I read this interesting blog post this morning about the ethics of whistle blowing.
The author suggests that in reporting wrongdoing, motive matters. He writes of the UBS employee that helped the government uncover individuals hiding money abroad to avoid taxes, and received over $100 million in return through a qui tam case. The author is critical of the whistleblower’s ethics, claiming that he did it to avoid punishment for his role in the fraud. My LA346 students should be able to identify the framework the author is using. (LA245 students will learn this soon). Thoughts?
The law definitely doesn’t care about motive in terms of whistleblower protection, interestingly. The laws serve to incentivize people to blow the whistle. From a utilitarian perspective, this makes sense. Who cares if one bad guy gets a benefit from blowing the whistle, if many others are helped through detection of the fraud?
8 Comments
Madison posted on September 18, 2012 at 10:22 am
Like the author of the article I am critical as to whether Birkenfeld essentially blew the whistle to escape further harm to himself and “take the money and run” while he was still able or if he genuinely cared about the issue at hand. Whatever his motive clearly the ends does justify the means. Millions of tax money has been collected and a means of escaping United States taxes has been diminished. Maybe some instances regarding whistleblowing may appear more clear cut and the motives seem more pure (Ex. Cheryl Ekhard) but eventually the outcome of most cases outways the initial ethical dilemma? I think so at least in this case. Maybe Birkenfeld had some sort of moral epiphany and realized what he was doing was ethically wrong and that generated his whistleblowing… we will never know what peoples actual motives are therefore I think reflecting on the positive ending is sometimes the thing that must be recognized most.
Steph posted on September 18, 2012 at 10:49 am
Although the whistleblower’s motives may have had some “unethical” pretenses, he still chose to expose wrongdoing in hopes of combating it. He still had to be aware that investigation into the existed behavior could incriminate him as well, but he chose to report it anyway. It’s similar to a criminal snitching on a partner in exchange for a court deal; they may be motivstedby a reward but they are still doing the right thing.
Mike Bruno posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:44 am
I can see the motive for Birkenfeld’s actions from both sides. On the one it seemed that the government was not going to uncover this massive fraud scheme any time soon so Birkenfeld must have had a guilty conscience or was being asked to do things he no longer could. But then on the other side, he willingly took part in these schemes. In one case he “sneaked diamonds into the U.S. in a toothpaste tube.” I believe his guilty conscience finally got the best of him and since he had become so involved his only way out was to blow the whistle. However, he should have been handed a more severe punishment for being involved. Take responsibility for your actions and face the repercussions, don’t weasel your way out.
Jaclyn Sessel posted on September 18, 2012 at 11:04 pm
I think Birkenfeld is very sneaky. He not only participated in the illegal acts, but admitted to additional ones. It’s too ironic that he is getting his paycheck in prison for doing the right thing. I guess this is a case where you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Ideally someone innocent and acting in good faith would’ve shed light on the Swiss scandals, but instead a criminal had to do the “right thing.”
Gwen Yang posted on September 19, 2012 at 11:54 am
Although effectively utilitarian in its effect, it is almost common-sensical that there is a large flaw in this system of rewarding the wrong-doer. Especially so when the one in question has been so heavily involved in the crime himself, going so far as to run “errands” for his clients which would be well beyond the scope of his job. Using Kantianism in place of Utilitarianism, it is easy to see how impossible it would be to implement this policy – everyone would merely become whistleblowers seeking monetary gain. There must be a better way to promote a higher sense of moral fibre without giving into material rewards. Perhaps reducing the punishment instead of giving a reward?
Emily Theurer posted on September 21, 2012 at 6:15 pm
I agree with Gwen’s comment and believe that reducing the punishment would have been a better alternative and perhaps even serve a better message than giving a monetary reward. I think that the court should use other rewards besides money. The dispute was over 33,000 US tax payers who were avoiding the IRS. It is therefore ironic that in helping wealthy clients avoid taxes, Birkenfeld is receiving a cash reward by the government. I agree that we have to somewhat overlook Birkenfeld’s role and motive in the fraud because in Utilitarianism we are only concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number of people. No matter his motives Birkenfield helped to uncover something that never would have been uncovered without his whistle blowing. However, $104 million is still an excessive amount of money to give to someone who confessed to helping wealthy Americans hide their assets from the IRS. Instead why not reduce his sentence or punishment similar to how a prisoner’s sentence is reduced for good behavior. That way we would not completely be ignoring the unethical role that Birkenfeld played in the fraud. This case suggests that perhaps today society is too focused on material possessions and rewards such as money.
Tinna Zhang posted on September 24, 2012 at 7:27 pm
This is an interesting topic. As far as I know, there are mostly two important protections for the whistleblowers. One is protection from retaliation, another is about conditional anonymity. I personally agree with the second way. Because anonymity is the way that can completely protect the whistleblower because if the government exposes the whistleblower`s information, no matter how the gov protects the whistleblower from retaliation, he or she will be hurt in some degree.
turbotax free posted on October 3, 2013 at 9:42 pm
I precisely had to thank you so much again. I’m not certain the things that I would have made to happen without the entire creative concepts shared by you relating to that subject matter. It actually was a very daunting crisis in my view, but considering the very expert technique you dealt with that forced me to jump with gladness. Now i’m thankful for this support and as well , hope that you know what a powerful job you are always accomplishing training the rest through the use of your web blog. More than likely you haven’t encountered all of us.