Whistleblowing and the New Race to Report - Deloitte Forensic Center

Whistleblowing and the
new race to report
The impact of the Dodd-Frank
Act and 2010’s changes to
U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Deloitte Forensic Center

“Two backpackers are hiking
through the woods when suddenly
they see a huge bear staring at them
hungrily. Janet quickly removes
her muddy hiking boots and starts
putting on her running shoes. John
whispers, ‘Janet, you’ll never outrun
that bear, so why put those on?’
‘Well John,’ replies Janet, ‘I don’t
have to outrun the bear. I only have
to outrun you.”
Anon

Whistleblowing and the new race to report 2

Another development is the changes to the U.S. Federal

Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Sentencing Guidelines (‘Guidelines’) that took effect
on November 1, 2010. One amendment increases the
Reform and Consumer Protection Act created opportunity for a reduction in organizational sentences

rewards of 10–30 percent of monetary sanctions when the organization has an effective compliance and
ethics program incorporating direct reporting obligations
for whistleblowers who report to the SEC from the head of the compliance program to the board of

original information leading to securities law directors or audit committee. This includes reporting “no
less than annually on the implementation and effectiveness
enforcement actions that recover more than $1 of the compliance and ethics program.”

million. This could increase corporate This amendment creates a substantial incentive for

regulatory risks considerably and create a ‘race organizations to alter, where necessary, the reporting
lines for the head of their compliance and ethics program
to report’ to the SEC. and formalize annual assessments of the organization’s
compliance and ethics program (including its whistleblower
Press releases announcing settlements by the Securities & system), with a report being provided to the board or audit
Exchange Commission (SEC) in the first seven months of committee.
2010 show how large future rewards for whistleblowers
could be. In July 2010, the SEC settled three securities The combination of the Dodd-Frank Act and the
cases with recoveries of $550 million, $100 million, and amendments to the Guidelines also creates a strong
$75 million. Another case settled in February for more than incentive for organizations to drive the effectiveness of
$300 million. their whistleblower system to as high a level as is feasible.
The goal would be not just to comply with the minimum
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases have also standards of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, where applicable,
generated large settlements in 2010, with one around but to encourage reports of potential wrongdoing to be
$450 million, two others exceeding $300 million, and one made internally. This, with other improvements to the
of nearly $200 million, including related payments to the whistleblower system, could allow issues to be resolved
U.S. Department of Justice. at a lower cost, with the organization potentially gaining
the benefit of smaller penalties that can arise from self-
Had the Dodd-Frank Act applied to these cases, the
reporting corporate wrongdoing to the authorities.
rewards could have ranged from $7.5 million to $165
million. While monetary reward is not the only motive Encouraging employees and others to use the
for whistleblowers, it represents a strong incentive organization’s whistleblower system to report potential
for an employee to call the SEC and provide “original wrongdoing, in preference to contacting the authorities
information.” directly, can involve actions in multiple areas.
According to the Deloitte 2010 Ethics & Workplace This paper explores “Ten things about whistleblowing,”
Survey, the recession has diminished two important forms discussing steps organizations can take to enhance their
of business currency—trust and ethics. Nearly half (48 whistleblower systems and help mitigate their risks in light
percent) of employed Americans who plan to look for of the Dodd-Frank Act and 2010’s changes to the U.S.
a new job when the economy is more stable cite a loss Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
of trust in their employer as a result of how business
and operational decisions were handled over the last
two years as a reason for leaving. Thirty-one percent of
employees say that their colleagues are more likely to
behave unethically at work in this environment. So trust is
down and wrongdoing up just as the SEC introduces large
whistleblower rewards.


