Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:44 pm
Time: 11:44 pm
Results for whistleblowers
4 results foundAuthor: Larence, Eileen R. Title: Criminal Cartel Enforcement: Stakeholder Views on Impact of 2004 Antitrust Reform Are Mixed, but Support Whistleblower Protection Summary: Criminal cartel activity, such as competitors conspiring to set prices, can harm consumers and the U.S. economy through lack of competition and overcharges. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division’s leniency program offers the possibility that the first individual or company that self-reports cartel activity will avoid criminal conviction and penalties. In 2004, the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (ACPERA) was enacted to encourage such reporting. The 2010 reauthorization mandated that GAO study ACPERA’s effect. This report addresses (1) the extent that ACPERA affected DOJ’s criminal cartel enforcement, (2) the ways ACPERA has reportedly affected private civil actions, and (3) key stakeholder perspectives on rewards and antiretaliatory protection for whistleblowers reporting criminal antitrust violations. GAO analyzed DOJ data on criminal cartel cases (1993-2010) and interviewed DOJ officials. GAO also interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of plaintiffs’ and defense attorneys from 17 civil cases and key stakeholders including other antitrust attorneys selected using a snowball sampling technique whereby GAO identified contacts through referrals. What GAO Recommends -- Congress may wish to consider an amendment to add a civil remedy for those who are retaliated against for reporting criminal antitrust violations. DOJ generally agreed with GAO’s findings but did not comment on this matter. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. GAO, 2011. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-11-619: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11619.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11619.pdf Shelf Number: 122164 Keywords: AntitrustCriminal CartelsFinesFraudWhistleblowers |
Author: Almashat, Sammy Title: Pharmaceutical Industry Criminal and Civil Penalties: An Update Summary: In December 2010, Public Citizen published a report that, for the first time, documented all major financial settlements and court judgments between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the federal and state governments since 1991. At the time of the report’s publication, almost $20 billion had been paid out by the pharmaceutical industry to settle allegations of numerous violations, including illegal, off-label marketing and the deliberate overcharging of taxpayer-funded health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Three-fourths of the settlements and accompanying financial penalties had occurred in just the five-year period prior to 2010. At the time of the report’s publication, there was no indication that this upward trend was subsiding. The following study was undertaken to assess the level of settlement activity from the previous report through the first half of 2012 – an additional 1 ½ years – and to conduct, for the first time, an analysis of the results of individual state enforcement efforts since 1991. Methodology from the 2010 report was largely replicated, with all federal and state government settlements, of $1 million or greater, reached with pharmaceutical manufacturers from November 2, 2010 through July 18, 2012 included in the current study. In addition, a 50-state analysis of settlement activity, going back to 1991, was conducted for the first time on state settlements that did not involve the federal government. State settlements were classified as single-state settlements (those in which only one state was a party to the final settlement) or multi-state settlements (all other state settlements). A total of 74 additional settlements, totaling $10.2 billion in financial penalties, were reached between the federal and state governments and pharmaceutical manufacturers between November 2, 2010 and July 18, 2012, with the first half of 2012 alone already representing a record year for both federal ($5.0 billion) and state ($1.6 billion) financial recoveries. Since 1991, a total of 239 settlements, for $30.2 billion, have now been reached (through July 18, 2012) between federal and state governments and pharmaceutical companies. Other key findings included: - Single-state settlements have been responsible for most of the recent increase in settlement activity, comprising almost three-fifths (59%) of all settlements since the beginning of 2009, compared to only one-fourth (25%) of settlements prior to 2009. - Since 1991, 27 states have reached at least one single-state settlement with a pharmaceutical company. Kentucky has had the most single-state settlements (17) while Texas has had the highest number of single-state settlements resulting from actions initiated by private whistleblowers (6). - Seventeen of the 27 states with at least one single-state settlement since 1991 have attained a return on investment of $1 or greater for every dollar spent on enforcement of all (both pharmaceutical-related and non-pharmaceutical) Medicaid