whistleblowing and the new race to report - deloitte forensic center

Whistleblowing and the new race to reportThe impact of the Dodd-Frank Act and 2010’s changes to U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Deloitte Forensic Center

Whistleblowing and the new race to report 2

“Two backpackers are hiking through the woods when suddenly they see a huge bear staring at them hungrily. Janet quickly removes her muddy hiking boots and starts putting on her running shoes. John whispers, ‘Janet, you’ll never outrun that bear, so why put those on?’ ‘Well John,’ replies Janet, ‘I don’t have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.”

Anon


Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act created rewards of 10–30 percent of monetary sanctions for whistleblowers who report to the SEC original information leading to securities law enforcement actions that recover more than $1 million. This could increase corporate regulatory risks considerably and create a ‘race to report’ to the SEC.

Press releases announcing settlements by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) in the first seven months of 2010 show how large future rewards for whistleblowers could be. In July 2010, the SEC settled three securities cases with recoveries of $550 million, $100 million, and $75 million. Another case settled in February for more than $300 million.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases have also generated large settlements in 2010, with one around $450 million, two others exceeding $300 million, and one of nearly $200 million, including related payments to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Had the Dodd-Frank Act applied to these cases, the rewards could have ranged from $7.5 million to $165 million. While monetary reward is not the only motive for whistleblowers, it represents a strong incentive for an employee to call the SEC and provide “original information.”

According to the Deloitte 2010 Ethics & Workplace Survey, the recession has diminished two important forms of business currency—trust and ethics. Nearly half (48 percent) of employed Americans who plan to look for a new job when the economy is more stable cite a loss of trust in their employer as a result of how business and operational decisions were handled over the last two years as a reason for leaving. Thirty-one percent of employees say that their colleagues are more likely to behave unethically at work in this environment. So trust is down and wrongdoing up just as the SEC introduces large whistleblower rewards.

Another development is the changes to the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines (‘Guidelines’) that took effect on November 1, 2010. One amendment increases the opportunity for a reduction in organizational sentences when the organization has an effective compliance and ethics program incorporating direct reporting obligations from the head of the compliance program to the board of directors or audit committee. This includes reporting “no less than annually on the implementation and effectiveness of the compliance and ethics program.”

This amendment creates a substantial incentive for organizations to alter, where necessary, the reporting lines for the head of their compliance and ethics program and formalize annual assessments of the organization’s compliance and ethics program (including its whistleblower system), with a report being provided to the board or audit committee.

The combination of the Dodd-Frank Act and the amendments to the Guidelines also creates a strong incentive for organizations to drive the effectiveness of their whistleblower system to as high a level as is feasible. The goal would be not just to comply with the minimum standards of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, where applicable, but to encourage reports of potential wrongdoing to be made internally. This, with other improvements to the whistleblower system, could allow issues to be resolved at a lower cost, with the organization potentially gaining the benefit of smaller penalties that can arise from self-reporting corporate wrongdoing to the authorities.

Encouraging employees and others to use the organization’s whistleblower system to report potential wrongdoing, in preference to contacting the authorities directly, can involve actions in multiple areas.

This paper explores “Ten things about whistleblowing,” discussing steps organizations can take to enhance their whistleblower systems and help mitigate their risks in light of the Dodd-Frank Act and 2010’s changes to the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines.


1. Tips appreciated

Personal reporting or ‘whistleblowing’ in one form or another is given strong emphasis in establishing a strong ethics and compliance culture and framework for several reasons, including:

Tips are the number one way in which frauds are •detected according to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) 2010 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse. “Three times as many frauds in our study were uncovered by a tip as by any other method,” they reported. In the entities the ACFE studied that had hotlines, 47 percent of frauds were detected by tips, while in entities without hotlines that figure was 34 percent. So hotlines are not essential to get some fraud tips, but hotlines can help you get more tips and detect more fraud.

In the same ACFE study, entities that had hotlines •suffered a median fraud loss 59 percent smaller and the frauds lasted on average seven months less than at entities without hotlines.

