The DOJ's Whistleblower Pilot Program Adds Incentives for Robust Corporate Compliance Programs
By incentivizing individuals to report misconduct through its Whistleblower Pilot Program, the DOJ has expanded its arsenal and the means by which it can identify misconduct. So wrongdoers beware — although this is not the Old West, everybody loves a good bounty.
September 11, 2024 at 11:06 AM
10 minute read
Whistleblower LawsWhat You Need to Know
- The Whistleblower Pilot Program will provide monetary awards to whistleblowers who provide the DOJ with original and truthful information about certain types of corporate misconduct that leads to a successful asset forfeiture.
- The Pilot Program's purpose is to fill gaps in the coverage of information that the DOJ has obtained and used for its investigations and prosecutions from already-existing programs.
- Companies should review their compliance programs and internal controls to ensure that their current procedures are sufficient to effectively detect and prevent misconduct.
As Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Lisa Monaco recently observed, "[g]oing back to the days of 'Wanted' posters across the Old West, law enforcement has long offered rewards to coax tipsters out of the woodwork." On Aug. 1, 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) joined the club of federal law enforcement agencies that have adapted this approach to white-collar crime by launching its own three-year Whistleblower Pilot Program. The Whistleblower Pilot Program will provide monetary awards to whistleblowers who provide the Department with original and truthful information about certain types of corporate misconduct that leads to a successful asset forfeiture. If the success of other government whistleblower programs, such as the one administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), is any measure, the DOJ can be expected to see a surge of reports alleging corruption, money laundering and other corporate fraud. If this is not enough reason for companies to take a fresh look at their compliance programs to ensure they are effective at quickly detecting and remediating misconduct, the DOJ simultaneously amended the Criminal Division's Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (Corporate Enforcement Policy) to allow companies the opportunity for full voluntary self-disclosure benefits even after the DOJ receives a whistleblower tip — so long as the company self-reports that conduct to the DOJ within 120 days of receiving an internal report and before the DOJ contacts the company. While on the one hand, the DOJ is clearly sending a message to employees that if they see something, say something, as DAG Monaco stated to companies in no uncertain terms, "[o]ur message is equally clear: knock on our door before we knock on yours."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Error in Our Case Law': 9th Circuit Overturns False Claims Act First-to-File Precedent
Former Salesforce VP's Whistleblower Retaliation Suit Allowed to Proceed, Judge Rules
4 minute read11th Circuit Rejects Former CSX Employee's Safety-Related Whistleblowing Claims
FBI 'Pressure on Companies'?: DOJ Launches New Whistleblower Awards Program
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250