during 2011-2012 (i.e. the period between 1st April 2011 and 31 March 2012), the sales of
the company stood at Rs 4,582.67 crores. Thus making the debt of the company reach nearly 5.5
times its annual sales, which was alarmingly high. And the obvious question that rose amidst all
this ruckus was that why would a company which has such a huge outstanding debt, pay an
interest of 12.38% per year on it and give out interest-free loans? Thus all these findings
culminate to bring this marquee businessman into the limelight for reasons that are otherwise
uncalled for.

The Congress connection with Vadra has further fuelled the allegations posed against him. It is to
be noted that the Congress has significantly succeeded in overshadowing their dismal record of
corruption lately. Furthermore the government took up a recent reforming avatar with Prime
Minister Manmohan Singhs foot on the reforming paddle, as he unravelled various measures
contemplated by the UPA II. But now they are brought to the centre of corruption charges again
and this time through an informal link, by the stalwarts Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan.
With this move Team Kejriwal has made their intentions crystal clear and has reinforced the fact
that they mean business. Politics is a mucky affair and by revealing the names of the corrupt
bureaucrats and their family members, which are backed with proper evidence, they will
definitely get a political edge over their counterparts in the upcoming polls.
The immediate counter-response poured in from the Congress camp after they were left shell
shocked with the press release of the documents. Union Law Minster Salman Khurshid, Minister
for Environment Jayanthi Natrajan, Finance Minister P.Chidambaram and many other ministers,
likewise came out in support of Robert Vadra and brushed away the allegations made by the
activist turned politician, Arvind Kejriwal. Above all Annas support to this move by Kejriwal
could be pivotal in the chronological development of this whole controversy. Stoking the fires,
Arivind Kejriwal, said: I am ready to face defamation charges if the allegations against Vadra
are proved wrong. Why is the Congress silent on the merits of the case?
In the midst of these colossal scams, the attack by the newly formed opposition wouldnt be
innocuous and will definitely have an impounding impact on the minds of the people who are
watching this political circus from the sidelines. Will Kejriwals vociferous actions act as an
impetus for his political expedition or will he fail to win the support of the unbiased common
man is currently the main political precipice.

ADVANTAGES
Exposing Unethical Behavior
o

The whistle-blower serves a vital function in government and business. When

corporations and government agencies step over legal and ethical lines, whistle-blowers can
make these practices public knowledge, which can lead to violators being held accountable. The
added scrutiny that comes with criminal investigations, civil lawsuits and media attention can
influence the behavior of similar organizations. Companies and government offices that engage
in similar misconduct may have previously believed they could get away with their bad behavior,
but the ripple effect of the whistle-blower's efforts can bring about reforms.

Legal Protection
o

The federal government's Whistleblower Protection Program protects employees

who report violations of various workplace safety, environmental, financial reform and securities
laws. The program protects from retaliation workers who blow the whistle on their employer's
behavior. Retaliatory action can include dismissal, demotion, denial of benefits and reduction of
working hours. Companies found to be in violation of the whistle-blower protection laws can
face fines, suspension of government contracts and civil lawsuits.

DISADVANTAGES
Diminished Career Prospects
o

The attention that a whistle-blower case brings, both to the employee and the
company, can have a downside. Media interviews, legal testimony and government
investigations can affect the whistle-blower's career prospects. While the outside world may view
whistle-blowers as heroes for revealing corrupt behavior, industry insiders and hiring managers
may see them as disloyal or indiscreet for not keeping company secrets and industry practices
under wraps. The media attention may lead to the whistle-blower being blacklisted in his
industry.
Personal Complications

Although whistle-blowers may understand that their revelations serve the greater
good, they also often endure personal problems from their actions. Media outlets in search of a
story will delve deeper into the whistle-blowers' personal lives. Legal complications from
criminal investigations and civil lawsuits against the company might require them to hire
attorneys to defend themselves. They may also receive threats of retaliation from former
supervisors and co-workers. All of this added stress can cause severe health problems and
fractures in their relationships.