Senior management is often involved in the more serious •incidents of unethical behavior, fraud and corruption. An employee who becomes aware of potential wrongdoing involving senior management may not know other members of management to whom this information could be reported; or they might not have confidence that other members of management would be willing and able to take appropriate action. Without a whistleblower reporting mechanism to reach the board of directors or audit committee, people might not feel able to report high-level wrongdoing internally.

Some communication method is needed to get information about potential wrongdoing from those who have it (often mid-level or junior employees) to those who are most willing and able to act appropriately on it without interference from those potentially involved. If middle management appears to be involved, informing senior management may be sufficient. But if senior management may be involved, people need a way to inform the audit committee or the board of directors.

Whistleblowing is an activity that can involve any form of communication, not only use of a special telephone hotline, but also e-mail, Web form, regular mail, fax, telephoning the company’s headquarters, or simply speaking up to a supervisor, manager, human resources specialist, or other trusted person.


Approximately half of whistleblower calls are typically related to personnel issues. This fact is sometimes misused to criticize hotlines for generating a lot of ‘noise’ or non-serious reports and being an administrative nuisance. But typically most of these reports can be passed along directly by the hotline operator to the human resources function to be resolved in the same way as if the HR team had been contacted directly. Such reports needn’t incur significantly different cost just because they came through the whistleblower system. Normally, senior management, the board of directors, and the audit committee do not need to receive or read most of these reports. When personnel issues are deemed to be serious, such as alleged sexual harassment or discrimination, the legal function may take the lead in resolving the cases.

Another ‘red herring’ argument against whistleblower reporting systems is that many people will file false allegations and that time and money will be wasted investigating them. Many organizations have a policy that making reports through the organization’s whistleblower system in bad faith is subject to disciplinary action, potentially including termination. That appears to be an effective deterrent.

Yet another alleged downside of whistleblower systems is that they generate many reports about nothing important. The 2010 Corporate Governance and Compliance Hotline Benchmarking Report suggests otherwise. In this study of approximately 117,000 whistleblower reports received by hotline operator The Network in 2009, for those reports where the case outcome was provided, 73 percent of whistleblower reports warranted investigation; only 17 percent did not. Another 7 percent were referred to others to be answered and 3 percent were resolved in other ways. Of the 17 percent that did not warrant investigation, experience suggests that a good proportion may simply not have provided sufficiently detailed information to allow

2. Don’t get distracted by noise

an investigation to take place. So in the vast majority of cases, the whistleblower reports relate to matters that are sufficiently important to warrant investigation. While only 40 percent of the investigations reported in this study led to corrective action, this may be due in part to the burden of proving wrongdoing not being able to be met in some cases. For example, when evidence is destroyed, it may be hard to prove that a violation of the code of conduct occurred, even if circumstantial evidence suggests that it has. When you think about what is involved in finding proof of wrongdoing, 40 percent of investigated allegations actually seems pretty high.

The other thing to consider about the ‘noise’ factor with whistleblower systems is called the ‘asymmetric loss function.’ In essence, this means that the potential cost of failing to detect significant wrongdoing can outnumber many times over the cost of investigating false alarms. That’s why many teams of firefighters are typically dispatched automatically to a fire alarm in a high-rise building. There is a chance it is a false alarm, but if they waited until a fire had been confirmed before responding, many lives could be lost by the time firefighters arrived. While major allegations (such as those involving fraud or corruption) rarely involve loss of life, a timely investigative response is prudent given the potential financial and reputational costs that can be at stake.

In summary, while there may be some ‘noise’ with a whistleblower system the trick is not to let it distract you from what is truly important.


Focus groups —• Selected individuals can be invited to discuss, in a facilitated group setting, their viewpoints on the entity’s hotline system. The facilitator, selection of participants, and group dynamics are extremely important to fostering an open and candid discussion. Exit interviews — • While some departing employees may prefer to say nothing, others may be willing to share concerns about the whistleblower system or knowledge of unreported violations of the organization’s policies.