1. Tips appreciated

Personal reporting or ‘whistleblowing’ in one form or Some communication method is needed to get information
another is given strong emphasis in establishing a strong about potential wrongdoing from those who have it
ethics and compliance culture and framework for several (often mid-level or junior employees) to those who are
reasons, including: most willing and able to act appropriately on it without
• Tips are the number one way in which frauds are interference from those potentially involved. If middle
detected according to the Association of Certified management appears to be involved, informing senior
Fraud Examiners (ACFE) 2010 Report to the Nations on management may be sufficient. But if senior management
Occupational Fraud and Abuse. “Three times as many may be involved, people need a way to inform the audit
frauds in our study were uncovered by a tip as by any committee or the board of directors.
other method,” they reported. In the entities the ACFE
studied that had hotlines, 47 percent of frauds were Whistleblowing is an activity that can involve any form
detected by tips, while in entities without hotlines that of communication, not only use of a special telephone
figure was 34 percent. So hotlines are not essential to hotline, but also e-mail, Web form, regular mail, fax,
get some fraud tips, but hotlines can help you get more telephoning the company’s headquarters, or simply
tips and detect more fraud. speaking up to a supervisor, manager, human resources
specialist, or other trusted person.
• In the same ACFE study, entities that had hotlines
suffered a median fraud loss 59 percent smaller and
the frauds lasted on average seven months less than at
entities without hotlines.

• Senior management is often involved in the more serious
incidents of unethical behavior, fraud and corruption.
An employee who becomes aware of potential
wrongdoing involving senior management may not
know other members of management to whom this
information could be reported; or they might not have
confidence that other members of management would
be willing and able to take appropriate action. Without a
whistleblower reporting mechanism to reach the board
of directors or audit committee, people might not feel
able to report high-level wrongdoing internally.


2. Don’t get distracted
by noise

Approximately half of whistleblower calls are typically an investigation to take place. So in the vast majority of
related to personnel issues. This fact is sometimes misused cases, the whistleblower reports relate to matters that
to criticize hotlines for generating a lot of ‘noise’ or are sufficiently important to warrant investigation. While
non-serious reports and being an administrative nuisance. only 40 percent of the investigations reported in this study
But typically most of these reports can be passed along led to corrective action, this may be due in part to the
directly by the hotline operator to the human resources burden of proving wrongdoing not being able to be met
function to be resolved in the same way as if the HR team in some cases. For example, when evidence is destroyed,
had been contacted directly. Such reports needn’t incur it may be hard to prove that a violation of the code of
significantly different cost just because they came through conduct occurred, even if circumstantial evidence suggests
the whistleblower system. Normally, senior management, that it has. When you think about what is involved in
the board of directors, and the audit committee do not finding proof of wrongdoing, 40 percent of investigated
need to receive or read most of these reports. When allegations actually seems pretty high.
personnel issues are deemed to be serious, such as alleged
sexual harassment or discrimination, the legal function may The other thing to consider about the ‘noise’ factor with
take the lead in resolving the cases. whistleblower systems is called the ‘asymmetric loss
function.’ In essence, this means that the potential cost of
Another ‘red herring’ argument against whistleblower failing to detect significant wrongdoing can outnumber
reporting systems is that many people will file false many times over the cost of investigating false alarms.
allegations and that time and money will be wasted That’s why many teams of firefighters are typically
investigating them. Many organizations have a policy that dispatched automatically to a fire alarm in a high-rise
making reports through the organization’s whistleblower building. There is a chance it is a false alarm, but if they
system in bad faith is subject to disciplinary action, waited until a fire had been confirmed before responding,
potentially including termination. That appears to be an many lives could be lost by the time firefighters arrived.
effective deterrent. While major allegations (such as those involving fraud or
corruption) rarely involve loss of life, a timely investigative
Yet another alleged downside of whistleblower systems is response is prudent given the potential financial and
that they generate many reports about nothing important. reputational costs that can be at stake.
The 2010 Corporate Governance and Compliance Hotline
Benchmarking Report suggests otherwise. In this study of In summary, while there may be some ‘noise’ with a
approximately 117,000 whistleblower reports received by whistleblower system the trick is not to let it distract you
hotline operator The Network in 2009, for those reports from what is truly important.
where the case outcome was provided, 73 percent of
whistleblower reports warranted investigation; only 17
percent did not. Another 7 percent were referred to others
to be answered and 3 percent were resolved in other
ways. Of the 17 percent that did not warrant investigation,
experience suggests that a good proportion may simply
not have provided sufficiently detailed information to allow


