Why Reporting Accounting Fraud Will Lead to Future SEC Whistleblower Awards
A recent CNN documentary about the Enron accounting scandal is a stark reminder of the devastation that results when corporate officers cook the books – thousands of employees lost their jobs, individual investors and pension funds lost billions, and the stock market plummeted as investors lost confidence in the accuracy of public company accounting. Most employees that knew about the fraud failed to speak up due to fear of retaliation and a corporate culture characterized by greed and deception. If Enron employees had been protected against retaliation and incentivized to report accounting fraud to the SEC, the SEC may have learned about the fraudulent practices early enough to combat and remedy those practices.
Under the SEC Whistleblower Program, whistleblowers can submit tips anonymously to the SEC through an attorney and be eligible for an award for exposing any material violation of the federal securities laws. Since 2011, the SEC has issued more than $2.2 billion in awards to whistleblowers. The largest SEC whistleblower awards to date are:
$279 million (May 5, 2023)
$114 million (Oct. 22, 2020)
$110 million (Sept. 15, 2021)
This article discusses: 1) how whistleblowers can earn awards for reporting accounting fraud to the SEC; 2) the pervasiveness of accounting fraud at U.S. publicly traded companies; and 3) the SEC’s focus on accounting fraud which, in turn, will lead to future SEC whistleblower awards.
SEC Whistleblower Program
In response to the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, the SEC is required to issue monetary awards to whistleblowers when they provide original information about violations of the federal securities laws (e.g., accounting fraud) that leads to successful SEC enforcement actions with monetary sanctions in excess of $1 million. Whistleblowers are eligible to receive an award of between 10% and 30% of the total monetary sanctions collected in a successful enforcement action. In certain circumstances, even officers, directors, auditors, and accountants may be eligible for awards under the program.
Since the inception of the SEC Whistleblower Program, whistleblower tips have enabled the SEC to bring successful enforcement actions resulting in more than $6 billion in monetary sanctions. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 alone, the SEC Office of the Whistleblower awarded more than $255 million to whistleblowers, which included a $98 million award. Also in FY 2024, the SEC received nearly 25,000 whistleblower tips, of which 2,609 related to Corporate Disclosures and Financials. As detailed below, recent data suggest that whistleblower tips related to accounting frauds will likely increase in the coming years due to rampant accounting fraud, violations, and errors.
Whistleblowers Needed: Accounting Fraud is Widespread
In October 2023, a paper titled How Pervasive is Corporate Fraud? estimated that “on average 10% of large publicly traded firms are committing securities fraud every year.” According to the paper:
Accounting violations are widespread: in an average year, 41% of companies misrepresent their financial reports, even when we ignore simple clerical errors. Fortunately, securities fraud is less pervasive. In an average year, 10% of all large public corporations commit (alleged) securities fraud, with a 95% confidence interval between 7 and 14%.
The paper’s findings about the pervasiveness of accounting violations were echoed in a December 2024 Financial Times article titled Accounting errors force US companies to pull statements in record numbers. According to the article:
The number of US companies forced to withdraw financial statements because of accounting errors has surged to a nine-year high, raising questions about why mistakes are going unnoticed by auditors.
In the first 10 months of this year, 140 public companies told investors that previous financial statements were unreliable and had to reissue them with corrected figures, according to data from Ideagen Audit Analytics. That is up from 122 in the same period last year and more than double the figure four years ago. So-called reissuance restatements cover the most serious accounting errors, either because of the size of the mistake or because an issue is of particular concern to investors.
Fortunately for investors, officers, directors, auditors, and accountants can be eligible for awards under the SEC Whistleblower Program, and whistleblower tips – especially from individuals with actual knowledge of the fraud – enable the SEC to quickly detect and halt accounting schemes.
Accounting Fraud in SEC Crosshairs
SEC enforcement actions against accounting violations and improper disclosures often lead to significant penalties. Eligible whistleblowers may receive awards of between 10% and 30% of the monetary sanctions collected in successful enforcement actions. Since 2020, some of the SEC’s largest enforcement actions were brought against companies engaged in accounting violations:
In 2020, General Electric agreed to pay a $200 million penalty for misleading investors by understating losses in its power and insurance businesses.
In 2021, The Kraft Heinz Company agreed to a $62 million penalty to settle charges that it engaged in a long-running expense management scheme that resulted in the restatement of several years of financial reporting
In 2021, Luckin Coffee agreed to pay a $180 million penalty for defrauding investors by materially misstating the company’s revenue, expenses, and net operating loss in an effort to falsely appear to achieve rapid growth and increased profitability and to meet the company’s earnings estimates.
In 2022, accounting firm Ernst & Young agreed to pay a $100 million penalty due to some employees cheating on CPA ethics exams and for misleading SEC investigators.
In 2024, UPS agreed to pay a $45 million penalty for misrepresenting its earnings by improperly valuing its UPS Freight business unit.
Whistleblower tips concerning similar accounting violations have led to, and will continue to lead to, significant whistleblower awards. For more information about reporting accounting fraud to the SEC and earning a whistleblower award, see the following articles:
How to Report Accounting Fraud an Earn an SEC Whistleblower Award
5 Things Whistleblowers Should Know About Reporting Accounting Fraud to the SEC
Improper revenue recognition tops SEC fraud cases
Delligatti v. United States (No. 23-825)
Federal law provides a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for a person who uses or carries a firearm during a “crime of violence.” In Delligatti v. United States (No. 23-825), the Supreme Court addressed whether a crime of omission involves the “use” of physical force, thus subjecting a defendant to the sentencing enhancement. A 7-2 Court held that it does.
Salvatore Delligatti is an associate of the Genovese crime family. Delligatti had been hired by a gas station owner to take out a neighborhood bully and suspected police informant. Delligatti, in turn, recruited a local gang to carry out the job and provided them with a gun and a car. Unfortunately for Delligatti, the job was thwarted twice, once when the gang abandoned the plan because there were too many witnesses present, and second by the police, who had discovered the plot. Delligatti was charged with multiple federal offenses, including one count of using or carrying a firearm during a “crime of violence” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Section 924(c) states that an offense qualifies as a crime of violence if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against a person or property of another.” To determine whether an offense falls within Section 924(c), courts employ the so-called categorical approach, asking whether the offense in question always involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force. The Government argued that Delligatti’s offense met this requirement because he had committed attempted second-degree murder under New York law. Before trial, Delligatti moved to dismiss his Section 924(c) charge arguing the Government could not establish a predicate crime of violence. The District Court disagreed, holding that there “can be no serious argument” that attempted murder is not a crime of violence. A jury convicted Delligatitti on all counts and he was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.
