Saints or Sinners: Whistleblowers' Difficult Position in the Asia-Pacific Region

FROM THE ARCHIVES

Sarah Hofmann
ACFE Public Information Officer

Whistleblowers can be divisive characters. Celebrated by some as heroes and denounced by others as snitches, few other elements that come up during a fraud investigation can spark such polarizing labels. During her session at the 2016 ACFE Fraud Conference Asia-Pacific, Jessica Sidhu, CFE, Llb, explored the precarious position whistleblowers are in. “Is a whistleblower a good person or a bad person? Is he a traitor or is he a patriot?” she asked the audience. “Only when you’ve answered this question will you be able to take a whistleblower seriously.”

The topic was especially pertinent to discuss during the conference in Singapore, as the government of neighboring Malaysia has been involved for a few years with the 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) scandal. Global investigators believe that millions of dollars from the state investment fund 1MDB entered Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's personal bank accounts.

Sidhu herself was formerly head of administration and finance at the Malaysian Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) and was involved with a special task force investigating various financial cases, including a probe into 1MDB. She was reportedly fired “suddenly” in late 2015 and had her permanent residency revoked by the Immigration Department of Malaysia.

During her remarks at the conference, Sidhu discussed Andre Xavier Justo, a former PetroSaudi International executive who is believed to be the main whistleblower in the 1MDB case. He allegedly leaked documents to independent media site Sarawak Report, which established a link between Prime Minister Najib and the missing funds from 1MDB. Justo is currently in jail but is expected to be pardoned at the end of 2016.

Sidhu explored the challenges that whistleblowers face from the very first decision they make: whether to tell someone what they know or suspect. She said, “Sixty-five percent of whistleblowers are insiders and eighty percent of them have approached [their bosses or oversight bodies] internally, but were rejected or turned back.”

It is common for even the most well-intentioned investigators to ignore or discount the reports of whistleblowers for a variety of reasons. Sidhu described a situation her team experienced where one male employee made multiple reports against a female coworker for suspected fraud. Each report was investigated; however they were unable to find any evidence to back up his claims until the tenth report.

Read the full article in The Fraud Examiner, the ACFE's monthly newsletter, archives on ACFE.com.

Setting the Tone at the Top with a Robust Whistleblowing Policy in Africa

GUEST BLOGGER

Mustafa Yusuf-Adebola, ACCA
Risk Consultant

In late 2016, the Nigerian government introduced a whistleblowing policy that awarded individuals between 2.5% to 5% of the amounts recovered based on information about violations of financial regulations, mismanagement of public funds and assets, financial malpractice, fraud and theft. Within a three-month period, the government received 282 tips from whistleblowers through:

1. Text messages (34%);
2. Phone calls (31%);
3. Emails (18%);
4. A whistleblowing portal (17%).

While 55% of these tips were actionable, the medium of communication whistleblowers chose gives an indication of what Nigerians are more comfortable with.

Until recently, whistleblowing was not seen as a serious and viable detection technique in Africa. Whenever one brought up the topic, it sounded like a textbook term used only for academic purposes. Though codes of corporate governance, regulations and international affiliations forced a number of companies to have a whistleblowing policy, in the companies I reviewed I noticed what accountants call ”substance over form.” Essentially, the regulatory (or affiliate) substance of having a whistleblowing policy overrode the working form.

Regarding the tone at the top, the government’s policy has made the whistleblowing immersion and enlightenment a more engaging discourse. “I am going to blow the whistle” is now a popular phrase within the country and people use the whistle as a metaphorical expression of reporting wrongdoing.

The publicity of this policy has also spurred discussions concerning the protection of whistleblowers, rewards for whistleblowing and punishment for false reporting. Similarly, there have also been questions raised on the safeguarding of tips provided by whistleblowers to ensure they are not leaked by those who receive or work on these tips (thus making the whistleblower appear like a false informant). In response to some of these concerns, the country’s senate passed a Whistleblower Protection Bill last June.

As these discussions gain traction, organizations in the private and public sectors are now either introducing whistleblowing policies or reviewing existing ones. Recently, I have observed more Nigerian companies having a whistleblowing link on their websites while some publicize the existence of these portals on their social media pages.

Despite all of these changes, it is important that companies do not just have whistleblowing policies in place but the top hierarchy display and are seen to display a strong commitment to act ethically in order to encourage a whistleblowing culture whose “form supersedes its substance."