3. Is your hotline
just lukewarm?

When many organizations launched hotlines in response to • Focus groups — Selected individuals can be invited to
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or otherwise, the initial emphasis discuss, in a facilitated group setting, their viewpoints
was often just on having such a reporting mechanism. on the entity’s hotline system. The facilitator, selection
More recently, SEC guidance and 2010’s changes to the of participants, and group dynamics are extremely
Federal Sentencing Guidelines have placed emphasis on important to fostering an open and candid discussion.
assessing the effectiveness of the hotline, which often
serves as a key entity-level internal control. • Exit interviews — While some departing employees
Organizations can fall into a trap of assuming that no may prefer to say nothing, others may be willing to share
news is good news — that having few or no calls to the concerns about the whistleblower system or knowledge
hotline means that there is little or no wrongdoing going of unreported violations of the organization’s policies.
on. Experience suggests that low call volume is more likely
to indicate opportunities to improve various aspects of the • Feedback from hotline users — Feedback can be
hotline system. obtained, even from anonymous hotline users, about the
usability of the mechanism, how the complaint was dealt
Seven ways to take a hotline’s temperature with, how long it took to complete the investigation, etc.
While there is a lack of authoritative guidance on how Remember that this will not include input from people
hotlines should be evaluated, the following activities can who have never used the hotline.
help to assess hotline effectiveness:
• Anonymous employee surveys — Periodic employee • Interviews — Internal auditors can ask employees their
ethics surveys can help to gauge employee awareness views on the whistleblower hotline during regularly
of and confidence in using the hotline. The survey’s scheduled audit visits.
wording can significantly impact results, as can
organizational culture. Comparing results over time and • Incident logs — Violations of the organization’s policies
between operating units can be very instructive. that are logged by the legal, HR, or other functions but
which were not reported through the hotline may display
• Benchmarking — Certain hotline metrics can be a pattern of underreporting.
benchmarked against industry statistics for call volume,
call mix, and other key measures. Deviations from
industry averages can be probed to identify opportunities
for improvement.


4. Carrots may help you
hear better

As we stated in the introduction, the Dodd-Frank Wall Whether organizations will offer rewards similar to those
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 offered by the government remains to be seen. It may
includes a provision for substantial incentives for those who not even be necessary to pay as much, since many well-
provide original information to the SEC about securities law known whistleblowers have clearly been motivated by
violations leading to monetary recoveries over $1 million. principle rather than by monetary reward. But it would not
This new law highlights the perceived role of incentives in be surprising for audit committees or boards of directors
encouraging whistleblowing in general. to decide that not providing incentives for whistleblowers
might be a risky strategy in light of the Dodd-Frank Act’s
Exactly how to incentivize employees to ‘speak up’ is rewards.
something that a number of organizations have struggled
with and where little consensus has been established. Some form of carrot is important — whether directly or
indirectly related to individual reports of wrongdoing.
One school of thought is that ‘speaking up’ is expected Examples of indirect, long-term incentives would be
as part of each employee’s day-to-day conduct and no incorporating ethics and integrity into the performance
incentive should be necessary. evaluation process and rewarding exemplary ethical
conduct and behavior. Examples of more direct short-
Another school of thought is that in order to increase term incentives would be giving a monthly award for
the probability of employees ‘speaking up’, incentives an employee that demonstrated strong ethical decision-
should be provided to whistleblowers. After all, many making or providing a financial reward for any tip that
organizations recognize or reward employees who have leads to identification of significant unethical behavior,
perfect attendance even though showing up is a basic fraud, or other misconduct.
part of everyone’s job. And top salespeople are often
rewarded with large bonuses and rewards even though Clarity, fairness and generosity of rewards can help to
their day-to-day job is to sell. So perhaps rewarding attract employee support and generate more reliable
whistleblowers who help to identify and put a stop to reports. While some rewards might be widely published
wrongdoing is simply giving a bonus to someone who internally, such as stopping a costly vendor fraud, others
makes a significantly above average contribution to the may be much more sensitive internal matters. In those
organization. cases, choosing the “no publicity” option may be wise. You
can always communicate to employees using a mechanism
There is a third school of thought. It is simply that that is popular (such as an employee newsletter) that “an
rewarding whistleblowers may be necessary in order employee” (no name) received “a reward” for a report that
for organizations to compete effectively with the U.S. enabled the organization to stop certain ongoing violations
government’s tempting rewards for tips relating to of company policy.
securities violations. An organization that generously
rewards whistleblowers is likely to get more reports going
to its own whistleblower system and fewer going directly
to the authorities.