On appeal to the Second Circuit, Delligatti argued that New York’s second-degree murder statute fell outside Section 924(c)’s elements clause because it could be committed either by an affirmative act or by an omission. But the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction, holding that causing (or attempting to cause) bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force, even if the injury is caused by an omission. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an individual who knowingly or intentionally causes bodily injury or death by failing to take action uses physical force within the meaning of Section 924(c).
Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that precedent, congressional intent, and logic refuted Delligatti’s challenge to his conviction. First precedent: In United States v. Castleman (2014), the Court interpreted a statute that prohibited anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence crimes, which similarly requires the use of physical force, from owning a firearm. In Castleman, the Court held that it was “impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force,” and that this force can be applied directly or indirectly, such as sprinkling poison in a victim’s drink, even though sprinkling poison does not itself involve force. Put differently: whenever someone knowingly causes physical harm, he uses force for the purposes of the statute. (Indeed, Delligatti had conceded that it was possible to use violent force indirectly, such as “when a person tricks another into eating food that has aged to the point of becoming toxic.”)
Justice Thomas then rebuffed Delligatti’s contention that one does not use physical force against another through deliberate inaction. By way of further example, a car owner makes “use” of the rain to wash a car by leaving it out on the street, or a mother who purposefully kills her child by declining to intervene when the child finds and drinks bleach makes “use” of bleach’s poisonous properties. Thomas thus concluded that crimes of omission qualify as a Section 924(c) crime of violence because intentional murder is the prototypical crime of violence, and it has long been understood that “one could commit murder by refusing to perform a legal duty, like feeding one’s child.” He noted that there is a preference for interpretations of Section 924(c) that encompass prototypical crimes of violence over ones that do not. And, at the time of Section 924(c)’s enactment, the principle that even indirect causation of bodily harm involves the use of violent force was well-established in case law, treatises, and various state laws. This violent force could be accomplished with battery-level force, i.e., force satisfied by “even the slightest offensive touching,” or by deceit or other nonviolent means.
In dissent, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Jackson, continued with the majority’s approach of reasoning by example, only this time concluding that Section 924(c) does not reach crimes of omission. He began by asking the reader to imagine “a lifeguard perched on his chair at the beach who spots a swimmer struggling against the waves. Instead of leaping into action, the lifeguard chooses to settle back in his chair, twirl his whistle, and watch the swimmer slip away. The lifeguard may know that his inaction will cause death. Perhaps the swimmer is the lifeguard’s enemy and the lifeguard even wishes to see him die. Either way, the lifeguard is a bad man.” But while the lifeguard may be guilty of any number of serious crimes for his failure to fulfill his legal duty to help the swimmer, the lifeguard’s inaction does not qualify as a “crime of violence.”
Justice Gorsuch reached this conclusion primarily through statutory interpretation. In his view, when Congress enacted Section 924(c), “to use” meant “to employ,” “to convert to one’s service,” or “to avail one’s self of” something, terms that imply action, not inaction, inertia, or nonactivity. In his view, the physical force needed to commit a crime of violence must be a physical act, as well as one that is violent (extreme and severe, as opposed to “mere touching” consistent with battery). So, in the lifeguard example, by remaining in his chair, the lifeguard does not employ “even the merest touching, let alone violent physical force.” And while Gorsuch acknowledged that crimes of omission can still be serious, he explained that Section 924(c) was not written to reach every felony found in the various state codes, so the Court should not stretch the statute’s terms to reach crimes of inaction, inertia, or nonactivity. He also pointed out that when Congress was considering defining crime of violence to require the use of physical force, a Senate report discussed the hypothetical of the operator of a dam who refused to open floodgates during a flood, thereby placing residents upstream in danger, and concluded that the dam operator would not be committing a crime of violence because he did not use physical force. Finally, Gorsuch pointed out that crimes of omission more naturally fit within another subsection of Section 924(c), which the Court held was unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis (2019), showing that Congress has had no difficulty addressing crimes of omission elsewhere.
Reproductive Health Under Trump: What’s New and What’s Next
Overview
Over the past two months, the second Trump administration has shifted federal policies and priorities regarding abortion, in vitro fertilization (IVF), contraception, and other reproductive-health-related matters – and it is expected to continue to do so. In addition to the federal policy agenda, many developments related to reproductive health likely will continue to occur at the state level. The Dobbs decision shifted policymaking in these areas toward the states, and lawmakers and advocates have expressed their intentions to either adhere to or protect against the new administration’s policies and agenda items. This article discusses some of the major recent trends in women’s health and reproductive health, and what is likely to come next under the new administration.
In Depth
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WILL CONTINUE TO WEAKEN BIDEN-ERA POLICIES THAT PROTECT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
The Hyde Amendment
During its first month, the second Trump administration signed several executive orders (EOs) and otherwise signaled its approach to certain reproductive health measures that were previously in place. For instance, in the first week of his presidency, US President Donald Trump signed an EO entitled “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment,” which called for an end to federal funding for elective abortions and revoked two previous EOs that permitted such funding. The EO charged the Office of Management and Budget with providing guidance around implementing the mandate. While the EO was not a surprise, it referred to the Hyde Amendment and “similar laws,” leaving some ambiguity in its scope and the way in which it will be implemented in practice (e.g., it could be used to target federal funds for abortion and perhaps related services by other federal agencies, such as the US Departments of Defense, Justice, and State). In response to this EO, federal agencies could revoke Biden-era policies and reinstate or expand upon Trump administrative policies. Such efforts may include recission of Biden-era regulations that authorized travel for reproductive-health-related needs for servicemembers and their families and permitted abortion services through the US Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Comstock Act
Although we have not seen activity in this respect to date, the new administration will likely rescind the Comstock Act Memo, which was published by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel. This memo was issued in December 2022 by the Biden administration following the Dobbs decision. The Comstock Act is a federal criminal statute enacted in 1873 that prohibits interstate mailing of obscene writings and any “article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” Violations of the Comstock Act are subject to fines or imprisonment. The Comstock Act Memo sets forth the opinion of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel that the Comstock Act does not prohibit mailing abortion-inducing medication unless the sender explicitly intends for it to be used unlawfully. If the new administration revokes this memo or attempts to apply the Comstock Act to the mailing of abortion-inducing medication (and, perhaps, any abortion-inducing implements, which could have even wider-reaching implications) regardless of intent, it could become very difficult for patients to obtain abortion-inducing medication. Such actions also could lead to complications related to the provision of such medications via the mail (and potentially in person, depending on the attempted interpretation). At the time of publication, the DOJ website still included the Comstock Act Memo, noting that 18 U.S.C. § 1461 does not prohibit the mailing of abortion-inducing medication when the sender does not intend for the recipient to use the drugs unlawfully.