Feedback from hotline users —• Feedback can be obtained, even from anonymous hotline users, about the usability of the mechanism, how the complaint was dealt with, how long it took to complete the investigation, etc. Remember that this will not include input from people who have never used the hotline.

Interviews —• Internal auditors can ask employees their views on the whistleblower hotline during regularly scheduled audit visits.

Incident logs —• Violations of the organization’s policies that are logged by the legal, HR, or other functions but which were not reported through the hotline may display a pattern of underreporting.

When many organizations launched hotlines in response to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or otherwise, the initial emphasis was often just on having such a reporting mechanism. More recently, SEC guidance and 2010’s changes to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines have placed emphasis on assessing the effectiveness of the hotline, which often serves as a key entity-level internal control. Organizations can fall into a trap of assuming that no news is good news — that having few or no calls to the hotline means that there is little or no wrongdoing going on. Experience suggests that low call volume is more likely to indicate opportunities to improve various aspects of the hotline system.

Seven ways to take a hotline’s temperatureWhile there is a lack of authoritative guidance on how hotlines should be evaluated, the following activities can help to assess hotline effectiveness:

Anonymous employee surveys —• Periodic employee ethics surveys can help to gauge employee awareness of and confidence in using the hotline. The survey’s wording can significantly impact results, as can organizational culture. Comparing results over time and between operating units can be very instructive.

Benchmarking —• Certain hotline metrics can be benchmarked against industry statistics for call volume, call mix, and other key measures. Deviations from industry averages can be probed to identify opportunities for improvement.

3. Is your hotline just lukewarm?


As we stated in the introduction, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 includes a provision for substantial incentives for those who provide original information to the SEC about securities law violations leading to monetary recoveries over $1 million. This new law highlights the perceived role of incentives in encouraging whistleblowing in general.

Exactly how to incentivize employees to ‘speak up’ is something that a number of organizations have struggled with and where little consensus has been established.

One school of thought is that ‘speaking up’ is expected as part of each employee’s day-to-day conduct and no incentive should be necessary.

Another school of thought is that in order to increase the probability of employees ‘speaking up’, incentives should be provided to whistleblowers. After all, many organizations recognize or reward employees who have perfect attendance even though showing up is a basic part of everyone’s job. And top salespeople are often rewarded with large bonuses and rewards even though their day-to-day job is to sell. So perhaps rewarding whistleblowers who help to identify and put a stop to wrongdoing is simply giving a bonus to someone who makes a significantly above average contribution to the organization.

There is a third school of thought. It is simply that rewarding whistleblowers may be necessary in order for organizations to compete effectively with the U.S. government’s tempting rewards for tips relating to securities violations. An organization that generously rewards whistleblowers is likely to get more reports going to its own whistleblower system and fewer going directly to the authorities.

4. Carrots may help you hear better

Whether organizations will offer rewards similar to those offered by the government remains to be seen. It may not even be necessary to pay as much, since many well-known whistleblowers have clearly been motivated by principle rather than by monetary reward. But it would not be surprising for audit committees or boards of directors to decide that not providing incentives for whistleblowers might be a risky strategy in light of the Dodd-Frank Act’s rewards.

Some form of carrot is important — whether directly or indirectly related to individual reports of wrongdoing. Examples of indirect, long-term incentives would be incorporating ethics and integrity into the performance evaluation process and rewarding exemplary ethical conduct and behavior. Examples of more direct short-term incentives would be giving a monthly award for an employee that demonstrated strong ethical decision-making or providing a financial reward for any tip that leads to identification of significant unethical behavior, fraud, or other misconduct.

Clarity, fairness and generosity of rewards can help to attract employee support and generate more reliable reports. While some rewards might be widely published internally, such as stopping a costly vendor fraud, others may be much more sensitive internal matters. In those cases, choosing the “no publicity” option may be wise. You can always communicate to employees using a mechanism that is popular (such as an employee newsletter) that “an employee” (no name) received “a reward” for a report that enabled the organization to stop certain ongoing violations of company policy.