5. Protecting those
who serve

Whistleblowing requires courage. Someone with Given how valuable whistleblowing can be in deterring
knowledge of unethical practices may think hard about and detecting wrongdoing, it would be prudent for an
whether to blow the whistle and, if so, how best to do organization to create a supportive environment for
so. Whistleblowers are often principled people who are whistleblowers. Measures an organization can take to do
willing to take a stand against wrongdoing, but even so this include:
they may fear potential retribution, whether from the • Developing meaningful rewards for whistleblowing.
organization’s senior management or from co-workers.
In some economies or geographies, people may not be • Implementing a detailed non-retaliation policy protecting
able to walk straight into another job. So concerns about whistleblowers who make reports in good faith.
possible personal impact can be very real.
• Communicating this policy in the employee code of
There have been several cases where whistleblowers have ethics, orientation and periodic refresher training, hotline
not been treated fairly by organizations after making posters, employee newsletters, ethics and compliance
their report. Organizations have to overcome this legacy communications, and periodic speeches from senior
if whistleblowers are to be persuaded to report internally management.
rather than directly to the authorities.
• Designating a central function or person, such as the
Half of whistleblower calls in 2009 were anonymous, corporate compliance and ethics officer, to monitor the
according to the major hotline study mentioned earlier career progression, compensation, and any proposed
in item 2, suggesting that many employees still fear to disciplinary actions against whistleblowers for a period of
speak up openly. Anonymity can inadvertently lead to time (such as three years) after a whistleblower report is
mishandling of investigations by focusing on unmasking made. This person can also be designated to receive and
the whistleblower, which can lead to unlawful retribution, to investigate any complaints of retribution.
or by discounting anonymous allegations so they are not
properly investigated, as shown in a recent academic • Implementing a records retention policy for
paper, “Effects of Anonymous Whistle-Blowing and whistleblower reports, complaints and investigations.
Perceived Reputation Threats on Investigations of Whistle-
Blowing Allegations by Audit Committee Members,” • Training senior management about the whistleblower
reported in the Journal of Management Studies online in policies, especially non-retaliation.
February 2010.

This academic experiment, involving 83 experienced
audit committee members, found that audit committee
members attributed lower credibility and allocated fewer
investigative resources to whistleblower reports that were
received through an anonymous versus a non-anonymous
channel. This finding suggests a potential opportunity for
audit committees to enhance the way in which anonymous
whistleblower reports are evaluated and addressed.


6. Communicate, communicate,
communicate

A successful whistleblower system requires effective • A second aspect is raising awareness about the
communication to create and maintain employees’ existence of the whistleblower system. Here frequent
awareness of the hotline’s existence, build willingness to reinforcement and visibility is needed. A good goal is for
use it, and develop employees’ ability to identify potential employees, vendors, customers and other third parties
wrongdoing. to know about the system and when they should use
it. It can also be made clear that not reporting known
According to the Ethics Research Council’s 2009 National wrongdoing is a violation of the organization’s policy and
Business Ethics Survey, 63 percent of employees surveyed will be subject to disciplinary action.
said they had reported misconduct when they saw it. That
is up from 58 percent in the 2007 survey but still leaves 37 • A third aspect is emphasizing to employees that
percent of employees not reporting observed misconduct. whistleblower reports can be anonymous if they
wish, that reports made in good faith will not lead to
Training, both live and online, is key to raising retribution and that reports will be acted upon promptly
whistleblower system awareness. Other means include: with appropriate steps being taken. One thing to note is
• Posters in the workplace that laws in certain European countries, such as France,
limit the use and discourage the emphasis of anonymity
• Mentions on invoices, purchase orders, paystubs, for whistleblower reports, so tailored messages may be
remittance advices, check stubs, and other business needed for employees there.
documents
Employee confidence in the system is paramount to the
• Employee and supplier codes of ethics success of a whistleblower system. Communicating and
monitoring compliance with the entity’s non-retribution
• Intranet and public Web sites policy can help to allay fears. It may also be beneficial to
publish internally suitably anonymous examples of where
a whistleblower system report led to an investigation and
• Verbal emphasis by senior leadership
appropriate disciplinary action against those found to have
violated the organization’s policies. In addition, having
• Employee newsletters and broadcast compliance and
senior executives, including the CEO, participate in some
ethics e-mails
of the system awareness communications can demonstrate
their support.
Three key aspects of whistleblower system
awareness
Communication can establish a strong ethical tone at the
• A key aspect of system awareness is educating organization and illustrate how seriously the organization
employees about the red flags, risks and schemes related takes any reports coming through the whistleblower
to unethical or illegal behavior including topics such as system.
conflicts of interest, bribery, kickbacks, embezzlement,
financial statement manipulation, and fraudulent
regulatory reporting. This type of awareness can be part
of a fraud risk management or ethics and compliance
awareness program. It is important to explain that every
employee has a role in preventing and detecting fraud
and that the hotline system is a key tool for people to
use for that purpose.