fraud. - Since 2009, the federal government has concluded almost as many settlements and recovered more in financial penalties as it had in the previous 18 years combined. - Whistleblower-initiated investigations were responsible for most federal settlements (75%) and financial penalties (78%) during the current study period. - As in the previous study, overcharging government health insurance programs, mainly drug pricing fraud against state Medicaid programs, was the most common violation, while the unlawful promotion of drugs was associated with the largest penalties. The past two years have seen a continuation of the recent trend of record settlements between the federal and state governments and pharmaceutical manufacturers. A much larger proportion of these recent settlements have been brought about by individual state investigations than in previous years which, in most states involved in such litigation, has resulted in financial recoveries that more than offset enforcement expenses. However, despite the scale of the fraud against their Medicaid programs and the potential recoveries at stake, most states, including some with the highest prescription drug expenditures, have yet to pursue investigations on their own. On a federal level, financial penalties still continue to pale in comparison to company profits and a parent company is only rarely excluded from participation in Medicare and Medicaid for the illegal activities, which endanger the public health and deplete already overstretched taxpayer-funded programs. In what will hopefully represent an emerging trend, the federal government has recently pursued criminal charges against key company employees and executives, but the cases so far have either been thrown out or resulted in minor sentences. Stronger legislation and more robust enforcement are needed on a federal and state level to deter future unlawful behavior. Details: Washington, DC: Public Citizen, 2012. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 3, 2012 at: http://www.citizen.org/documents/2073.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.citizen.org/documents/2073.pdf Shelf Number: 126544 Keywords: Corporate CrimeFraud and CorruptionMedicaid FraudPrescription FraudWhistleblowersWhite Collar Crime, Pharmaceutical Industry |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: IRS Whistleblower Program: Billions Collected, but Timeliness and Communication Concerns May Discourage Whistleblowers Summary: Tax whistleblowers who report on the underpayment of taxes by others have helped IRS collect almost $2 billion in additional revenue since 2011, when the first high-dollar claim was paid under the expanded program that pays qualifying whistleblowers a minimum of 15 percent of the collected proceeds. These revenues help reduce the estimated $450 billion tax gap - the difference between taxes owed and those paid on time. GAO was asked to review several aspects of the whistleblower program. Among other things, this report (1) assesses the WO claim review process, (2) assesses how the WO determines awards, (3) evaluates how the WO communicates with external stakeholders, and (4) evaluates IRS's policies and procedures for protecting whistleblowers. GAO reviewed the files of all 17 awards paid under 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b) through June 30, 2015; reviewed IRS data; reviewed relevant laws and regulations, and the WO's policies, procedures and publications; and interviewed IRS officials, five whistleblowers that independently approached GAO, and nine whistleblower attorneys who were recommended by IRS or other attorneys. What GAO Recommends Congress should consider providing whistleblowers with legal protections against retaliation from employers. GAO makes ten recommendations to IRS including, tracking dates, strengthening and documenting procedures for award payments and whistleblower protections, and improving external communications. IRS agreed with our recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-16-20: Accessed February 9, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673440.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/673440.pdf Shelf Number: 137817 Keywords: Financial CrimesTax EvasionWhistleblowersWhite Collar CrimeWhite Collar Offenses |
Author: Dussuyer, Inez Title: Preventing Victimisation of Whistle-blowers Summary: Aims of the Study The central focus of the study was on understanding the experiences of whistle-blowers after they had reported wrongdoing. In particular, the aims were to investigate the nature of victimisation, retaliation or other negative treatment against whistle-blowers and what the impact of such actions was on the whistle-blowers. A further aim was to identify what factors might prevent such actions and protect whistle-blowers when they speak out against misconduct. As part of this approach, information was also obtained about the type of misconduct involved, about the organisations where the whistleblowers were working; and about what processes they had in place for reporting misconduct and for protecting the whistle-blowers. Study Participants Qualitative semi-structured interviews (a majority of these were