Nordic Compliance Professionals Prefer Web-Based Whistleblowing Channels

GUEST BLOGGER

Karin Henriksson, Founding Partner of WhistleB, Whistleblowing Centre
Whistleblowing and compliance expert

For many years, telephone hotlines have been considered the most popular form of reporting whistleblowing issues. However, WhistleB’s recent client experience in Scandinavia has indicated that reporting through online channels is equally effective.

Research conducted by the ACFE seems to corroborate this trend. For the first time, tips submitted via email (34.1%) and web-based or online form (23.5%) combined to make reporting more common through the internet than by telephone.

Against the backdrop of increasing regulation across Europe aimed at strengthening whistleblower protections, we were curious about the potential of online whistleblowing systems, based on the experience of Nordic organizations.

At the 3rd Summit on Anti-Corruption (Nordics Edition) in November 2016, we took the opportunity to ask compliance professionals directly about their preferences of whistleblowing reporting. Here is what we found:

• Nearly 80% of respondents receive the majority of their whistleblowing reports through a web service.
• More than three-quarters of compliance professionals surveyed said they preferred to receive reports through a web service, whereas only one in 10 preferred to receive them by phone.
• Nearly 70% said that they manage whistleblowing cases internally; approximately 30% handle them both internally and externally.

We also surveyed our own customers during the summer of 2016. The request went out to approximately 100 organizations who told us that approximately half of the reports they received led to an anonymous dialogue between the whistleblower and the employer.

What can we learn from these results?

1. The anonymity and security of web-based reporting channels appeals to whistleblowers, for whom blowing the whistle remains an uncomfortable step to take. Additionally, web platforms that are increasingly optimized for smartphones enable whistleblowers to more easily record and report evidence of misconduct.
2. We believe that one of the key reasons that compliance officers prefer online reporting systems is that an online system enables them to capture information more efficiently, and subsequently handle cases more effectively with the help of a structured online process. 
3. Nordic companies clearly prefer an internal investigation team, and the advantages thereof: the ability to extract and combine information from multiple reports and sources to find a pattern; more secure handling of information; and, cost-effective solution.
4. Online reporting is invaluable in bringing about anonymous internal dialogue between the organization and the whistleblower.

Online whistleblowing has a firm position in the prevention of fraud. As one of our customers wrote in our summer survey, "We see that reporting increases when the employees can report with guaranteed anonymity and in their own language."

Karin Henriksson, Founding Partner of WhistleB, Whistleblowing Centre is a whistleblowing and compliance expert. Karin has previously worked in the European Union bodies, as well as at the Nordic Council of Ministers. She has for many years worked as a senior consultant in the area of ethics and compliance, helping customers set up whistleblowing centers as a part of their governance and compliance model. She is also a member of Transparency International’s whistleblowing group in Sweden.

Skype: WhistleB Karin Henriksson
E-mail: karin.henriksson@whistleb.com

Naughty or Nice: Who Made the List in 2016?

GUEST BLOGGER

Emily Primeaux, CFE
Assistant Editor, Fraud Magazine

He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good...

"He," or "she," of course, is the ever present fraud fighter. And in 2016, fraud fighters saw a slew of unsavory characters who clearly ignored the elf on the shelf and instead stole, bribed or colluded to illegally line their own pockets. But for every bad apple, there are unsung heroes — the whistleblowers, journalists, investigators ... the list goes on and on. These heroes go to battle in the trenches every day to root out the crooks and thieves.

In honor of the holiday season, let's ruminate on the past year and the characters that made it onto either the naughty or the nice list.

Naughty

1. Wells Fargo: On Sept. 9, 2016, Wells Fargo negotiated a deal to settle a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of Comptroller of Currency, and the City and County of Los Angeles. Though Wells Fargo didn't admit to any wrongdoing, it did confirm that employees had opened more than two million checking, savings and credit card accounts without customer approval. And in a stunning turn of events, former employees then came forward to say they had called the ethics hotline to report dubious sales practices. However, according to these accounts, some whistleblowers claimed that the bank's strategy for dealing with whistleblowers was to find ways to fire them in retaliation. Though the case is ongoing, John Stumpf has stepped down as the bank's chief executive.
    