7. Open wide

“Open wide,” says the dentist. “Wider.” The wider you • Constituencies — While many organizations have
open your mouth, the easier it is for your dentist to focused on providing a whistleblower reporting system
see what is going on, identify potential problems early, just for employees, only 49 percent of the tips in
and take action to keep your teeth in good shape. the ACFE’s 2010 fraud study mentioned earlier were
Whistleblower systems work in a similar way. When access identified as coming from employees. Another 38
is restricted, it is harder for people to report potential percent came from external sources such as customers,
wrongdoing. Issues can fester until they cause such pain vendors, shareholders, competitors, and the perpetrators’
that action has to be taken. acquaintances. The remaining 13 percent were
anonymous. Encouraging these other constituencies to
Whistleblower system access can sometimes be restricted use your system could generate more good tips.
consciously by executives who may be fearful of having
to respond to more allegations if they “open wide.” • Methods — Live phone calls make asking clarification
More often, access is restricted unconsciously through questions easier. But not all whistleblowers are
use of a design that inadvertently doesn’t reflect some of comfortable reporting that way. Preferred methods vary
the lessons learned in recent years about whistleblower by country and culture. Also, a major hotline operator
systems. reported in 2006 that 77 percent of its anonymous
whistleblowers used a Web-based reporting mechanism.
Four potential barriers to whistleblowing So offering multiple methods of reporting (such as
• Service hours — Many early whistleblower systems phone, e-mail, Web form, fax, and letter) can help to
consisted of a phone number that employees could call generate more tips than just a hotline or e-mail system
during business hours. It may have gone to a compliance on its own.
officer or an internal auditor at the head office. However,
according to one major hotline operator, these days
almost 50 percent of calls are received outside business
hours. Whistleblowers may be reluctant to make hotline
calls from the workplace where they could easily be
overheard, have their name show up on caller ID, and be
tracked in telephone call logs. So enabling access 24/7
can help to increase calls.

• Languages — Whistleblower reports are sensitive and
tricky things to communicate, so not being able to use
one’s preferred language can deter whistleblowing or
adversely impact a report’s completeness and accuracy.
For many organizations today, the ability to take reports
in many different languages may be a necessity not a
luxury.


8. What’s in a name?

The term ‘helpline’ tends to be viewed as a more inviting

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose name that may be less intimidating for an employee to
use. It encourages the caller to treat a matter more as an
By any other name would smell as sweet. item in which they are seeking advice or clarification on an
issue.

