3 ms·
What is the conflict? She only gets paid if her claims are substantiated and lead to a substantial enforcement action. And perhaps I’m a bit too in the weeds on
by elliekelly 5y ago
What is the conflict? She only gets paid if her claims are substantiated and lead to a substantial enforcement action. And perhaps I’m a bit too in the weeds on this sort of thing but when I read “whistleblower” I assume there is some avenue for remuneration either from the SEC or a qui tam suit or some other private right of action. Why would anyone blow their whole career up to bring fraud to light if they’re going to be financially hung out to dry?
I think most people view whistleblower protections as aligning the interests of the public and the whistleblower.
- duud 5y agoEdward Snowden didn't need hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to do the right thing. Of course there should be some kind of compensation for potential loss of income but offering 50-1000x someone's annual income (10-30% of the fine) creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good.
- shadowfox 5y ago> creates an incentive to present the facts in the way that maximizes the payday rather than the public good Sure, it may create an incentive to do so. However, the facts must prove to be true and enforcement action must happen before the payout happens. So, however exaggerated the claims being made by the whistleblower in question, if it is not borne out by facts and substantiation, they are not getting anything for it. I am not sure I see an issue with that.