Whistleblowing requires courage. Someone with knowledge of unethical practices may think hard about whether to blow the whistle and, if so, how best to do so. Whistleblowers are often principled people who are willing to take a stand against wrongdoing, but even so they may fear potential retribution, whether from the organization’s senior management or from co-workers. In some economies or geographies, people may not be able to walk straight into another job. So concerns about possible personal impact can be very real.

There have been several cases where whistleblowers have not been treated fairly by organizations after making their report. Organizations have to overcome this legacy if whistleblowers are to be persuaded to report internally rather than directly to the authorities.

Half of whistleblower calls in 2009 were anonymous, according to the major hotline study mentioned earlier in item 2, suggesting that many employees still fear to speak up openly. Anonymity can inadvertently lead to mishandling of investigations by focusing on unmasking the whistleblower, which can lead to unlawful retribution, or by discounting anonymous allegations so they are not properly investigated, as shown in a recent academic paper, “Effects of Anonymous Whistle-Blowing and Perceived Reputation Threats on Investigations of Whistle-Blowing Allegations by Audit Committee Members,” reported in the Journal of Management Studies online in February 2010.

This academic experiment, involving 83 experienced audit committee members, found that audit committee members attributed lower credibility and allocated fewer investigative resources to whistleblower reports that were received through an anonymous versus a non-anonymous channel. This finding suggests a potential opportunity for audit committees to enhance the way in which anonymous whistleblower reports are evaluated and addressed.

5. Protecting those who serve

Given how valuable whistleblowing can be in deterring and detecting wrongdoing, it would be prudent for an organization to create a supportive environment for whistleblowers. Measures an organization can take to do this include:

Developing meaningful rewards for whistleblowing.•

Implementing a detailed non-retaliation policy protecting •whistleblowers who make reports in good faith.

Communicating this policy in the employee code of •ethics, orientation and periodic refresher training, hotline posters, employee newsletters, ethics and compliance communications, and periodic speeches from senior management.

Designating a central function or person, such as the •corporate compliance and ethics officer, to monitor the career progression, compensation, and any proposed disciplinary actions against whistleblowers for a period of time (such as three years) after a whistleblower report is made. This person can also be designated to receive and to investigate any complaints of retribution.

Implementing a records retention policy for •whistleblower reports, complaints and investigations.

Training senior management about the whistleblower •policies, especially non-retaliation.


A successful whistleblower system requires effective communication to create and maintain employees’ awareness of the hotline’s existence, build willingness to use it, and develop employees’ ability to identify potential wrongdoing.

According to the Ethics Research Council’s 2009 National Business Ethics Survey, 63 percent of employees surveyed said they had reported misconduct when they saw it. That is up from 58 percent in the 2007 survey but still leaves 37 percent of employees not reporting observed misconduct.

Training, both live and online, is key to raising whistleblower system awareness. Other means include:

Posters in the workplace•

Mentions on invoices, purchase orders, paystubs, •remittance advices, check stubs, and other business documents

Employee and supplier codes of ethics•

Intranet and public Web sites•

Verbal emphasis by senior leadership•

Employee newsletters and broadcast compliance and •ethics e-mails

Three key aspects of whistleblower system awareness

A key aspect of system awareness is educating •employees about the red flags, risks and schemes related to unethical or illegal behavior including topics such as conflicts of interest, bribery, kickbacks, embezzlement, financial statement manipulation, and fraudulent regulatory reporting. This type of awareness can be part of a fraud risk management or ethics and compliance awareness program. It is important to explain that every employee has a role in preventing and detecting fraud and that the hotline system is a key tool for people to use for that purpose.

6. Communicate, communicate, communicate

A second aspect is raising awareness about the •existence of the whistleblower system. Here frequent reinforcement and visibility is needed. A good goal is for employees, vendors, customers and other third parties to know about the system and when they should use it. It can also be made clear that not reporting known wrongdoing is a violation of the organization’s policy and will be subject to disciplinary action.