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) The ‘helpline’ may also promote calls from employees who
William Shakespeare may not be sure whether something that they observed
is unethical or against the code/law and may not have
otherwise called a ‘hotline.’
Juliet’s idea that names really do not matter proved to
be naive and her love for Romeo ill-fated. For she was a This approach can also facilitate the consolidation of
Capulet and he was a Montague; the names of the two multiple hotlines and helplines into one covering a variety
warring families could not be overcome. of issues. Aside from potentially simplifying business
processes, this can give employees experience in using
Can the name or title of a whistleblower ‘hotline’ make a the line for day-to-day matters, building trust, and making
difference? Experience suggests it may. Despite the heroics them more willing to call should a serious matter arise.
and undeserved suffering of many past whistleblowers,
the term ‘whistleblower’ may have negative connotations
in some people’s minds, for cultural, historical, and other
reasons. In companies with unions, a ‘whistleblower’
hotline may be tagged as the ‘rat line’ or ‘snitch line’ —
quite the opposite of what is intended or desired. A more
neutral term such as ‘report line’ can be one step in the
right direction.

In addition, while whistleblower lines may be thought to
be one-way and narrowly focused on receiving reports of
potential wrongdoing, some companies have turned them
into a two-way communication system called a ‘helpline’
or ‘guideline.’ In addition to taking reports, helplines
provide guidance for employees who are concerned about
a difficult ethical, legal, or regulatory issue that they or a
co-worker may be facing. In this way, ethical issues that
appear borderline or questionable can be resolved before a
decision is made or action taken. So the helpline can be a
way to prevent more wrongdoing.


9. When in Rome…

Many of Rome’s streets are quite narrow. While some Another important aspect globally is the tactics and
American SUVs can be seen on the streets, they seem strategies used in relation to communicating the
large compared to the many small cars (and scooters) whistleblower system. Due to different cultures and
that dominate. It is a lot harder to find space to park an work environments, it can be helpful for an organization
SUV and while parked, their width can make them more to involve local personnel to help tailor communication
vulnerable to damage from other vehicles that squeeze practices. The examples used in training materials and
past. communications about whistleblowing may need to
be tailored given the different audience and culture. In
One size does not fit all. Vehicles in Rome are different addition, a strong emphasis may need to be placed on
from those in New York because Rome is different certain items that would be violations of the organization’s
from New York. In a similar way, taking an American code of ethics or code of conduct but which are
whistleblower system and deploying it worldwide without considered perfectly acceptable culturally and within the
any customization may not generate the desired results. law in some countries.

In some countries, culture and history have made In certain countries, whistleblowing itself may not be a
whistleblowing either a sensitive subject or taboo. problem, but expecting someone to make a report on a
Certain countries have strict laws about the operation of telephone call speaking live with a hotline operator may
whistleblower systems. These need to be factored into be unrealistic. Particularly in certain regions, such as Asia
the design of a whistleblower system for organizations and Latin America, speaking to a stranger on the phone
with international operations. For example, guidance and about a highly sensitive matter may be against the norm
regulations within the European Union may influence the culturally. Providing alternative reporting methods such
design of the whistleblower hotline for organizations that as e-mail or Web form may be much more attractive.
have operations in those countries. Experience suggests that the workforce in certain countries
such as India is typically most comfortable with e-mail
and Internet communication and may be more inclined
to report anonymously this way instead of by telephone
hotline.


10. A prepared and
diligent response

Aside from some legal issues, about which lawyers can • Having a clear communication process — including
advise, there is no one prescribed or ‘right approach’ to when senior executives (including the CEO) and the
responding to whistleblower hotline allegations. However, audit committee are to be notified of an allegation.
certain principles can help drive more effective strategies, Determine who needs to be informed about certain
policies and tactics. Amongst these principles are: types of allegations for legal and regulatory compliance
• Having a clear line of reporting from the hotline operator reasons and how the progress or results of investigations
to a designated member of senior management such will be communicated (typically under the guidance of
as a compliance and ethics officer, who should have legal counsel to help protect any legal privileges). Lastly,
a reporting relationship directly with the board of what type of reporting should be provided to senior
directors or audit committee. Allegations involving management, the board of directors, and the audit
senior management or financial reporting should also committee, how frequently and in how much detail?
be provided directly to the board of directors or audit
committee. • Having pre-determined investigation protocols and plans
of action to help drive timely and consistent responses
• Having defined roles and responsibilities covering organization-wide.
the team of individuals that will evaluate incoming
reports and determine the action to be taken (such • Having a disciplinary committee with responsibility
as the compliance officer, general counsel, internal for implementing appropriate discipline, based on
audit director, or human resources director), who will investigatory findings, applied consistently organization-
investigate each potential type of allegation (such wide.
as human resources, internal audit, or investigative
specialists) and where needed skills will be sourced (such
as computer forensics, data analytics, and language
skills).



