Over more than three decades as a detective investigating complex financial crime, and now working in the private sector for a law firm specializing in the investigation of international fraud and asset recovery, I have witnessed firsthand the growing role that whistleblowers play in unveiling corporate malfeasance.

Yet in the UK, there has always been a lack of support and protection for those brave enough to stick their heads above the parapet. This is compounded by what I perceive to be weak legislation in this area, notably the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).

Why would anyone want to come forward to alert the authorities to criminality and corporate wrongdoing, including fraud and corruption, when the result could likely be the destruction of their career?

The significance of whistleblowing cannot be overstated, particularly as the financial and regulatory landscapes evolve. I have spoken previously on this topic, yet very little has changed. Indeed, Nicholas Ephgrave, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, has thrown his weight behind the use of whistleblowers in the fight against fraud and corruption. I am certain that Mr Ephgrave, as a retired detective himself, is alive to the problems they face.

The review and research being undertaken by Jonathan Fisher KC into the current state of whistleblowing processes, and any changes that could be implemented to improve them, has involved 120 interviews, This includes UK professionals in law enforcement and prosecution. And the result is that there appears to be a swing in favour of a system akin to that in the US, where there are various whistleblower reward programmes in place.

The current legislation is at best insipid, and at worst weak and impractical.

This seems sensible to me. It remains clear that the UK’s current approach to whistleblower protection is flawed, leaving many whistleblowers vulnerable and cases unresolved. The current legislation is at best insipid, and at worst weak and impractical. In fact, the legislation has screamed out for real-world input from police officers who are steeped in managing informants.

If the UK is determined to protect those who come forward, then it will need to be prepared for criticism from companies and organizations that may find themselves subject to whistleblowing reports. Their position is often that whistleblowing can lead to spurious and malicious reports borne of mischief, particularly from alienated and angry employees.

Follow the US system

I, for one though, would like to see whistleblowers rewarded financially. The US has a variety of systems where whistleblowers are rewarded, and handsomely. How this system would operate in the UK context remains to be seen and is a discussion for the legislators, not investigators. We can only hope that such a rewards system will be implemented.

Is there a chance of false reporting? Of course. But such risks can be heavily mitigated. It shouldn’t mean that whistleblowers are not encouraged to come forward.

One of the tweaks to the whistleblower legislation I would welcome, if it is strengthened, would be a section that spells out that prospective whistleblowers could be prosecuted if they make a malicious report, something akin to wasting police time but with heavier penalties.

If the person makes a report, in good faith (even if the organization is later found to have done nothing wrong), then they would have nothing to worry about. But if they are hellbent on a revenge mission, then they would need to think twice. I would anticipate that such a condition would minimize malevolent reporting.

Why does the legislation need strengthening? From the outset, and quite rightly, the source is protected from being named. However, whether this is practical in most instances remains to be seen. Many organizations will endeavor to identify the source, not just for internal ‘outing’ purposes, but also to likely enable them in building a defence.

Once identified (or even suspected), then the individual whistleblower’s career is almost certainly cooked within the organization. Should they leave, their reference may be affected; even where it is not, a quiet telephone call to the prospective new employer is not beyond the realms of possibility. Above all else, this is why I would welcome rewarding whistleblowers in the UK as they do in the US.

UK reform is necessary

Meanwhile, the statistics on whistleblowing in the UK paint a grim picture. According to Whistleblowers UK, nearly 97% of all whistleblowing cases that reach UK courts fail. This is a staggering statistic that should raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of the UK’s whistleblowing protections.

Peter Tutton, an expert on whistleblowing frameworks from global investigations firm Nardello & Co, highlighted this concerning trend in a recent interview, stating that the failure rate is “extraordinarily high” and indicative of an inherent bias in the system.

This, he argues, is a clear signal that reform is necessary: I concur. Let us be clear. Whistleblowing is a risky business, and likely career damaging, and potentially career ending. If you are going to do the right thing, then it is also right that you be rewarded.

Would I make the rewards as significant as those on offer in the US? I’m torn on this point and would imagine that it will divide opinion in the UK. What do you think?