A third aspect is emphasizing to employees that •whistleblower reports can be anonymous if they wish, that reports made in good faith will not lead to retribution and that reports will be acted upon promptly with appropriate steps being taken. One thing to note is that laws in certain European countries, such as France, limit the use and discourage the emphasis of anonymity for whistleblower reports, so tailored messages may be needed for employees there.

Employee confidence in the system is paramount to the success of a whistleblower system. Communicating and monitoring compliance with the entity’s non-retribution policy can help to allay fears. It may also be beneficial to publish internally suitably anonymous examples of where a whistleblower system report led to an investigation and appropriate disciplinary action against those found to have violated the organization’s policies. In addition, having senior executives, including the CEO, participate in some of the system awareness communications can demonstrate their support.

Communication can establish a strong ethical tone at the organization and illustrate how seriously the organization takes any reports coming through the whistleblower system.


“Open wide,” says the dentist. “Wider.” The wider you open your mouth, the easier it is for your dentist to see what is going on, identify potential problems early, and take action to keep your teeth in good shape. Whistleblower systems work in a similar way. When access is restricted, it is harder for people to report potential wrongdoing. Issues can fester until they cause such pain that action has to be taken.

Whistleblower system access can sometimes be restricted consciously by executives who may be fearful of having to respond to more allegations if they “open wide.” More often, access is restricted unconsciously through use of a design that inadvertently doesn’t reflect some of the lessons learned in recent years about whistleblower systems.

Four potential barriers to whistleblowing

Service hours — • Many early whistleblower systems consisted of a phone number that employees could call during business hours. It may have gone to a compliance officer or an internal auditor at the head office. However, according to one major hotline operator, these days almost 50 percent of calls are received outside business hours. Whistleblowers may be reluctant to make hotline calls from the workplace where they could easily be overheard, have their name show up on caller ID, and be tracked in telephone call logs. So enabling access 24/7 can help to increase calls.

Languages —• Whistleblower reports are sensitive and tricky things to communicate, so not being able to use one’s preferred language can deter whistleblowing or adversely impact a report’s completeness and accuracy. For many organizations today, the ability to take reports in many different languages may be a necessity not a luxury.

7. Open wide

Constituencies — • While many organizations have focused on providing a whistleblower reporting system just for employees, only 49 percent of the tips in the ACFE’s 2010 fraud study mentioned earlier were identified as coming from employees. Another 38 percent came from external sources such as customers, vendors, shareholders, competitors, and the perpetrators’ acquaintances. The remaining 13 percent were anonymous. Encouraging these other constituencies to use your system could generate more good tips.

Methods —• Live phone calls make asking clarification questions easier. But not all whistleblowers are comfortable reporting that way. Preferred methods vary by country and culture. Also, a major hotline operator reported in 2006 that 77 percent of its anonymous whistleblowers used a Web-based reporting mechanism. So offering multiple methods of reporting (such as phone, e-mail, Web form, fax, and letter) can help to generate more tips than just a hotline or e-mail system on its own.


What’s in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)William Shakespeare

Juliet’s idea that names really do not matter proved to be naive and her love for Romeo ill-fated. For she was a Capulet and he was a Montague; the names of the two warring families could not be overcome.

Can the name or title of a whistleblower ‘hotline’ make a difference? Experience suggests it may. Despite the heroics and undeserved suffering of many past whistleblowers, the term ‘whistleblower’ may have negative connotations in some people’s minds, for cultural, historical, and other reasons. In companies with unions, a ‘whistleblower’ hotline may be tagged as the ‘rat line’ or ‘snitch line’ — quite the opposite of what is intended or desired. A more neutral term such as ‘report line’ can be one step in the right direction.

In addition, while whistleblower lines may be thought to be one-way and narrowly focused on receiving reports of potential wrongdoing, some companies have turned them into a two-way communication system called a ‘helpline’ or ‘guideline.’ In addition to taking reports, helplines provide guidance for employees who are concerned about a difficult ethical, legal, or regulatory issue that they or a co-worker may be facing. In this way, ethical issues that appear borderline or questionable can be resolved before a decision is made or action taken. So the helpline can be a way to prevent more wrongdoing.