The 2024 HIPAA Final Rule on Access to Reproductive Health Records and Related State Activity
In 2024, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) final rule to support reproductive healthcare privacy (2024 final rule). The 2024 final rule prohibits a covered entity or business associate from disclosing protected health information (PHI) for conducting an investigation into or imposing liability on any person for seeking, obtaining, providing, or facilitating reproductive healthcare where the reproductive healthcare is lawful. The 2024 final rule also prohibits disclosure of PHI to identify any person for the purpose of conducting an investigation or imposing liability. The enforcement mechanism of the 2024 final rule includes an attestation component under which a requesting party must certify that the use of the PHI is not prohibited when requested for health oversight activities, judicial or administrative proceedings, law enforcement purposes, or disclosures to coroners and medical examiners under 42 C.F.R. § 164.512. The Trump administration likely will not enforce (and may reverse) protections around reproductive health data under the 2024 final rule, which would leave a bigger gap for the states to potentially fill, as evidenced by the EO regarding enforcement of the Hyde Amendment and rollback of other Biden-era reproductive health protections.
In response to increased scrutiny of reproductive healthcare, several states have enacted laws protecting healthcare providers, patients, and others involved in providing or receiving reproductive healthcare. Although these laws vary from state to state, they generally prohibit disclosure of data and other information related to reproductive healthcare that was lawfully obtained by a patient and provided by a healthcare provider. These laws can provide a certain level of comfort to providers that provide care to patients who travel across state lines to receive care that may be unavailable to them in their home state but is accessible and lawfully provided in another state. States that do not have such laws may seek to enact similar protections under the new administration as federal protections become less certain, particularly if the layer of protection afforded by the 2024 final rule is revoked or otherwise diminished.
ABORTION POLICY WILL CONTINUE TO BE LARGELY DICTATED BY STATES AND MAY EXPAND INTO NEW AREAS OF FOCUS
Following the Dobbs decision, many states quickly took action to enshrine abortion protections in their laws and constitutions. Some states, such as Michigan, moved to overturn old, unenforced abortion bans on their books. Michigan further implemented laws, executive actions, and eventually a ballot measure to amend its state constitution. This trend has continued; in the November 2024 presidential election, seven states passed ballot measures to protect abortion access. However, the 2024 election also marked the first three abortion protection ballot referendums that failed to pass. Voters in South Dakota and Nebraska rejected proposed constitutional amendments, and a measure in Florida received only 57% of the vote where a 60% majority was required.
In the years since Dobbs, new laws and court cases have largely sorted the states into two categories: states that are more protective and states that are more restrictive regarding abortion. However, the law remains unsettled in a few states, such as Georgia and Wisconsin, where pending court cases, legislative action, and gubernatorial executive action may result in different outcomes. In the 2024 election, Missouri voters passed a ballot initiative to overturn the state’s strict ban on abortion and enshrine reproductive rights in the state constitution, effectively switching the state from more restrictive to more protective. More constitutional ballot measures could come in states such as Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire, where abortion rights are currently supported under state law but not enshrined in state constitutions. Abortion advocates may also focus on Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida, where recent court decisions have largely settled the law, but further litigation is possible. Restrictive states also continue to legislate additional restrictions on access to abortion.
The majority of states can be expected to continue on their current trajectory: more protective states may continue to enact abortion protections, and more restrictive states may continue to enforce existing bans and expand prohibitions. In 2025, the focus of both protective and restrictive laws likely will continue to expand. The initial wave of post-Dobbs policymaking primarily focused on a healthcare provider’s ability to perform an abortion and a patient’s right to receive an abortion. New laws and proposals now focus on topics such as assisting others in obtaining an abortion, telehealth prescribing of abortion medications, abortion funding, abortion rights of minors, and patient data privacy.
Trump administration policies and initiatives may impact more protective states’ abilities to provide abortion services. For instance, if the Comstock Act Memo is revoked, abortion-inducing medication may become scarce or difficult to obtain through the mail, even from a provider in a protective state to a patient in another protective state. If interpreted even more broadly by the administration, the Comstock Act could serve as a catalyst for a national abortion ban, which would almost certainly face legal challenges. While the Trump administration has not yet asked Congress for a national abortion ban, the EO that Trump signed recognizing two sexes includes personhood language regarding life beginning “at conception,” signaling that additional changes may be proposed at both the federal and state policy levels regarding fetal personhood and attendant rights. Such changes would likely result in legal challenges in federal and state courts.
IVF SERVICES WILL CONTINUE TO EXPAND BUT MAY FACE FRICTION WITH ABORTION PROHIBITIONS AND CERTAIN TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES
State abortion laws have somewhat solidified following Dobbs, but many laws remain unclear as to their impact on IVF providers. Many states have abortion prohibitions that predate IVF, some of which define “unborn child” from the moment of fertilization or conception. Other laws are ambiguous but contain language that arguably protects a fetus at any stage of development. Since Dobbs, state attorneys general in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and other states have indicated that they will not pursue IVF providers using state abortion bans, and the Trump administration has issued an EO calling for expanded access to IVF. However, the state-level laws remain ambiguous, and there is a risk that courts may interpret such laws to apply to embryos or otherwise impact IVF access. Moreover, the EO raising the issue of fetal personhood may create friction for efforts to expand access to IVF.