RANBAXY CASE STUDY- Fighting a culture of fraud

Dinesh Thakur was utterly flabbergasted when he discovered that his employer, Ranbaxy
Laboratories, was falsifying data to receive approval of its generic drugs. His eight-year ordeal
working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration eventually led to Ranbaxy's seven-felony
count guilty plea.
In 2004, as a 35-year-old, new research executive at the Indian generic drug company, Ranbaxy
Laboratories, he had investigated the extent to which the firm had provided false data to the
World Health Organization (WHO). Ranbaxy had been seeking prequalification which
enables pharmaceutical companies to sell their products to WHO member countries for drugs

used by HIV patients in South Africa. The U.S. was the largest buyer of these drugs, under the
newly approved program, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
Thakur's boss at the time, Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Ranbaxy's head of research and development, had
asked Thakur to investigate how deeply the fraud was coursing through the firm and whether it
had deceived other countries to secure regulatory approvals in their respective markets.
Thakur, an American-trained engineer and a naturalized U.S. citizen, discovered a company
culture that not only tolerated fraud, but also apparently celebrated and encouraged it among its
employees. He found that the company was playing fast and loose with its testing of drugs. The
company had taken shortcuts, never tested their products before they released them to the market
and fabricated data in its clinics to prove they would work in patients.
Thakur gave the findings of his investigation to his boss, who presented it to Ranbaxy's board.
The board did nothing to correct the problems. Kumar and Thakur eventually resigned.
Now Thakur was arguing with himself: What's my responsibility now that I've left Ranbaxy? Did
I do enough in internally reporting massive fraud? Or do I need to go to the authorities to report
crimes that could be shortening the lives of innocent, trusting patients?
Eventually, Thakur had to relent to his conscience. He knew he couldn't live with himself
knowing that Ranbaxy's crimes were affecting the poorest of the poor. Thakur reported
Ranbaxy's fraud to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He thought his journey was
over, but his eight-year ordeal was just beginning. The FDA had little knowledge of drug
inspection processes and the culture in India, so it relied on Thakur as it investigated.
Eventually, on May 13, 2013, Ranbaxy USA Inc., a subsidiary of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited,
pleaded guilty to seven federal criminal counts of selling adulterated drugs with intent to
defraud, failing to report that its drugs didn't meet specifications and making intentionally false
statements to the government. Ranbaxy, in the largest drug safety settlement to date with a
generic drug manufacturer, agreed to pay $500 million in fines, forfeitures and penalties.
For "Choosing Truth Over Self," the ACFE honored Thakur with its Sentinel Award at the 25th
Annual ACFE Global Fraud Conference.
Fraud Magazine spoke to Thakur from his home in Tampa, Florida.
FM:
How
did
you
first
find
out
about
fraud
at
Ranbaxy?
DT: My manager, Dr. Rajinder Kumar, asked me to investigate the extent to which the company
had provided "made-up" data to seek the WHO [World Health Organization] prequalification
which enables pharmaceutical companies to sell their products to WHO member countries for

drugs used by HIV patients in South Africa. He asked me to investigate whether this type of
fraud was used to secure regulatory approvals in other markets as well.
FM: What was your response when your boss, Dr. Rajinder Kumar, showed you the summary of
the WHO inspection of Vimta Laboratories the company that Ranbaxy had hired to administer
clinical
test
of
its
AIDS
medicine?
DT: I was flabbergasted; I couldn't believe it. Knowing that these medicines were used by the
most vulnerable patients, I was appalled that the company would do such a thing.
FM: What were you thinking as you had to inspect Ranbaxy's entire portfolio to discover the
company's
testing
practices?
DT: I did not know what to expect. I was hoping that what was done with the WHO
prequalification studies was an isolated incident, and this wasn't pervasive to other parts of the
company's portfolio.
FM: What was your plan as you carried out your investigation? Who did you talk to and what did
you find?
DT: I had a team of six project managers who worked for me. I asked each of them to drill down
into every product in their respective portfolios and verify that the data that was being submitted
to the regulatory authorities was in fact real. Wherever they found gaps, I took it upon myself to
go verify what the gaps were and how the company filled those gaps. As the investigation
proceeded, I ended up speaking with most functional heads within the company who were
responsible for parts of the product development and commercialization process. The project
managers spoke to many scientists and engineers who were responsible for developing a drug,
testing it and for manufacturing commercial supplies.
Very soon we found very large gaps in the data that was submitted to the regulators worldwide
by the company; the data needed to secure marketing authorization in many countries across the
globe did not exist in the first place.
FM: Just 10 days later, you gave your investigation report to Kumar. What was the gist of that
report? What did Kumar propose?
DT: This interim report identified countries and regions where we found that the company had
secured marketing authorizations with fraudulent data. Dr. Kumar proposed to continue the
investigation to get to the bottom of the problem.
Thakur's lessons from his ordeal
Dinesh Thakur says that the lessons he's learned from the Ranbaxy investigation are "too many
to count." But here are his top three:

"Every business has some incentive for wrongdoing. It is the leadership that determines
whether an employee acts on that impulse. Role models are extremely important in our
personal and professional lives. If it wasn't for Dr. Kumar's courage and moral principles
to face the company management and the board knowing full well that the fraudulent
practices were commonplace for years before his arrival, it would have been hard for me
to do what I did. Role models inspire us to do the right thing, make the right decisions
and become better people."

