In a post on Jeremy Sugden’s blog, he speaks of an ethical law decision related to business. Should whistleblowers be exempt and free from any charges that they are confessing and giving evidence to? Jeremy refers to an article from the Washington Post in which one man blow the whistle on a Swedish Bank that was helping American clients evade taxes. He was part of such activities until he came forward. The IRS rewarded him with $104 million but he was sentenced to three years in prison for his actions.

It’s quite an interesting dilemma. The IRS has a reward system in place to encourage people to come forward and yet the US judicial system will prosecute you if you do come forward. It appears rather contradictory. I suppose there are incidences when people have never participated in the activities they are giving evidence towards, but you would imagine the best evidence and the best witnesses would be the ones highest up and most involved in the illicit actions. I think it would be best for whistleblowers to be free from any charges as jail is a strong deterrent to stay quiet. At the same time, I believe the reward is crucial because people could stay at their job and make money instead of the reward. If they come forward, the company certainly won’t want them back as an employee and now they are out of a job and money.