In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court became the first state supreme court to definitively rule that “unborn children” includes cryogenically frozen IVF embryos. The court held an IVF clinic liable under the state’s wrongful death statute after an incident in which frozen IVF embryos were destroyed. The decision initially caused several IVF providers in the state to pause services until two weeks later, when the legislature passed a specific exception to the statute for IVF providers. Even though the status quo was quickly restored, both providers and patients were significantly impacted by the period of uncertainty. In 2025 and beyond, other states could face similar test cases. In response to public support for reproductive technology, some restrictive states have proposed legislation to address, for example, the use of assistive reproductive technology and selective reduction.
At the same time, insurance coverage for IVF and other fertility treatments has expanded and will likely continue to do so in 2025. Approximately 22 states now mandate that insurance plans provide some combination of fertility benefits, fertility preservation, and coverage for a number of IVF cycles. After July 1, 2025, all large employers in California must provide insurance coverage for fertility treatments, including coverage for unlimited embryo transfers and up to three retrievals. 2025 will also bring expanded IVF coverage options for federal employee insurance plans.
THE RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION WILL REMAIN VULNERABLE TO STATE LAWMAKING AND COURT CHALLENGES
Although the Dobbs majority opinion states that the “decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” and that “nothing in [the Dobbs] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” doubt remains as to other women’s health rights. In his concurrence in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed interest in revisiting prior Supreme Court of the United States decisions upholding rights other than the right to abortion, such as the right to contraception upheld in Griswold v. Connecticut.
In response to the Thomas concurrence, the federal Right to Contraception Act was introduced. The act would have enshrined a person’s statutory right to contraception and a healthcare provider’s right to provide contraception. The act passed the US House of Representatives, but the US Senate version was unable to overcome a filibuster in June 2024. Federal efforts to protect the right to contraception are unlikely to pass in the new Congress.
Although federal action is unlikely, certain states have already protected the right to contraception under state law. Approximately 15 states and the District of Columbia currently have some form of protection for the right to contraception either by statute or under the respective state’s constitution. Under the new administration, state legislative action likely will increase with respect to the right to access contraception. Certain states with restrictive abortion policies, such as South Carolina, have proposed modifications to their abortion restrictions to explicitly protect the use of contraceptives.
WHAT STEPS SHOULD STAKEHOLDER CONSIDER TAKING?
Any company whose services touch on reproductive health or women’s health should engage in a risk assessment of their business and the ways in which the Trump administration may affect their ability to operate without complications. Although the first two months of EOs and other actions from the administration have not drastically altered the landscape for reproductive health across the country, access to reproductive and women’s health is likely to evolve over the next four years. We are closely monitoring these developments and will continue to forecast the ways in which this could impact stakeholders in the industry.
SEC Whistleblower Reform Act Reintroduced in Congress
Last Wednesday, March 26, 2025, Senator Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Warren (D-MA) reintroduced the SEC Whistleblower Reform Act. First introduced in 2023, this bipartisan bill aims to restore anti-retaliation protections to whistleblowers who report their concerns within their companies. As upheavals at government agencies dominate the news cycle, whistleblowers might feel discouraged and hesitant about the risks of coming forward to report violations of federal law. This SEC Whistleblower Reform Act would expand protections for these individuals who speak up, and it would implement other changes to bolster the resoundingly successful SEC Whistleblower Program.
The SEC Whistleblower Incentive Program
The SEC Whistleblower Incentive Program (the “Program”) went into effect on July 21, 2010, with the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). The Program has since become an essential tool in the enforcement of securities laws. The program benefits the government, which collects fines from the companies found in violation of federal securities laws; consumers, who benefit from the improvements companies must make to ensure they refrain from, and stop, violating federal law; and the whistleblowers themselves, who can receive awards for the information and assistance they provide. Since its inception, the SEC Whistleblower Program has recouped over $6.3 billion in sanctions, and it has awarded $2.2 billion to 444 individual whistleblowers. In FY 2024 alone, the Commission awarded over $255 million to forty-seven individual whistleblowers.
Under the Program, an individual who voluntarily provides information to the SEC regarding violations of any securities laws that leads to a successful civil enforcement action that results in over $1 million in monetary sanctions is eligible to receive an award of 10–30% of the fines collected. Since the SEC started accepting tips under its whistleblower incentive program in 2010, apart from a dip in 2019, the number of tips submitted to the SEC has steadily increased. In Fiscal Year 2024, the SEC received more than 24,000 whistleblower tips, the most ever received in one year.
Restoring Protections for Internal Whistleblowers
While the SEC Whistleblower Program has been successful by any measure, in 2018, the Supreme Court significantly weakened the Program’s whistleblower protections in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, 583 U.S. 149 (2018). The Court ruled in Digital Realty that the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation protections do not apply to whistleblowers who only report their concerns about securities violations internally, but not directly to the SEC. The decision nullified one of the rules the SEC had adopted in implementing the Program. Because many whistleblowers first report their concerns to supervisors or through internal compliance reporting programs, this has been immensely consequential. The decision has denied a large swath of whistleblowers the protections and remedies of the Dodd-Frank Act, including double backpay, a six-year statute of limitations, and the ability to proceed directly to court.
The bipartisan SEC Whistleblower Reform Act, reintroduced by Senators Grassley and Warren on March 26, 2025, restores the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation protections for internal whistleblowers. In particular, the Act expands the definition of “whistleblower” to include:
[A]ny individual who takes, or 2 or more individuals acting jointly who take, an action described . . . , that the individual or 2 or more individuals reasonably believe relates to a violation of any law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission . . . .
. . .
(iv) in providing information regarding any conduct that the whistleblower reasonably believes constitutes a violation of any law, rule, or regulation subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission to—
(I) a person with supervisory authority over the whistleblower at the employer of the whistleblower, if that employer is an entity registered with, or required to be registered with, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of, the Commission . . . ; or
(II) another individual working for the employer described in subclause (I) who the whistleblower reasonably believes has the authority to—
(aa) investigate, discover, or terminate the misconduct; or
(bb) take any other action to address the misconduct.
