Katherine Odendaal and Jean Salloum

The global compliance landscape is quietly evolving. A once controversial conclusion is becoming increasingly the norm for policymakers: whistleblowers are not merely a compliance inconvenience to be managed, but rather a strategic asset and a unique source of intelligence to be protected and encouraged. In recent years, a wave of legislative reforms has begun to transform whistleblowing from a passive protection framework into an active enforcement mechanism.

EU: Creating a more favourable speak-up environment

Since 2019, the EU’s approach to whistleblowing has relied on a key pillar: the 2019 EU Whistleblowing Directive. The Directive harmonised minimum protection standards for whistleblowers across member states. However, it did not extend to introducing financial reward mechanisms or proactive enforcement tools.

Two recent EU-level developments will indirectly reinforce the environment in which whistleblowers operate.

• Firstly, the creation of the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AMLA), which is set to be operational in 2028, is a serious step towards tackling fragmented systems. Centralising AML supervision of the 40 highest-risk EU financial institutions means the AMLA will be forming a body that is better set up to respond to disclosures than the current fragmented network of national supervisors.
• Secondly, the EU’s first comprehensive Anti-Corruption Directive was formally adopted by the European Parliament on 26 March 2026 (with 581 votes for and 21 against). The significance to whistleblowers, albeit indirect, lies in the fact that it establishes a common criminal definition across all EU member states for key offences including bribery, misappropriation, and illicit enrichment. This legal alignment reduces ambiguity, and creates consistent obligations on authorities to address disclosures related to those crimes and more importantly further protects individuals from retaliation for reporting such wrongdoing.

Together, AMLA and the anti-corruption directive signal that the EU is building the foundations for stronger supervision, clearer laws and more effective whistleblowing. These reforms and others have come with a cost.

Sergei Magnitsky died in a Moscow prison in 2009 after exposing a USD230 million tax fraud involving corrupt officials and criminal intermediaries. His death sparked international outrage, leading to the development of ‘Magnitsky-style’ sanctions regimes in the US, UK and EU, forming the cornerstone of anti-corruption enforcement. Despite the prominence of this case, no criminal charges were brought in a Western court for nearly two decades. Only on 30 March 2026 did the Paris Judicial Tribunal consider charges of aggravated money laundering against Russian businessman Dmitry Klyuev.

UK: A framework in transition

The growing international consensus on clearer and more homogenous whistleblowing frameworks raises the bar for the UK as it seeks to reform its whistleblowing and anti‑corruption regimes. The UK whistleblowing legislation remains fragmented and largely retrospective, with protection against retaliation routed primarily through employment law under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA), which faced criticism for ‘its limited scope, ineffective enforcement, and failure to protect whistleblowers from significant harm’.

These limitations are illustrated by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) and the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) joint enforcement action against former Barclays CEO Jes Staley. The GBP642,350 fine, alongside a Barclays clawback of his bonus, arose from Staley’s attempts to identity the author of an anonymous whistleblower letter that raised concerns including an alleged conflict of interest in the recruitment of a senior Barclays executive stemming from a prior personal relationship with Staley. He was also fined by the FCA (imposed in 2023 and upheld in 2025) in relation to misrepresentations made regarding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. This highlights the UK’s continued reliance on retrospective enforcement action, rather than a preventative culture where protection against retaliation or intimidation is embedded from the outset.

These shortcomings were formally acknowledged in the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy, first published in December 2025. The strategy reframed whistleblowing as a source of actionable intelligence that enhances enforcement outcomes and committed to exploring reform, including the consideration of financial incentives for reporting economic crime. This stance echoes the Serious Fraud Office’s 2025-26 Business Plan, which prioritised the progression of whistleblower incentivisation as part of a broader shift towards intelligence‑led enforcement.

The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) published research in December 2024 that identified key impacts of whistleblower reward programmes, including increased quantity and quality of actionable intelligence provided to law enforcement, creating an enhanced economic crime deterrent effect, and strengthening private-sector compliance. This challenges what RUSI describes as the UK’s long‑held antipathy toward rewards programmes. Notably, the UK was listed as one of the largest sources of submissions to the US Securities and Exchange Commission, a loss of intelligence abroad highlighted by former SFO Director Nicholas Ephgrave.

This cultural shift is starting to take shape: The UK Employment Rights Act 2025 recognised sexual harassment and a qualifying whistleblowing disclosure, reinforcing the protection mechanisms for individuals. This change is also reflected by the increased regulatory focus by the FCA on non-financial misconduct coming into force on 1 September 2026.

Secondly, from November 2025 the strengthened HMRC Reward Scheme now provides whistleblowers with between 15% and 30% of tax recovered, subject to a minimum recovery threshold of GBP1.5 million from reports of tax evasion, the first time the UK has mirrored the US model in the use of percentage-based incentives.

US: Deepening an already established model

The United States, which is widely regarded as a pioneer in whistleblower incentivisation, is continuing to expand this method into new territories.

On 30 March 2026, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury, proposed a rule to formally implement a whistleblower programme offering incentives and protections. The stated goal of the rule, dubbed as a “major milestone in implementing whistleblower programme to fight illicit finance”, is to safeguard the integrity of the US’ financial system and national security. FinCEN, which has been accepting tips under the statutory whistleblower programme since 2021, promised that awards could reach 30% of collected monetary penalties under the new rule.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in January 2026 that its Antitrust Division, in conjunction with the US Postal Service, made its first whistleblower payment by awarding USD1 million for reporting original information on price-fixing and bid-rigging schemes. The programme, which was launched in July 2025, is therefore showing signs of operational maturity with the DOJ describing whistleblowers as the justice system’s ‘greatest disinfectant against criminal antitrust conspiracies’.

The shape of what’s emerging and what to do next

Across jurisdictions, three common themes are emerging as whistleblowing frameworks evolve:

1. Positive outcomes are shaped by institutional design, including centralisation, clear offence definitions, and empowered enforcement bodies. These structures not only improve enforcement effectiveness, but they can also be decisive in protecting individuals who come forward.
2. A growing recognition of the value of whistleblowing as a key intelligence function. Driven by a broader cultural shift, insiders are increasingly being recognised as indispensable sources of early evidence in the detection of economic crime; and
3. Protection alone is often insufficient to cover the risks faced by a whistleblower: both research and practice are showing that financial incentives are improving disclosure quality, deterring misconduct, and preventing the loss of intelligence, including to other jurisdictions.

The reforms outlined above have either been implemented or are set to come into effect in the near term. Firms should review their internal reporting channels to ensure they are fit for purpose, including for multi-jurisdictional reporting spanning AML, bribery, sanctions, tax evasion and workplace misconduct. They should also consider stress testing their investigation protocols, as a mishandled or ignored disclosure is increasingly considered by regulators as evidence of cultural failure.

And, for those holding uncomfortable truths, the landscape continues to shift in their favour, even if the political and legal environments could still pose some challenges.

About the authors

---

How HKA can help?

As whistleblowing frameworks continue to evolve, organisations should reassess whether their reporting channels, investigation processes and governance structures are fit for an increasingly intelligence‑led enforcement environment. Preparing now can reduce regulatory risk, strengthen culture, and ensure disclosures are handled consistently and defensibly across jurisdictions.

HKA provides an expert, responsive and agile investigations service. Our global capabilities allow us to quickly deploy investigating teams with the right skills, resources and experience anywhere in the world.

Drawing on forensic accounting expertise and a range of complementary disciplines, we conduct incisive investigations and in-depth research. Using specialist investigation technologies, including in-house developed AI capabilities, our renowned teams perform analysis of complex and large datasets, digital forensics, and e-discovery efficiently.