8. What’s in a name?

The term ‘helpline’ tends to be viewed as a more inviting name that may be less intimidating for an employee to use. It encourages the caller to treat a matter more as an item in which they are seeking advice or clarification on an issue.

The ‘helpline’ may also promote calls from employees who may not be sure whether something that they observed is unethical or against the code/law and may not have otherwise called a ‘hotline.’

This approach can also facilitate the consolidation of multiple hotlines and helplines into one covering a variety of issues. Aside from potentially simplifying business processes, this can give employees experience in using the line for day-to-day matters, building trust, and making them more willing to call should a serious matter arise.


Many of Rome’s streets are quite narrow. While some American SUVs can be seen on the streets, they seem large compared to the many small cars (and scooters) that dominate. It is a lot harder to find space to park an SUV and while parked, their width can make them more vulnerable to damage from other vehicles that squeeze past.

One size does not fit all. Vehicles in Rome are different from those in New York because Rome is different from New York. In a similar way, taking an American whistleblower system and deploying it worldwide without any customization may not generate the desired results.

In some countries, culture and history have made whistleblowing either a sensitive subject or taboo. Certain countries have strict laws about the operation of whistleblower systems. These need to be factored into the design of a whistleblower system for organizations with international operations. For example, guidance and regulations within the European Union may influence the design of the whistleblower hotline for organizations that have operations in those countries.

9. When in Rome…

Another important aspect globally is the tactics and strategies used in relation to communicating the whistleblower system. Due to different cultures and work environments, it can be helpful for an organization to involve local personnel to help tailor communication practices. The examples used in training materials and communications about whistleblowing may need to be tailored given the different audience and culture. In addition, a strong emphasis may need to be placed on certain items that would be violations of the organization’s code of ethics or code of conduct but which are considered perfectly acceptable culturally and within the law in some countries.

In certain countries, whistleblowing itself may not be a problem, but expecting someone to make a report on a telephone call speaking live with a hotline operator may be unrealistic. Particularly in certain regions, such as Asia and Latin America, speaking to a stranger on the phone about a highly sensitive matter may be against the norm culturally. Providing alternative reporting methods such as e-mail or Web form may be much more attractive. Experience suggests that the workforce in certain countries such as India is typically most comfortable with e-mail and Internet communication and may be more inclined to report anonymously this way instead of by telephone hotline.


Aside from some legal issues, about which lawyers can advise, there is no one prescribed or ‘right approach’ to responding to whistleblower hotline allegations. However, certain principles can help drive more effective strategies, policies and tactics. Amongst these principles are:

Having a clear line of reporting from the hotline operator •to a designated member of senior management such as a compliance and ethics officer, who should have a reporting relationship directly with the board of directors or audit committee. Allegations involving senior management or financial reporting should also be provided directly to the board of directors or audit committee.

Having defined roles and responsibilities covering •the team of individuals that will evaluate incoming reports and determine the action to be taken (such as the compliance officer, general counsel, internal audit director, or human resources director), who will investigate each potential type of allegation (such as human resources, internal audit, or investigative specialists) and where needed skills will be sourced (such as computer forensics, data analytics, and language skills).

10. A prepared and diligent response

Having a clear communication process — including •when senior executives (including the CEO) and the audit committee are to be notified of an allegation. Determine who needs to be informed about certain types of allegations for legal and regulatory compliance reasons and how the progress or results of investigations will be communicated (typically under the guidance of legal counsel to help protect any legal privileges). Lastly, what type of reporting should be provided to senior management, the board of directors, and the audit committee, how frequently and in how much detail?

Having pre-determined investigation protocols and plans •of action to help drive timely and consistent responses organization-wide.

Having a disciplinary committee with responsibility •for implementing appropriate discipline, based on investigatory findings, applied consistently organization-wide.