With these changes to the definition of a “whistleblower,” the Act would codify the Program’s anti-retaliation protections for an employee who blows the whistle by reporting only to their employer, and not also to the SEC. Notably, the Act would apply not only to claims filed after the date of enactment, but also to all claims pending in any judicial or administrative forum as of the date of the enactment.
Ending Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements for Dodd-Frank Retaliation Claims
Additionally, the SEC Whistleblower Reform Act would render unenforceable any pre-dispute arbitration agreement or any other agreement or condition of employment that waives any rights or remedies provided by the Act and clarifies that claims under the Act are not arbitrable. In other words, retaliation claims under the Dodd-Frank Act must be brought before a court of law and may not be arbitrated, even if an employee signed an arbitration agreement. This would bring Dodd-Frank Act claims into alignment with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), another anti-retaliation protection often applicable to corporate whistleblowers. While the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated pre-dispute arbitration agreements for SOX claims, it included no such arbitration ban for Dodd-Frank claims. As a result, two claims arising from the same underlying conduct often need to be brought in separate forums—arbitration for Dodd-Frank and court for SOX—or an employee must choose between the two remedies.
Reducing Delays in the Program
The SEC Whistleblower Reform Act would also benefit whistleblowers by addressing the long delays that have plagued the Program, which firm partners Debra Katz and Michael Filoromo have urged the SEC to remedy and have written publicly on to raise awareness on this topic In particular, the Act sets deadlines by which the Commission must take certain steps in the whistleblowing process. The Act provides that:
(A)(i) . . . the Commission shall make an initial disposition with respect to a claim submitted by a whistleblower for an award under this section . . . not later than the later of—
(I) the date that is 1 year after the deadline established by the Commission, by rule, for the whistleblower to file the award claim; or
(II) the date that is 1 year after the final resolution of all litigation, including any appeals, concerning the covered action or related action.
These changes are important because SEC whistleblowers currently might expect to wait several years for an initial disposition by the SEC after submitting an award application, and years more for any appeals of the SEC’s decision to conclude. The Act’s amendments set clearer deadlines and expectations for the Commission and would speed up its disposition timeline—and the provision of awards to deserving whistleblowers.
While the Act does provide for exceptions to the new deadline requirements, including detailing the circumstances under which the Commission may extend the deadlines, the Act specifies that the initial extension may only be for 180 days. Any further extension beyond 180 days must meet specified requirements: the Director of the Division of Enforcement of the Commission must determine that “good cause exists” such that the Commission cannot reasonably meet the deadlines, and only then may the Director extend the deadline by one or more additional successive 180-day periods, “only after providing notice to and receiving approval from the Commission.” If such extensions are sought and received, the Act provides that the Director must provide the whistleblower written notification of such extensions.
Conclusion
The SEC Whistleblower Reform Act, which would reinstate anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers and ensure that the Program runs more efficiently, would be a significant step forward for the enforcement of federal securities laws and for the whistleblowers who play a vital role in those efforts. The bipartisan introduction of the Act is a testament to the crucial nature of the Program.
FinCEN Adopts Interim Final Rule Limiting CTA Reporting Requirements to Foreign Reporting Companies
US legal entities are no longer subject to the reporting requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). On March 21, 2025, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Department of Treasury (Treasury), adopted an interim final rule that (i) narrows the CTA reporting requirements to entities previously defined as “foreign reporting companies,” (ii) extends the earliest reporting deadline to April 25, 2025 and (iii) exempts foreign reporting companies from having to report the ownership information of any US person who is a beneficial owner.
The interim final rule amends the definition of a “reporting company” to legal entities formed under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in any State or tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or any similar office. The interim final rule did not eliminate any of the original 23 exemptions from the definition of reporting company.
If you read our previous reports to determine whether to file or update a report on behalf of an entity formed under the law of a US State or Indian tribe, you can feel comfortable that no such beneficial ownership information report will be required without further rule changes.In adopting the interim final rule, FinCEN acknowledged that it intends to issue a final rule this year, after review of public comments. The comment period for the interim final rule ends May 27, 2025.
SEC Shows Leniency on Filing Deadline in Granting Whistleblower Award
On March 24, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granted a whistleblower award to an individual who voluntarily provided original information which led to four successful enforcement actions, despite the fact the whistleblower missed the award claim filing deadline for two of the actions.
Through the SEC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers are eligible to receive monetary awards of 10-30% of the sanctions collected in connection with their disclosure when their information contributes to an enforcement action where the SEC is set to collect at least $1 million. Based on the current collections, the whistleblower was only awarded $4,000 at this time.
According to the award order, the whistleblower “alerted the Commission to the misconduct which prompted the opening of the investigation and then provided ongoing assistance.”
To receive a whistleblower award, an individual must submit a completed Form WB-APP to the Office of the Whistleblower within 90 days of the posting of a Notice of Covered Action for the relevant enforcement action.
According to the SEC, the whistleblower submitted their award claim for one covered action 1 approximately three weeks after the filing deadline submitted their award claim for the second covered action one day after the filing deadline.
However, the SEC decided to exercise its general exemptive authority under Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act to waive the filing deadline. Section 36(a) provides the Commission with broad authority to exempt any person from a rule or regulation if such an exemption is “necessary or appropriate in the public interest” and “consistent with the protection of investors.”
“Specifically, for Covered Action 1, we find that the following facts warrant the exercise of our Section 36(a) discretionary authority to waive the 90-day deadline for filing award applications: (1) Claimant was on active military duty during the 90-day window for filing claims; (2) the circumstances of the Claimant’s military assignment limited his/her ability to effectively communicate with his/her counsel; (3) Claimant made reasonable efforts to submit an award application once he/she resumed normal communications; (4) Claimant would be otherwise meritorious; and (5) the Commission has not already issued a final order adjudicating claims in Covered Action 1.”
“We also believe that the exercise of our discretionary authority under Section 36(a) to waive the 90-day filing deadline with respect to Covered Action 2 is warranted under the unique facts and circumstances. Specifically, the record supports the conclusion that Claimant’s counsel attempted to fax the award application to OWB on the filing deadline calendar date, but that the fax failed to go through because of apparent technical issues with the Commission’s ability to receive faxes beyond a certain size. We further note that Claimant’s counsel promptly contacted the OWB regarding the failed attempt to fax the application and succeeded in filing the application the next calendar day.”
