How Corporate Whistleblowers Make Millions

How Corporate Whistleblowers Make Millions

In 2010, the SEC launched a whistleblower program complete with a bounty for exposing fraud. Since the inception of the program, 66 whistleblowers have been paid $387 million for their contributions. Ted Siedle is one of them. He blew the whistle on JP Morgan Chase and in June 2019 he got the last part of $68M.

» Subscribe to CNBC:
» Subscribe to CNBC TV:
» Subscribe to CNBC Classic:

About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.

Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news:
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn:
Follow CNBC News on Facebook:
Follow CNBC News on Twitter:
Follow CNBC News on Instagram:

#CNBC

How Corporate Whistleblowers Make Millions

Post Views: 550

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

58 Comments

    5. @Michael M I’m just talking sense…I’ve seen this on many videos…it’s like if blacks are in disadvantages they will just spill the racist card…I’m not even white(Asian)…

      Reply

  2. Most whistleblowers receive 0$ and only have economical disadvantages, like not being employed anymore because you did your duty to your fellow citizen, for example by revealing corruotion in a Saudi military deal. Seems like a smear against whistleblowers in general. It’s not about how much reward a whistleblower gets, it’s about how much embezzled taxes they can bring back to the governemnt / us tax payers.

    Reply

    1. A true whistleblower does it for the relief of injustice, but a bounty is a fair reward for the stress and fear one must go through from doing so. Being a victim of corruption is no piece of cake!

      Reply

  3. This would be more enjoyable to watch and learn from if the images were not flashed so fast as if they were meaningless.

    Reply

  7. For the critics who think financial incentive is bad, I would just ask you this. You expect others to risk their career, life and good health for the benefit of the society out of their goodness of heart but actually rewarding such people is beneath you. Just think about how messed up it sounds.

    Reply

    1. Dominik MJ $89M unethical, then you must have missed the size of the fraud. Or do you think people skilled enough to discern fraud at the highest levels should fall on their swords?

      Reply

    2. @Austin Gaius
      I simply think, that incomes in this levels, and especially government given rewards have to be reasonable.
      This guy of the video didn’t risked a lot. Yes – he basically tried to investigate after these companies, but he is not a “genuine” whistleblower who risks his job, his career, probably his social status etc.

      Ethics are not based on the ratio, how much the whistleblower gets – but the absolute amount. Look – in the finance market we have got already the problem of a growing and systemic inequality – but then with tenth of millions of dollars rewards, there is a government program, which supports inequality??? No – not good.

      Maybe there should be one part of the reward going to the person, and then another part to any reasonable charity? Or government program, which supports the bottom of the society?!

      Reply

    3. Say that please. The death threats, being ostracized from society become more bearable when you can take care of yourself financially

      Reply

    4. Dominik MJ I just want to say that your difference of opinion is welcomed here. I think maybe you might not understand the level of fraud that this video refers to. These individuals or corporations commuting the fraud have placed people in worst situations than when they came into. The financial crisis of 2008 is one of them. Those ppl you’re referring to that are homeless at one time had a house, family, career, etc. and probably lost it all. Now as a result, they are homeless or earning much less than what they were making before the fraud was committed. Because of the lack of full government & corporate understanding of fraud on the multi billion/trillion dollar levels whistle blowers are needed. Whatever they are paid is the government’s and sec’s decision. You and I have never put our lives on the line to risk being in a situation where corporate gangsters could threaten your life, family and everything you have ever worked for.

      Reply

    1. I agree with you completely. If we didn’t reward people’s desires for greater results then we’d probably see less corruption going on. 🙁

      Reply

    4. @Bob Brown Witness protection?? They are blowing the whistle on corporations like JP Morgan, not the Sinaloa Cartel lol

      Reply

  12. This seems like an awesome idea all around. Only problem seems to be the SEC doesn’t have enough manpower to review all the cases.

    Reply

  14. Wall Street calls it Whistleblowing.
    The Streets call it Snitching.
    I call it, “I’m not going to jail for anyone else” lol

    Reply

  15. The monetary bounties are ABSOLUTELY necessary: Most whistle blowers, especially in the day of the internet, will never be hired by another company anywhere ever again. They have to live off that money for the rest of their lives.

    Reply

    2. They are necessary for multiple reasons. 1) Yes, it helps you uncover more criminals and 2) it functions as a form of insurance for those who ruin their lives by doing the right thing. This information is not out there in the public or even at the low/mid-levels of most organizations. So, often times the people who are in possession of this vital information are successful themselves in finance. And once they blow the whistle, many organizations can figure this out which leads to these people being fired and black marked in the industry, because other firms don’t want to hire a person known for going to the SEC. So, doing the right thing often has a big negative impact and these rewards help offset that. The only place they fail is not going far enough, because they take years to reward and only come through 5% of the time.

      Harry Markopolos had to press one of the largest cases in history for 10 years before anything happened and that was only after the Ponzi blew up. It might be better today, but there is still so much that gets missed even when the docs/etc are given to the SEC. If you go in and rob a bank at gunpoint, you might make out with $20,000 but will quickly go to America’s top wanted. However, if you use a convoluted scheme to steal a couple million $ in finance, the SEC likely will find this too small to pursue. Your name never goes on a list and nothing happens. It’s nuts.

      Reply

    1. Their compensation is that they’ll go into early retirement, because no one will want to hire a whistleblower.

      Reply

  20. As long as the information is valid and they’re actually exposing corruption then what difference does it make if they’re getting paid.

    Reply
© 2022 - All rights reserved