2. Andrew Caspersen: On Nov. 4, 2016, this disgraced scion of a wealthy Wall Street family was sentenced to four years in prison for robbing his friends, family and a large hedge-fund foundation in a Ponzi-like scheme. The judge who sentenced him? None other than the ACFE's 2016 Cressey Award winner, Senior U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Looks like Caspersen most likely received coal in his stocking this year.
    
3. The Panama Papers: A giant leak of more than 11.5 million financial and legal records from the world's fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca, detailing financial and attorney-client information for more than 214,488 offshore entities ... otherwise known as the Panama Papers. According to the papers, the leak "exposes a system that enables crime, corruption and wrongdoing, hidden by secretive offshore companies." The leaked documents outed scores of politicians, business leaders and celebrities for fraudulent business practices, including Iceland's Prime Minister, Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson. He stepped down after documents revealed that he and his wealthy wife had sheltered money offshore.

Nice

1. The Panama Papers: The papers themselves were a great feat of international cooperation when the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and more than 100 news organizations released the Panama Papers. These are the good guys.
    
2. Tyler Schultz: When he discovered that Theranos, a health technology and blood-testing company, was using proprietary Edison machines that frequently failed quality-control checks and produced widely varying results, Schultz (an employee of the company at the time) decided to speak up. He drafted an email to founder Elizabeth Holmes to complain that Theranos had doctored research and ignored failed quality-control checks. What makes this move even more incredible is that Schultz is the grandson of George Schultz, a Theranos board member. Since then, a major investor has sued Theranos for fraud and the company has had to stop blood tests, shut down labs and cut jobs. 
    
3. Clare Rewcastle Brown: In 2010, Rewcastle Brown founded The Sarawak Report and Radio Free Sarawak to disseminate news that concerned the Sarawak region of Malaysia and eventually, news surrounding the emerging 1MDB (1Malaysia Development Bhd) scandal. 1MDB is currently being investigated by Swiss, Singh and U.S. authorities. And she's not backing down, despite a Malaysian court issuing a warrant for her arrest for "activities detrimental to parliamentary democracy" and the "dissemination of false reports." She'll be speaking about the scandal at the 2017 ACFE Fraud Conference Europe in London, March 19-21.

The naughty list may never be empty, but at least we have those on the nice list to turn to. And while 2016 saw some pretty egregious schemes, we can enter 2017 knowing that there are those willing to investigate and speak up. Here's to the new year!

Indifference to Ethical Business Conduct is Death for Organizations

FROM THE PRESIDENT

James D. Ratley, CFE
ACFE President

In my decades of anti-fraud work I've learned more things than I've taught. Here's one important nugget: Organizations should encourage whistleblowers. (At the ACFE, we like to call them sentinels.) As in years past, the 2016 Report to the Nations says the most common detection method still is tips.

In Fraud Magazine's latest cover article, Top 10 factors leading to hotline distrust: Understanding why no one calls, authors Ryan Hubbs and Julia Kniesche write that whistleblowers have always been subject to false allegations, retribution from management and even dismissal.

I've met few whistleblowers who weren't targets of their organizations after they bravely stepped up to the plate. (Just read the stories of Tony Menendez and James Holzrichter.)

Hubbs and Kniesche write that employees often ignore company hotlines because they witness top management's indifference to ethical business conduct. "When employees see management retaliating against would-be whistleblowers, the message at the operational level is clear: Mind your own business, don't ask questions and keep your head down if you want to keep your job," they write.

That attitude is death for organizations. "An ethics hotline reporting system becomes meaningless when employees can't trust that local management will take appropriate action," say the authors.

Some of the factors that lead to ineffective hotlines, they share, include neglecting to train hotline workers well; management that interferes; employees who don't understand the systems; inadequate resources and poor program designs; and retaliation against whistleblowers.

Sometimes, organizations begrudgingly begin hotlines because of stipulations in the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, or European Union directives.

However, the organizations that see the best hotline results initiate them because they know they'll encourage strong internal cultures and revive flagging morale. As the authors write, employees' lack of trust in the reporting process can create unhealthy work environments, and eventually result in employment lawsuits, legal and regulatory actions, loss of assets, external whistleblower complaints, poor customer perception or brand reputation, and high employee-turnover costs.

Hubbs and Kniesche write that most employees want to do the right thing, and organizations need to do what they can to help support and encourage employees to report. "Failures in employee reporting today can result in significant operational and reputational hurdles tomorrow," they explain. They encourage you to follow their tips to strengthen your reporting program so no top executive ever has to ask the question, "What went wrong?"