The SEC does warn, however, that they “do not expect to routinely exercise such exemptive authority to waive the requirements under Rules 21F-10(a) and (b) to timely file an award application. The filing deadline serves important programmatic interests and will be typically enforced absent the unique facts and circumstances presented here.”
Established in 2010 with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC Whistleblower Program has now awarded a total of more than $2.2 billion to 444 individuals.
In FY 2024, the SEC Whistleblower Program received a record 24,980 whistleblower tips and awarded over $255 million, the third highest annual amount. According to SEC Office of the Whistleblower’s annual report, the most common fraud areas reported by whistleblowers in FY 2024 were Manipulation (37%), Offering Fraud (21%), Initial Coin Offerings and Crypto Asset Securities (8%), and Corporate Disclosures and Financials (8%).
Whistleblowers looking to blow the whistle on securities fraud may do so anonymously, but must be represented by a whistleblower attorney.
“Whistleblowers play a valuable role in helping to protect the U.S. financial markets by bringing the Commission information about potential securities law violations,” Creola Kelly, Chief of the SEC Office of the Whistleblower, said in the office’s 2024 annual report.
Geoff Schweller also contributed to this article.
California Bill Proposes Expanding False Claims Act to Include Tax-Related Claims
California lawmakers are considering Senate Bill 799 (SB 799), introduced by Sen. Ben Allen, which proposes amending the California False Claims Act (CFCA) to encompass tax-related claims under the Revenue and Taxation Code.
The CFCA currently encourages employees, contractors, or agents to report false or fraudulent claims made to the state or political subdivisions, offering protection against retaliation. Under the CFCA, civil actions may be initiated by the attorney general, local prosecuting authorities, or qui tam plaintiffs on behalf of the state or political subdivisions. The statute also permits treble damages and civil penalties.
At present, tax claims are excluded from the scope of the CFCA. SB 799 aims to amend the law by explicitly allowing tax-related false claims actions under the Revenue and Taxation Code, subject to the following conditions:
1. The damages pleaded in the action exceed $200,000. 2. The taxable income, gross receipts, or total sales of the individual or entity against whom the action is brought exceed $500,000 per taxable year.
Further, SB 799 would authorize the attorney general and prosecuting authorities to access confidential tax-related records necessary to investigate or prosecute suspected violations. This information would remain confidential, and unauthorized disclosure would be subject to existing legal penalties. The bill also seeks to broaden the definition of “prosecuting authority” to include counsel retained by a political subdivision to act on its behalf.
Historically, the federal government and most states have excluded tax claims from their False Claims Act statutes due to the complexity and ambiguity of tax laws, which can result in increased litigation and strain judicial resources. Experiences in states like New York and Illinois illustrate challenges associated with expanding false claims statutes to include tax claims. For instance, a telecommunications company settled a New York False Claims Act case involving alleged under collection of sales tax for over $300 million, with the whistleblower receiving more than $60 million. Such substantial incentives have led to the rise of specialized law firms targeting ambiguous sales tax collection obligations, contributing to heightened litigation.
If enacted, SB 799 would require California taxpayers to evaluate their exposure under the CFCA for any positions or claim taken on tax returns. Importantly, the CFCA has a statute of limitations of up to 10 years from the date of violation, significantly longer than the typical three- or four-year limitations period applicable to California tax matters. Taxpayers may also need to reassess past tax positions to address potential risks stemming from this extended limitations period.
CFTC Unveils Replacement Penalty Mitigation Policy Focused on Self-Reporting, Cooperation, and Remediation
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), an independent U.S. government agency that regulates the U.S. derivatives markets, including futures, options, and swaps, has announced a new policy for mitigating potential penalties, potentially cutting them in half, based on the level of voluntary self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation of potential misconduct.
Quick Hits
The CFTC’s new policy allows companies to potentially reduce penalties by up to 55 percent through voluntary self-reporting, cooperation, and effective remediation of misconduct.
The policy introduces a matrix for mitigating penalties based on the level of voluntary self-reporting, ranging from “No Self-Report” to “Exemplary Self-Report,” and the level of cooperation, ranging from “No Cooperation” to “Exemplary Cooperation.”
The policy emphasizes a proactive approach, enabling companies to demonstrate good faith through cooperation and remediation efforts in enforcement actions.
On February 25, 2025, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement issued a new advisory detailing how it will evaluate companies’ self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation and reduce penalties accordingly in enforcement actions.
The CFTC, through its Division of Enforcement, investigates violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the CFTC Regulations. Violations can be certain actions or behavior in connection with futures, options, and swaps and in connection for a contract of sale of any commodity in interstate commerce.
The CFTC’s new advisory replaces prior guidance with a new matrix that the Division of Enforcement will use to determine an appropriate reduction in penalties, or a “mitigation credit,” which can reach up to 55 percent of a possible penalty. The CFTC characterized the new guidance as a significant step toward transparency in enforcement actions.
“From the beginning, I have encouraged firms to self-report to proactively take ownership, ensure accountability, and prevent future violations,” Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham said in a statement. “By making the CFTC’s expectations for self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation more clear—including a first-ever matrix for mitigation credit—this advisory creates meaningful incentives for firms to come forward and get cases resolved faster with reasonable penalties.”
Acting Chairman Pham further emphasized that the new program implements President Donald Trump’s EO 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative,” which calls for streamlining federal government processes.
Three-Tiered Scale for Self-Reporting
The advisory outlines a three-tiered scale the CFTC Division of Enforcement will use to evaluate the “voluntariness” of self-reporting:
No Self-Report—The advisory states that this factor would apply when an organization has not self-reported in a timely manner, “no timely self-report,” or when a self-report was not “reasonably related to the potential violation or not reasonably designed to notify the Commission of the potential violation.”
Satisfactory Self-Report—This factor applies when there was notification of a potential violation to the Commission, but the notification lacked “all material information reasonably related to the potential violation that the reporting party knew at the time of the self-report.”
Exemplary Self-Report—This factor applies when a comprehensive notification includes all material information and additional information that assists with the investigation and conserves the agency’s resources.