The following material is available on the Deloitte Forensic Notable material in other publications:
Center Web site www.deloitte.com/forensiccenter or from • Shop Talk: Compliance Risks in New Data Technologies,
dfc@deloitte.com. Compliance Week, July 2010
• Many Companies Ill-Equipped to Handle Social Media
Deloitte Forensic Center book: e-discovery, BoardMember.com, June 2010
• Corporate Resiliency: Managing the Growing Risk of • Many Companies Expect to Face Difficulties in Assessing
Fraud and Corruption Financial Statement Fraud Risks, BNA Corporate
–– Chapter 1 available for download Accountability Report, May 2010
• Who’s Allegedly ‘Cooking the Books’ and Where?,
Deloitte Forensic Center Business Crimes Bulletin, January 2010
ForThoughts newsletters and videos: • Being Ready for the Worst, Fraud Magazine, November/
• Technology Fraud: The Lure of Private Companies December 2009
• E-discovery: Mitigating Risk Through Better • Mapping Your Fraud Risks, Harvard Business Review,
Communication October 2009
• White-Collar Crime: Preparing for Enhanced Enforcement • Listen to Your Whistleblowers, Corporate Board Member,
• The Cost of Fraud: Strategies for Managing a Growing Third Quarter, 2009
Expense • Use Heat Maps to Expose Rare but Dangerous Frauds,
• Compliance and Integrity Risk: Getting M&A Pricing Right HBR NOW, June 2009
• Procurement Fraud and Corruption: Sourcing from Asia
• Ten Things about Financial Statement Fraud — Third
edition
• The Expanded False Claims Act: FERA Creates New Risks
• Avoiding Fraud: It’s Not Always Easy Being Green
• Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Due Diligence in
M&A
• The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act “FERA”
• Ten Things About Bankruptcy and Fraud
• Applying Six Degrees of Separation to Preventing Fraud
• India and the FCPA
• Helping to Prevent University Fraud
• Avoiding FCPA Risk While Doing Business in China
• The Shifting Landscape of Health Care Fraud and
Regulatory Compliance
• Some of the Leading Practices in FCPA Compliance
• Monitoring Hospital-Physician Contractual Arrangements
to Comply with Changing Regulations
• Managing Fraud Risk: Being Prepared
• Ten Things about Fraud Control


This article is published as part of ForThoughts, the Deloitte Forensic Center’s newsletter series, which is edited by Toby
Bishop, director of the Deloitte Forensic Center. ForThoughts highlights trends and issues in fraud, corruption, and other
complex business issues. To subscribe to ForThoughts, visit www.deloitte.com/forenssiccenter or send an e-mail to
dfc@deloitte.com.

Authors
Donna Epps is a partner in the Forensic & Dispute Services practice of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, the
national leader of the Anti-fraud Consulting group and a member of the leadership team for the Governance and Risk
Management practice. Ms. Epps may be reached at depps@deloitte.com.

Mohammed Ahmed is a senior manager in the Forensic & Dispute Services practice of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services
LLP. Mr. Ahmed may be reached at mahmed@deloitte.com.

The Deloitte Forensic Center is a think tank aimed at exploring new approaches for mitigating the costs, risks and effects
of fraud, corruption, and other issues facing the global business community.

The Center aims to advance the state of thinking in areas such as fraud and corruption by exploring issues from the
perspective of forensic accountants, corporate leaders, and other professionals involved in forensic matters. The Deloitte
Forensic Center is sponsored by Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP. For more information, visit www.deloitte.com/
forensiccenter.

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of Deloitte practitioners. Deloitte is not, by means
of this publication, rendering accounting, auditing, business, financial, investment, legal, or other professional advice or services. This publication
is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business.
Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor.

Deloitte, its affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

About Deloitte
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms,
each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of
Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

Whistleblowing and the New Race to Report - Deloitte Forensic Center

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

Whistleblowing and the New Race to Report - Deloitte Forensic Center