{
  "id": 13966818,
  "title": "‘Moral hazard’ – Lawyers warn SFO whistleblowing rewards could backfire",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/12/moral-hazard-lawyers-warn-sfo-whistleblowing-rewards-could-backfire",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-10-12T13:13:30.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "City AM",
    "slug": "city-am",
    "url": "https://www.cityam.com/moral-hazard-lawyers-warn-sfo-whistleblowing-rewards-could-backfire/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The UK government is seeking public input on changes to whistleblowing laws, aiming to equip the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) with the ability to reward individuals who report economic crimes. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Minister for the Future of Work Kate Dearden revealed the government's plans for a \"whistleblowing framework\" that would support the reporting of serious wrongdoing, while being straightforward for employees and employers to grasp. Following a review led by Jonathan Fisher KC, the government opened a consultation on the eligible parties, reward limits, and potential criminalisation of false reports or harassment of whistleblowers. This consultation runs until January 8, 2027.\n\nWhile some, like former director Nick Ephgrave, have called for the adoption of US-inspired monetary rewards for tips on economic crime and corporate fraud to strengthen enforcement, legal experts have expressed skepticism. They argue that financial motives could raise moral issues and potentially damage internal corporate trust. Jo Mackie, a partner at Michelmores, called the proposed scheme \"fundamentally flawed\" due to its reliance on financial motives. Ian Hargreaves, a partner at Quillon Law, stressed that whistleblowing should be a \"public and social duty,\" not a profit-driven exercise. He added that whistleblowers should also be protected against retaliation, a concern addressed to some extent under employment legislation but not as effectively as desired.\n\nLegal experts also highlighted the difference between the UK and US legal systems. Lloyd Firth of WilmerHale emphasized that the main value of paying whistleblowers is not to get them to testify but to obtain their \"inside track\" intelligence, enabling investigators to focus their efforts effectively. However, Lucy Blake of Jenner & Block noted that since most UK cases go to trial rather than resulting in plea deals, a whistleblower's payout would depend on a conviction, potentially undermining their credibility during cross-examination by defense lawyers. This could lead to questions about their reliability in front of a jury.\n\nThe government had previously reconsidered its plans to eliminate jury trials in criminal courts due to a backlog in the justice system. Alun Milford of Kingsley Napley suggested that the proposal to introduce whistleblower incentives might not provoke as much controversy as scrapping jury trials. However, he cautioned that any changes should ensure fair trial safeguards. Legal professionals also warned that the scheme could undermine internal corporate governance and create distrust within organizations, urging that any scheme introduced in the UK should complement, not replace, proactive fraud prevention measures.",
  "summary": "The UK government has launched a consultation on reforming whistleblowing laws, seeking to give the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) powers to reward individuals who report economic crime, a move experts view with scepticism. On Monday, business secretary Jonathan Reynolds and minister for the future of work, Kate Dearden, revealed the government’s plans for a “whistleblowing [...]",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}