According to the advisory, to receive full credit, disclosures must be (1) voluntary, (2) made to the Commission, (3) timely, and (4) complete. Reports can be made to the Division of Enforcement or other relevant CFTC divisions. The CFTC will provide a safe harbor for good faith self-reporting, allowing for corrections of any inaccuracies discovered post-reporting.
Cooperation and Remediation
Similarly, the advisory explains that the division will evaluate cooperation on a four-tiered scale:
No Cooperation: According to the advisory, the division will apply this factor in cases where there has been compliance with legal obligations but no substantial assistance.
Satisfactory Cooperation: This factor applies when documents, information, and witness interviews have been voluntarily provided.
Excellent Cooperation: This factor applies when there has been consistent, substantial assistance, including internal investigations and thorough analysis.
Exemplary Cooperation: This factor applies when there has been proactive engagement and significant resource allocation to assist the Division of Enforcement.
Additionally, according to the advisory, the division will consider remediation efforts as part of a company’s cooperation evaluation. Specifically, the division will assess whether substantial efforts were made to prevent future violations, including corrective actions and implementation of appropriate remediation plans. In some cases, a compliance monitor or consultant may be recommended to ensure the completion of undertakings.
Mitigation Credit Matrix
The advisory further introduces a “Mitigation Credit Matrix,” which explains a “mitigation credit” will be applied based on the levels of voluntariness and cooperation as a percentage of the initial civil monetary penalty. The matrix ranges from 0 percent for no self-report and no cooperation to 55 percent for exemplary self-report and exemplary cooperation. However, the division said it will retain discretion to deviate from the matrix based on each case’s unique facts and circumstances.
Next Steps
The advisory and Mitigation Credit Matrix provides more clarity and transparency about how the CFTC will evaluate voluntary self-reporting of potential misconduct and cooperation with subsequent CFTC enforcement actions, applying a new matrix that considers the levels of voluntariness and cooperation. Prior guidance had focused on whether an entity self-reported or not and whether cooperation “materially advanced” the division’s investigation.
Future enforcement and administration of the advisory will be necessary to clarify how the Trump administration will handle self-reporting and cooperation. Further, the CFTC has maintained discretion in applying the matrix and mitigation factors, and there is still some room for ambiguity in applying the factors. CFTC Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson dissented from the issuance of the new guidance. In a separate statement, Commissioner Johnson said that while she supports improvements to “transparency, clarity, and efficiency” processes to incentivize self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation, the CFTC “must be careful not to muddy the waters.”
The new advisory comes amid a broader push by federal enforcement agencies, including the CFTC, to encourage self-reporting and whistleblowing, at least under the Biden administration.
The advisory makes it clear it is now the division’s sole policy on self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation and explains that all previously announced policies, including those contained in six different division advisories as well as in the division’s enforcement manual, are no longer the policy of the division.
Thus far, no federal enforcement agencies have indicated their whistleblower protections will be weakened under the Trump administration.
CFTC-regulated businesses may want to review and update their compliance programs and related policies, considering the CFTC’s self-reporting, cooperation, and remediation incentive mechanisms. According to the advisory, entities must undergo an “exemplary self-report” and “exemplary cooperation” to maximize the potential for lowered penalties.
Moreover, entities regulated by other federal enforcement agencies may want to consider that the CFTC advisory could signal a revised approach generally under the Trump administration and keep a close watch on whether any modifications similar to those set forth in this advisory are adopted by other agencies.
FinCEN Exempts U.S. Companies and U.S. Persons from Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements
An interim final rule issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), makes the following significant changes to beneficial ownership information reporting (BOIR) requirements:
defines a “reporting company” subject to BOIR requirements to mean only those entities previously defined as a “foreign reporting company” (created under the law of a foreign country and registered to do business in the United States, including registration with any Tribal jurisdiction, through filing a document with a secretary of state or similar office)
exempts domestic reporting companies from BOIR requirements
exempts foreign reporting companies from having to report the beneficial ownership information of any U.S. person who is a beneficial owner of such foreign reporting company
exempts U.S. persons from having to provide such beneficial ownership information to any foreign reporting company of which it is a beneficial owner
subject to certain exceptions, extends the deadlines applicable to beneficial ownership information reports required to be filed or updated by such foreign reporting companies.
Following the comment period, FinCEN intends to issue a final rule later this year.
The interim final rule follows recent announcements by FinCEN on February 27, 2025, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury on March 2, 2025, indicating that there would be a significant reduction in enforcement of BOIR requirements against U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies. Additional information regarding these announcements can be found in our prior legal alert.
FinCEN’s full release is available here:
FinCEN Removes Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements for U.S. Companies and U.S. Persons, Sets New Deadlines for Foreign Companies
Immediate Release: 3.21.25
WASHINGTON –– Consistent with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s March 2, 2025, announcement, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is issuing an interim final rule that removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.
In that interim final rule, FinCEN revises the definition of “reporting company” in its implementing regulations to mean only those entities that are formed under the law of a foreign country and that have registered to do business in any U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction by the filing of a document with a secretary of state or similar office (formerly known as “foreign reporting companies”). FinCEN also exempts entities previously known as “domestic reporting companies” from BOI reporting requirements.
Thus, through this interim final rule, all entities created in the United States — including those previously known as “domestic reporting companies” — and their beneficial owners will be exempt from the requirement to report BOI to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of a “reporting company” and do not qualify for an exemption from the reporting requirements must report their BOI to FinCEN under new deadlines, detailed below. These foreign entities, however, will not be required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners, and U.S. persons will not be required to report BOI with respect to any such entity for which they are a beneficial owner.
Upon the publication of the interim final rule, the following deadlines apply for foreign entities that are reporting companies:
Reporting companies registered to do business in the United States before the date of publication of the IFR must file BOI reports no later than 30 days from that date.
Reporting companies registered to do business in the United States on or after the date of publication of the IFR have 30 calendar days to file an initial BOI report after receiving notice that their registration is effective.
FinCEN is accepting comments on this interim final rule and intends to finalize the rule this year.