The following material is available on the Deloitte Forensic Center Web site www.deloitte.com/forensiccenter or from [email protected].

Deloitte Forensic Center book:Corporate Resiliency: Managing the Growing Risk of •Fraud and Corruption

Chapter 1 available for download –

Deloitte Forensic Center ForThoughts newsletters and videos:

Technology Fraud: The Lure of Private Companies•E-discovery: Mitigating Risk Through Better •CommunicationWhite-Collar Crime: Preparing for Enhanced Enforcement•The Cost of Fraud: Strategies for Managing a Growing •ExpenseCompliance and Integrity Risk: Getting M&A Pricing Right•Procurement Fraud and Corruption: Sourcing from Asia•Ten Things about Financial Statement Fraud — Third •editionThe Expanded False Claims Act: FERA Creates New Risks•Avoiding Fraud: It’s Not Always Easy Being Green•Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Due Diligence in •M&AThe Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act “FERA”•Ten Things About Bankruptcy and Fraud•Applying Six Degrees of Separation to Preventing Fraud•India and the FCPA•Helping to Prevent University Fraud•Avoiding FCPA Risk While Doing Business in China•The Shifting Landscape of Health Care Fraud and •Regulatory ComplianceSome of the Leading Practices in FCPA Compliance•Monitoring Hospital-Physician Contractual Arrangements •to Comply with Changing RegulationsManaging Fraud Risk: Being Prepared•Ten Things about Fraud Control•

Deloitte Forensic Center

Notable material in other publications:Shop Talk: Compliance Risks in New Data Technologies, •Compliance Week, July 2010Many Companies Ill-Equipped to Handle Social Media •e-discovery, BoardMember.com, June 2010Many Companies Expect to Face Difficulties in Assessing •Financial Statement Fraud Risks, BNA Corporate Accountability Report, May 2010Who’s Allegedly ‘Cooking the Books’ and Where?, •Business Crimes Bulletin, January 2010Being Ready for the Worst, • Fraud Magazine, November/December 2009Mapping Your Fraud Risks, • Harvard Business Review, October 2009Listen to Your Whistleblowers, • Corporate Board Member, Third Quarter, 2009Use Heat Maps to Expose Rare but Dangerous Frauds, •HBR NOW, June 2009

www.deloitte.com/us/forensic-center/subscribe

This publication contains general information only and is based on the experiences and research of Deloitte practitioners. Deloitte is not, by means of this publication, rendering accounting, auditing, business, financial, investment, legal, or other professional advice or services. This publication is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your business, you should consult a qualified professional advisor.

Deloitte, its affiliates, and related entities shall not be responsible for any loss sustained by any person who relies on this publication.

About Deloitte Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.

Copyright © 2010 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

This article is published as part of ForThoughts, the Deloitte Forensic Center’s newsletter series, which is edited by Toby Bishop, director of the Deloitte Forensic Center. ForThoughts highlights trends and issues in fraud, corruption, and other complex business issues. To subscribe to ForThoughts, visit www.deloitte.com/forenssiccenter or send an e-mail to [email protected].

AuthorsDonna Epps is a partner in the Forensic & Dispute Services practice of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP, the national leader of the Anti-fraud Consulting group and a member of the leadership team for the Governance and Risk Management practice. Ms. Epps may be reached at [email protected].

Mohammed Ahmed is a senior manager in the Forensic & Dispute Services practice of Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP. Mr. Ahmed may be reached at [email protected].

Deloitte Forensic CenterThe Deloitte Forensic Center is a think tank aimed at exploring new approaches for mitigating the costs, risks and effects of fraud, corruption, and other issues facing the global business community.

The Center aims to advance the state of thinking in areas such as fraud and corruption by exploring issues from the perspective of forensic accountants, corporate leaders, and other professionals involved in forensic matters. The Deloitte Forensic Center is sponsored by Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP. For more information, visit www.deloitte.com/forensiccenter.



www.deloitte.com/us/forensic-center

www.deloitte.com/us/forensic-center