by telephone) were conducted with 36 whistle-blowers who were self-selected after being invited to participate through an independent hotline2 (n=12 out of 19 who had originally contacted the researchers) and through a volunteer support line Whistle-blowers Australia3 (n=24 out of 36 who had made initial contact) corresponding to a rate for interview of 65 percent (63 percent for the hotline and 66 percent for the support line). Of those interviewed 44 percent were female and 56 percent were male (there were more males from the support line, while more females came via the hotline). The age categories ranged from 30's to 70's at the time of interview. Participants resided principally in Victoria, NSW and Queensland with a few from the other states. A further set of interviews were conducted with persons who, in a professional capacity, had dealt with whistle-blowers, to enable alternative perspectives on the whistle blowing experience to be obtained. After being invited to participate principally through the hotline, which sent an email to client organisations, 19 qualitative semi structured interviews were conducted (of whom 6 were female and 13 male). Interviewees came from independent hotlines, integrity bodies with roles in whistle blowing processes including investigations, public sector disclosure coordinators as well as persons from the private sector with a role for handling whistle-blowers reports. Types of Misconduct Reported Responses from both the whistle-blowers and persons who deal with whistle-blowers indicated that while misconduct could involve dishonesty, fraud and deception, a greater proportion related to what can be broadly termed as 'workplace grievances', covering bullying, harassment and intimidation. For some whistle-blowers, in particular from the support line, the misconduct had occurred many years ago; for the hotline it had been in the last six years. In many instances the misconduct had gone on for some time before the whistle-blowers made the reports. Whistleblowing Reporting Processes Whistle-blowers would in the first instance, usually report the misconduct internally, often to their immediate manager or higher, or else to a designated disclosure coordinator (in the public sector) or, in the private sector the use of an independent hotline was available. In general, when whistle-blowers used the hotline there was anonymity for the whistle-blowers and the hotline acted as a go between the whistle-blower and the client organisation. Anonymity appeared to be less assured in public sector organisations, although investigative bodies went to considerable lengths to protect the identity of the whistle-blowers. There was frustration expressed by whistle-blowers when they tried to report misconduct about a number of issues - that they were not clear how they would be protected, who the right persons were to go to, and that they were not kept informed about what was happening to their reports of misconduct and what the outcomes were. Other complaints emerged along the way about the whistleblower reports not having been taken seriously or simply ignored. Some whistle-blowers reported not knowing what to do and who to go to when they wanted to report. Some also went to considerable lengths to have their concerns addressed by other avenues when there was an initial lack of responsiveness to their concern. These avenues included the unions, Ministers/MPs, the media, anticorruption bodies and employment commissions, as well as going to the courts and using lawyers. There appeared to be a variety of avenues available to whistle-blowers to go to report wrongdoing but it was not obvious for many, which was most appropriate and what the best steps were; that also depended on what sector they were working in and on the organisation itself. When dealing with whistle-blowers in their professional capacity, many interviewees from the agencies dealing with whistle-blowers said that it was important to clarify with whistle-blowers about their expectations and what could be achieved in a practical sense. Some said that the 'unrealistic' expectations of many whistle-blowers when they reported misconduct could have negative consequences on the interactions with the agencies they were dealing with, as well as increasing the frustration and indeed the anger of whistle-blowers. Consequences for Whistle-blowers after Reporting Misconduct - Retaliation and Reprisals Both groups - the whistle-blowers (once their identity had become known), and some of those who dealt with them, generally acknowledged the overall negative experience of 'speaking out', including lack of support, criticism and retaliation by management and being in a workplace culture characterised by denial/defensiveness, blaming, fear and bullying and harassment of the whistleblower. A number of the interviewees who dealt with whistle-blowers stated that they often did not know about or what had happened to whistle-blowers and, thus they had no or little knowledge about any negative treatment the whistle-blowers were subjected to. Whistle-blowers themselves were able to provide many examples of the victimisation they had suffered. Most common were bullying and