Pennsylvania AG Alleges Mortgage Brokers Engaged in Illegal Referral Scheme
On January 17, the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed a civil enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against a group of mortgage brokers and their manager, alleging that they operated an unlawful referral scheme in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), and Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
According to the complaint, the defendants offered real estate professionals a mix of financial incentives—such as discounted shares in a joint venture mortgage company, event tickets, and luxury meals—in exchange for directing clients to affiliated mortgage brokerages. These referral arrangements were not disclosed to homebuyers.
The Attorney General alleges that the defendants:
Improperly transferred ownerships interests. Real estate agents were offered discounted, nonvoting shares in affiliated mortgage companies to incentivize referrals, in violation of RESPA and state consumer protection law kickback prohibitions.
Provided high-value entertainment. Agents allegedly received event tickets and luxury dinners in exchange for steering homebuyers, conduct the Attorney General contends violates RESPA and constitutes unfair and deceptive acts under the CFPA.
Disguised payments as legitimate business deals. The scheme was structured to appear as stock sales and profit distributions to conceal kickbacks, allegedly violating RESPA and both federal and state consumer protection statutes.
Failed to meet disclosure requirements. The defendants allegedly did not comply with the legal standards for affiliated business arrangements under RESPA, depriving consumers of material information and transparency.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, and recovery of attorneys’ fees.
Putting It Into Practice: This state enforcement continues the trend of states ramping up regulation and enforcement of financial services companies (previously discussed here and here). As certain states continue to align themselves with the CFPB’s January recommendations encouraging states to adopt and apply the “abusive” standard under the CFPA (previously discussed here), we expect to see more states ramp up their consumer financial protection efforts.
Listen to this post
CFTC Accepting Whistleblower Award Claims for Financial Grooming Scam
On March 26, the CFTC posted a Notice of Covered Action for a $2.3 million enforcement action taken against a purported digital asset platform for an alleged online romance scam, signaling that the Commissions is accepting whistleblower award claims for the case.
Key Takeaways:
A court judgement found Debiex liable for misappropriating over $2 million in customers’ funds in an online romance fraud scheme
Online romance fraud schemes, including “pig butchering,” are a focus of the CFTC
Qualified CFTC whistleblowers are eligible to receive awards of 10-30% of the funds collected in connection with their disclosure
On March 26, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) posted a Notice of Covered Action (NCA) for a $2.3 million enforcement action taken against a purported digital asset platform for an alleged online romance scam. The NCA signals that the Commission is now accepting whistleblower award claims for the case.
Debiex Pig Butchering Case
The CFTC announced on March 21 that the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a default judgment against Debiex in response to the CFTC’s enforcement action. The judgement finds Debiex liable for misappropriating over $2 million in customers’ funds.
According to the CFTC, “Debiex’s unidentified officers and/or managers cultivated friendly or romantic relationships with potential customers by communicating falsehoods to gain trust, and then solicited them to open and fund trading accounts with Debiex.”
“Unbeknownst to the customers, and as alleged, the Debiex websites merely mimicked the features of a legitimate live trading platform and the ‘trading accounts’ depicted on the websites were a complete ruse,” the CFTC further claims. “No actual digital asset trading took place on the customers’ behalf.”
The type of online romance scam carried out by Debiex is known as “Sha Zhu Pan” or “Pig Butchering.”
“As the graphic name suggests, these schemes liken the practice of soliciting consumers to participate in a fraudulent investment opportunity to ‘fattening up’ an unsuspecting pig prior to slaughtering it,” CFTC Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson explained in a January statement announcing the charges against Debiex.
The court order bans Debiex from trading in any CFTC regulated markets or registering with the CFTC and requires Debiex to pay a $221,466 civil monetary penalty and over $2.2 million in restitution.
“This judgment demonstrates the CFTC’s ongoing commitment to protecting U.S. citizens from online scams,” said Director of Enforcement Brian Young.
Notice of Covered Action and CFTC Whistleblower Program
The Notice of Covered Action posted by the CFTC for this enforcement action signals that individuals have 90 days to file a whistleblower award claim for the case.
Under the CFTC Whistleblower Program, qualified whistleblowers, individuals who voluntarily provide original information which leads to a successful enforcement action, are eligible to receive monetary awards of 10-30% of the funds collected in the action.
In 2023, the CFTC Whistleblower Office published a whistleblower alert on the ability to anonymously blow the whistle on romance investment frauds and qualify for awards and protections.
“Under the Whistleblower Program of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), individuals may become eligible for both financial awards and certain protections by assisting the CFTC with identifying perpetrators and facilitators of romance investment frauds under the CFTC’s jurisdiction, such as solicitations related to digital assets, precious metals, and/or over-the-counter foreign currency exchange (forex) trading,” the alert reads.
Since issuing its first award in 2014, the CFTC Whistleblower Program has awarded nearly $390 million to qualified whistleblowers. In the 2023 Fiscal Year, the CFTC received a record 1,744 whistleblower tips and issued 12 award orders, the most it has granted in a single year.
New Bill Strengthens Protections for Federal Whistleblowers who Make Disclosures to Congress
On March 26, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2025. The bill strengthens protections for federal employee whistleblowers who make disclosures to Congress, expanding the types of whistleblowers covered and granting them the right to have their case heard in federal court if there are delays in administrative proceedings.
“This law is a significant step forward for federal employees,” said Stephen M. Kohn, founding partner of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto and Chairman of the National Whistleblower Center. “Retaliation against whistleblowers who testify before Congress is unacceptable. This law is highly significant and should be passed quickly. It is absolutely necessary if Congress is serious about engaging in meaningful oversight.”
The bill ensures that whistleblowers are able to file an administrative complaint if their right to share information with Congress has been interfered with or denied. It expands the definition of qualified whistleblowers to include former employees, contractors, and job applicants.
Furthermore, the bill allows for whistleblowers to seek relief in federal court if corrective action is not reached within 180 days of filing a complaint.
Senator Blumenthal previously introduced the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act during the last session of Congress.
“Whistleblowers must be protected against retaliation when they bravely reveal waste, fraud, and abuse,” Blumenthal stated when introducing the previous version. “This measure will strengthen safeguards for anyone reporting government misconduct and empower them to seek relief if they face retaliation. Congressional whistleblowers are essential to our democracy, and they deserve vigorous protection.”
The Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act is cosponsored by Senators Mazi Hirono (D-HI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Edward Markey (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).