The idea of paying whistleblowers seems to have been around as long as economic crime.
If anything, the argument has gained more impetus, thanks largely — and most recently — to Jonathan Fisher KC, who has called on the government to begin a consultation on the issue.
He believes that paying whistleblowers would take the fight to the fraudsters and those involved in bribery and other forms of economic crime. And as he has been asked by the government to assess the ways in which fraud could be better tackled, his words carry more weight than most.
He argues that paying whistleblowers could improve corporate culture, increase self-reporting of wrongdoing, and even raise the number of companies looking to reach a settlement with the Serious Fraud Office.
According to Fisher, there are gains to be made from letting the SFO determine who can be considered a whistleblower and what the rewards on offer need to be. He also says there are benefits to be had from creating new criminal offences of making false reports and of harassing whistleblowers, and from doubling the maximum sentence for most common law fraud offences.
This stance may be music to the ears of those at the SFO. But there are many who will oppose such an approach, on the grounds that it is not the British way of doing things and may even produce a whole new range of challenges for the SFO.
But regardless of this, any such changes should not be made without considering the SFO itself. The reasoning behind such...
To display this content from YouTube, you must enable advertisement tracking and audience measurement. 2 min After a monthlong lull in hostilities, the United States launched fresh airstrikes on I...