harassment in the workplace associated with ostracism, isolation, being excluded from meetings and derogatory remarks on social media as well as being subject to disciplinary actions and counter allegations. Examples were given where whistle-blowers were also physically assaulted, their families threatened. As part of this array was the often mentioned issue of a lack of welfare support for the whistle-blowers. This was particularly emphasised by those who deal with whistle-blowers as being either absent or inadequate; there were some exceptions; an anonymous counselling/welfare service was available for employees (not only for whistle-blowers) in some organisations. About the protection offered by the whistle-blowers legislation there was no one who indicated it was effective in doing so, nor was it effective even as a deterrent. However many suggestions were provided as to how whistle-blowers and the whistle blowing processes could be improved and how negative experiences could be minimised both by whistle-blowers and in particular by those who dealt with them. Impact on Whistle-blowers For many whistle-blowers the outcomes of reporting misconduct were significant emotional and psychological impact, including stress, exhaustion, mental health and health related issues as well as the financial costs (using lawyers, going to court, losing their jobs) and a negative impact on their careers (not being promoted, moved sides ways, not having their contract renewed or in a number of cases dismissal). All of the whistle-blowers interviewed were no longer working for the organisation in where they had observed the misconduct; indeed many were no longer working (were unemployed or retired). Above all, whistle-blowers had a pervading sense of injustice and perceived a lack of fairness at the treatment that they had been subjected to after reporting misconduct, and that influenced their sense of trust and confidence in people and organisations. In many instances these experiences of being badly treated when they reported misconduct, led to a radical change in the lives of a number of whistle-blowers; with some changing career direction, some going back to further study (employment/workplace law in particular) and others writing about their experiences and publishing books. Again for other whistle-blowers they had gone on to help other (and potential) whistle-blowers by working for whistle-blower volunteer support lines and establishing websites to inform whistle-blowers about practical strategies and ways of handling the reporting process and the aftermath. When in the light of their experiences, whistle-blowers were asked whether they would do it over again, that is, to report the misconduct, about half said emphatically, yes of course while the other half said no, never. Improving Protection for Whistle-blowers Some thoughtful suggestions were proposed by whistle-blowers themselves and included: - Establish an annual citation or award for corporate governance where whistle-blowers are recognised and thanked. - Provide compensation to the whistle-blowers (as in the US). - Prosecute those who retaliate against whistle-blowers (has anyone been charged in Australia? asked one whistle-blower). - Changing the workplace culture was emphasised; the workplace brings together all sorts of people, with different values and ethical standards, increasing the risk of conflict and cultural clashes; ethical competency was identified as needing to be cultivated. - Investigations need to be done independently, not by Human Resources departments and that the whistle-blower should be given feedback and a copy of the report. - In some sectors such as some sports, there appears to be no grievance process and there is a lack of transparency and independence, especially if there are complains about conduct. - While colleagues and peer groups are supportive, they often do not have the information or knowledge to advise effectively or strategically; more appropriate sources are available. - Support should be provided to whistle-blowers, particularly those who may be vulnerable to reprisals and victimisation; for example having an independent counsellor or psychologist to guide the whistle-blower through the reporting process. None of the persons interviewed, whether they were whistle-blowers or those dealt with them, perceived legislation as effective in preventing victimisation. More often it was improvements in management and workplace culture that were identified as being more useful. Also the need for workplace policies that are actually implemented and complied with was stressed, as well as and more practical welfare support for the whistle-blower and more education in the workplace about whistleblowing procedures and processes. Details: Melbourne: Victoria University, 2016. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2018 at: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/IBACC/Submissions/Submission_20_-_Victoria_University_27.7.2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/IBACC/Submissions/Submission_20_-_Victoria_University_27.7.2016.pdf Shelf Number: 150343 Keywords: Employee Misconduct Retaliation Whistleblowers Workplace Misconduct |