"No one decides to commit fraud one fine morning. These decisions are built on years of
working to push the ethical envelope little by little each time. As Jayson Blair, the
disgraced former reporter at The New York Times, said, Rarely are our choices in life
presented as a major dramatic question. One step at a time, [they come as] minor choices,
that may not even seem related to the ultimate outcome. Once that fear [of getting caught]
disappears with the minor choices, it is easier to cross that big ethical line.

"Continual assessment of risk is an integral part of any business today. As businesses

become global and one deals with different cultures and traditions, understanding what is
acceptable in one culture doesn't translate into another culture. Therefore, it is critical to
have systems that continually assess risk and manage it, especially when the supplier
network includes partners half-a-world away."

SATYAM FRAUD CASE

Nearly five-and-half-years after the multi-crore accounting fraud surfaced in erstwhile Satyam
Computer Services Limited, a special court set up to try the sensational case is likely to fix
tomorrow the date for pronouncement of the much-awaited verdict.
The trial in Satyam fraud case concluded last week before the special court of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) here which examined 216 witnesses and marked 3,038
documents during the course of the hearing.
Special judge B V L N Chakravarti will probably give a date tomorrow for judgement in the
case, in which erstwhile Satyam Computers founder and former chairman B Ramalinga Raju is
the prime accused, CBI officials told PTI.
Touted as the countrys biggest accounting fraud, the scam came to light on January 7, 2009,
after Ramalinga Raju confessed to manipulating his companys account books and inflating
profits over many years to the tune of several crores of rupees. Raju was arrested by the Crime
Investigation Department of Andhra Pradesh Police two days later along with his brother.

In February that year, CBI took over the investigation and filed three charge sheets (on April 7,
2009, November 24, 2009 and January 7, 2010), which were later clubbed into one.
Raju and others were charged with offences ranging from cheating, criminal conspiracy, forgery,
breach of trust under relevant sections of IPC by way of inflating invoices and incomes, account
falsification, faking fixed deposits, besides allegedly falsifying returns through violation of
various I-T laws.
Raju later retracted his confession statement and contended that all charges levelled by the CBI
are false. Satyam Computer Services Ltd later merged with Tech Mahindra.
According to CBI, the accounting fraud in Satyam was perpetrated over a period of 10 years,
wherein Raju and other accused manipulated and fabricated records and projected revenues of
the company which never existed.
During the trial, the CBI alleged that the scam caused a loss of Rs 14,000 crore to Satyam
shareholders, while the defence countered the charges saying the accused are not responsible for
the fraud and all the documents filed by the central agency relating to the case are fabricated and
not according to law.
Besides Raju, his brother and Satyams former MD B Rama Raju, ex-CFO Vadlamani Srinivas,
former PwC auditors Subramani Gopalakrishnan and T Srinivas, Rajus another brother B
Suryanarayana Raju, former employees G Ramakrishna, D Venkatpathi Raju and Ch Srisailam,
and Satyams former internal chief auditor V S Prabhakar Gupta were the others accused in the
case.
At present, all the 10 accused, against whom the Enforcement Directorate also filed a charge
sheet in October last year under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, are out on bail.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Strengthening Anti-Corruption Agencies
1. To be successful, anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) must address challenges in the external
environment in which they operate. The independence of the ACA must be secured in the law
and then maintained in practice in the face of pressures. Clear mandate, proper procedures for
appointment and removal of heads of ACAs, functional immunity, adequate human and financial
resources and appropriate accountability and reporting mechanism can ensure independence of
ACAs.
2. Support for the work of ACAs from a broad range of stakeholders is key to ensuring their
success. This support can be enlisted from civil society, media, and private sector by educating
these groups about corruption and the challenges faced by ACAs, and by gaining public

