3 ms·

278 represents the subset of crimes which 1. Had the whistle blown 2. Were investigated 3. Had enough evidence found during the investigation 4. Were fined

278 represents the subset of crimes which 1. Had the whistle blown 2. Were investigated 3. Had enough evidence found during the investigation 4. Were fined successfully 5. Were announced via the SEC whistleblower program Nobody knows the dropoff at every stage but it's certainly non-zero and so we can't judge the level of crime based on the number we know coming out at stage 5. I don't think it's overly cynical to assume that 278 is a small percentage of the actual count of financial crimes in the US since 2012.

handoflixue 4y ago
> we can't judge the level of crime based on the number we know coming out at stage 5. We'll never know the exact details, but we can still piece together a statistical model of the world from the evidence we do have: We can compare it to similar systems, for example. Murderers have to go through similar steps, so one might reasonably conclude that high-value financial crimes are less common than murder. If there are other countries with similar programs, we could also compare our number to theirs.
- Retric 4y ago
  The minimum threshold to be eligible for a whistleblower reward is 1 million in sanctions. So, I think it’s at best an estimate of extreme financial crimes rather than just high.
- srveale 4y ago
  I don't think a comparison with murder rates is valid. The "whistle" is much more likely to be blown for a murder, as there is a corpse or a missing person. Additionally, those committing financial crimes are mostly people with some combination of wealth and clout, better allowing them to fight the accusation and investigation, and there is the revolving door effect between the regulators and those they are supposed to regulate. Plus, why would that comparison be useful? Everyone is capable of murder, not everyone is even in a position where they could attempt to commit the types of crimes that get announced via the whistleblower program. So if we were to compare, it would have to be some kind of per capita comparison, where the population for financial crimes is members of the financial industry. In which case the numbers start to look more damning.

handoflixue 4y ago

> we can't judge the level of crime based on the number we know coming out at stage 5. We'll never know the exact details, but we can still piece together a statistical model of the world from the evidence we do have: We can compare it to similar systems, for example. Murderers have to go through similar steps, so one might reasonably conclude that high-value financial crimes are less common than murder. If there are other countries with similar programs, we could also compare our number to theirs.

Retric 4y ago
The minimum threshold to be eligible for a whistleblower reward is 1 million in sanctions. So, I think it’s at best an estimate of extreme financial crimes rather than just high.
srveale 4y ago
I don't think a comparison with murder rates is valid. The "whistle" is much more likely to be blown for a murder, as there is a corpse or a missing person. Additionally, those committing financial crimes are mostly people with some combination of wealth and clout, better allowing them to fight the accusation and investigation, and there is the revolving door effect between the regulators and those they are supposed to regulate. Plus, why would that comparison be useful? Everyone is capable of murder, not everyone is even in a position where they could attempt to commit the types of crimes that get announced via the whistleblower program. So if we were to compare, it would have to be some kind of per capita comparison, where the population for financial crimes is members of the financial industry. In which case the numbers start to look more damning.