confidence. ACAs also need to work in collaboration and coordination with other entities with
anti-corruption responsibilities.
3. ACAs may fight corruption both by investigating offenders and by preventing corruption.
Prevention efforts must include not only education and awareness campaigns but proactive
efforts to engage different governmental institutions and improve the overall strategic, legal and
regulatory framework for anti-corruption. Necessary improvements include strategic planning,
criminal law reforms, effective whistleblower and witness protection laws, media freedom laws,
freedom of information acts, information disclosure requirements, especially on government
procurement processes, and vulnerability to corruption assessments.
More research needs to be done on the effectiveness of the existing legislation and policies to
determine better what works, how workers and the general society feel towards whistleblowing
laws and what measures can be taken to improve the culture of openness.
4. Whistleblowing in both the public and private sectors is a key tool to detect and deter
corruption and other wrongdoings threatening public health, security and the environment. Many
companies also consider whistleblowing as an important means for preventing and uncovering
wrongdoing in the company that could otherwise lead to substantial financial and reputational
damage.
The field of whistleblowing is still in its infancy. Only a few countries have attempted to adopt
laws that have general application. Fewer have made a serious effort to address cultural issues to
internalize whistleblowing as a positive means of improving organisations and governments.
In many places, the laws are limited in scope and provide few protections. Many governments
and organisations seem hostile and whistleblowers around the world regularly face hostility, job
loss and worse.
There are some positive signs. Some, such as the UK, seem to have some success towards
improving the internal attitudes towards disclosures. The corporate sector seems to be more open
to whistleblowing than government bodies.
There is now considerable international pressure for countries to adopt standard laws and
practices on whistleblowing, but if these laws are adopted in a vacuum, it is unlikely that they
will succeed.

LATEST NEWS
Kochi bar bribery case: 'Whistleblower' Biju Ramesh seeks police protection
Mahir Haneef,TNN | Feb 6, 2015, 08.22 PM IST
KOCHI: Kerala Bar Hotels Association working president Biju Ramesh, who 'revealed' that
finance minister KM Mani took a bribe for favouring bar owners while drafting the revised
abkari policy, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking police protection for his life.
A petition was filed by Biju Ramesh through advocate CP Udayabhanu on Friday alleging that he

is facing threat to life at the instance of the political party of the finance minister following his
'disclosure'.
The petition said, "It is respectfully submitted that there have been conscious attempts to silence
the petitioner. He was threatened through anonymous telephone calls to remain silent and to not
to precipitate his complaints before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. Petitioner
optimistically believes that such threats were at the instance of the political party of which the
finance minister of the State of Kerala is the chairman. Activists of the respective political party
have threatened the petitioner with dire consequences if he does not retract his respective
revelations."
It is also claimed by Biju Ramesh that there was an attempt at his life on the night of January 9th.
Three persons intruded into his residence past midnight. Though one of them was captured by
the security personnel deployed by him and handed over to police, he was released by the sub
inspector of Fort Police Station without registering an FIR, it is alleged.
Seeking police protection, a complaint was filed to the chief minister and the home minister as
well as the director general of police on January 22nd, the petition said.
A police constable has been deputed to his house to be stationed there between 9am and 5pm
without any paraphernalia to protect him from political goondas, Biju Ramesh complains.
Bombay HC: Why no updated list of whistleblowers at risk?
Rosy Sequeira,TNN | Feb 5, 2015, 03.25 AM IST
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday rapped the state government for not updating
its database of whistleblowers, social activists and persons with risk to their lives.
The court heard a suo motu PIL which was initially taken up for protection of whistleblowers but
expanded to include witnesses in criminal cases. Until the state brings out a policy for witnesses,
the HC had directed that immediate police protection be given to witnesses even at the stage of
probe on a written or oral plea. The state was also directed to update its database till January 31,
2015.
A division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Anil Menon was informed by amicus curiae
senior advocate Dinyar Madon and advocate Sanjay Udeshi that the state's reply says the
database is updated till November 2014. "After November, they have done nothing," said
Madon, adding that the database is supposed to be updated every month.
To the bench's query as to why the database is not currently updated according to the government
resolution, the government's advocate Nitin Deshpande replied that the committees, created at
the district, commissionerate and headquarter levels to examine if police protection is required to
be given immediately, have not met. The judges said the database has to be available to the
committee. "It has to consider the database," said Justice Oka.
Deshpande said the district committee has given 90 persons protection and denied it to 95 others.

Also, the commissionerate committee has given protection to 7 persons and denied it to 33 others
and the headquarters committee has granted protection 3 persons and denied it to 60 others.
"You are supposed to have a database of all complaints," said Justice Oka.
The bench questioned the government's intention. "Why are your officers treating this (PIL) as
adversarial? After all, it is for the benefit of the state," said Justice Oka. The judges have asked
the state to show an updated database and tell the court "the reasons why further data was not
updated". "Otherwise, we will have to issue appropriate directions," the bench said in a
concluding note.
STF to submit whistleblower attack report in HC today
TNN | Jan 15, 2015, 04.00 AM IST
BHOPAL: Madhya Pradesh police informed Jabalpur bench of high court it has shared a detailed
report on the attack on MPPEB scam whistleblower Ashish Chaturvedi to special task force
(STF).
Division bench of high court took suo moto cognizance of TOI's report on how Chaturvedi, key
complainant in MPPEB case, was discharged from hospital, a day after mob attack in Gwalior on
November 2.
Court asked STF to probe the incident and submit a report by January 13. Subsequently, STF
summoned Chaturvedi to record his statement. During Tuesday's hearing, Gwalior police said
additional superintendent of police (ASP) submitted his findings to STF DIG, who will submit it
in court at its next hearing on Thursday.
Chaturvedi exposed those close to Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and
seven others for their role in MPPEB scam. He was surrounded and pinned down near Gwalior's
Dal Bazar area and brutally thrashed.
He was injured even as his personal security officer (PSO) stood as a mute spectator. He was
referred to teaching hospital of Gwalior medical college for treatment. Police are still clueless on
the two men who attacked him.
Chaturvedi lodged a complaint and police officers swung into action after additional director
general Sudhir Sahi, who is heading the MPPEB scam probe, rang up to inquire about the
incident.

AAP's First Big Message: Whistleblower Sanjiv Chaturvedi as Delhi AntiCorruption chief
Delhi | Edited by Deepshikha Ghosh | Updated: February 13, 2015 12:40 IST
NEW DELHI: Arvind Kejriwal's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) plans to appoint as Delhi's top anticorruption officer a man who was recently shunted out by the central government. Sanjiv

Chaturvedi, who was removed as vigilance chief of AIIMS hospital, will head the Delhi anticorruption bureau, say sources.

AAP had alleged that Mr Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service officer, had been victimized for
exposing corruption in the central government-run hospital.

The appointment will be AAP's first big anti-corruption move after taking charge of Delhi on
Saturday. The party swept the Delhi election, winning 67 of 70 seats in the assembly and
reducing the opposition BJP to three seats. The party says its first priority is to end corruption,
especially bribe-taking by government officials."Sanjiv Chaturvedi is a very honest officer and it
will be great if he joins," said AAP leader Manish Sisodia, who is likely to be Deputy Chief
Minister.
In August, the health ministry removed Sanjiv Chaturvedi as the AIIMS vigilance chief saying he
was not eligible for the post and the Chief Vigilance Commission had not cleared his
appointment.
Mr Chaturvedi had reportedly initiated several investigations during his two years at the premier
hospital. These included cases against officials who went on unexplained, illegal foreign trips on
tax payers' money and one who allegedly had his pet dog operated upon at the AIIMS cancer
centre.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.nacf.org.za/guide_to_the_whistle_blowing_act/introduction.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Whistleblowing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
https://sites.google.com/site/omranalbloushi/whistle-blowing/barriers-to-whistle-blowing
http://www.whistleblowerlaws.com/types-of-fraud/
http://www.whistleblowersillinois.com/whistleblowers/whistleblower_types.htm

http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/old/12_00/basics/whistle/rst/wstlblo_policy.html
http://mic.com/articles/49867/5-famous-whistleblowers-who-shaped-history
http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2013/06/3qs-the-evolution-of-whistleblowing/
http://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/aaps-first-big-message-whistleblower-sanjiv-chaturvedi-asdelhi-anti-corruption-chief-739231
http://www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~tindas/tindas_en/p-kamiike101218-19.pdf
http://www.slideshare.net/2011barot/satyam-detailed-scam
http://caviswa.wikifoundry.com/page/SATYAM+FRAUD+FULL+DETAILS
http://www.thehindu.com/system/topicRoot/2G_Spectrum_Scandal/
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arvind-kejriwal-aiims-whisteblower-sanjiv-chaturvedi-antigraft-cell-chief/1/418634.html