Protecting the Whistleblower with Stephen Kohn

Cindy Moehring: 00:00:01

Hi, everyone. I'm Cindy Moehring, the founder and Executive Chair of the business integrity Leadership Initiative at the Walton College of Business, and this is the business integrity school podcast. Here we talk about applying ethics, integrity and courageous leadership in business and most importantly, in your life today. I've had nearly 30 years of real world experience as a senior executive. So if you're looking for practical tips from a business pro who's been there, then this is the podcast for you. Welcome. Let's get started. Hi, everybody, and welcome back to another episode of the business integrity school. We're in season six and we are talking about all things related to speaking up. And when that doesn't work well internally, what that then can lead to which can be external whistleblowing. And we are very fortunate to have with us today, a very special guests, Steve Kohn, he is one of the top experts in Whistleblower Protection Law. Hi, Steve.

Stephen Kohn: 00:01:00

Hey, Cindy, thank you for having me on.

Cindy Moehring: 00:01:03

It's a real pleasure to have you today. Steve is a founding director of the National whistleblower center. And he's also a partner at Cohn Kohn and Colapinto, which is a law firm that specializes in employment law. And as I said, he's been a real trailblazer in establishing protection for whistleblowers since really 1984. Just as one small example, he won the first major Swiss bank whistleblower case where his clients disclosures resulted in $13 billion with a B collected and fines and penalties forced 1000s of Americans to close their illegal Swiss bank accounts. And ultimately, his client obtained at the time, the largest monetary reward ever paid by the government to an individual whistleblower, which is $104 million. And that state I think, still ranks up there near the top. There have been a couple lately that have knocked that off. But you know, 110 114, it was still over 100 million. So my goodness, that that was a big one. You, you have just really set the stage, I think in such a way for whistleblower whistleblowing law. You've been at it for over 30 years. So how did you get into it? Let's just start there. Well,

Stephen Kohn: 00:02:16

I did a clerkship in 1982 on whistleblowing, and they said, Hey, Steve, you're gonna do whistleblowing? And I said, What's that? I know, he went to talk. And then when I realized what it was, he sounds a law student. How these people were great people sacrificing, reporting, issues that were really of public concern. I took a job with the organization I clerked for. And that's all I've been doing ever since since 1984. When I became a lawyer, we set up our own firm, we set up a nonprofit to advocate for whistleblowers. And we've been doing it ever since and no regrets. And I think the fundamental thing that I've learned is that people don't understand whistleblowers. There's some of the best, most loyal people you will ever meet.

Cindy Moehring: 00:03:10

Yeah, yeah, I know. And so it's part of what I want to impact today is that, you know, people not understanding whistleblowers, where did whistleblower law protection even come from? And you I learned actually have traced it back way, way, way back all the way to our founding fathers, where the first whistleblower law was passed. Tell me a little bit about that. That goes all the way back to Gosh, I don't know. 1778.

Stephen Kohn: 00:03:39

Yeah. So what happened was, there have been numerous legal challenges to whistleblowing. And one of them was targeting the right of a citizen, to you to essentially Sue on behalf of the government because there was a fraud. And I said, No, hold it. We're a nation of the people by the people, right, to be something in the history of this country, that that codified the participation of whistleblowers in fighting fraud and corruption. So we I set my lawn portrait of finally something. And lo and behold, they found a law passed in 1778. On July 30, as good as any law we have now, called on every inhabitant, not citizen inhabitant of the United States to report fraud, misdemeanors, crimes and corruption even within the new revolutionary government. And they allocated money for the enforcement of the law specifically to hire a lawyer to represent America's first whistleblowers who had reported corruption of the commander of the United States Navy. Oh, wow, accused the commander of the United States Navy of mistreating British prisoners. So when you look at the revolution, and right, the founders of this country would have been hung for treason if they lost the war. Not only did you know, they supported the whistleblower who was reporting things highly embarrassing to the government, money, with resources and with the resolution, and that's kind of been our our credo ever since

Cindy Moehring: 00:05:36

if the Founding Fathers could do it. At the time of the revolution. It's up to Congress to do it to that. Yeah, Founding Fathers at the time of the revolution, deciding then to protect the whistleblower, who was reporting things that to your point would have been highly embarrassing to the government.

Stephen Kohn: 00:05:55

So this is the first freedom of speech case in the whole new country. Oh, wow. We've just added my new research. I continue researching it. The principal advocate behind it was Samuel Adams, one of the most important founders of the country. He was working with the whistleblowers and with Congress to protect them.

Cindy Moehring: 00:06:20

Wow. Wow. So so there's a really long history here to protecting whistleblowers in a positive way that dates all the way back to our founding fathers. And in fact, if I'm not mistaken, then, you know, fast forward into the 1800s 1863, we had the second major whistleblowing law, I believe, signed by Abe Lincoln. And it was the False Claims Act. What What was that one all about? And seems like it's really stood the test of time. It's still here today.

Stephen Kohn: 00:06:52

False claims that today is the most powerful whistleblower law. It is the most effective anti fraud law in the United States and actually throughout the entire world. It's in brilliant all what it does is it empowers the whistleblower, to file a claim against people who are defrauding the government with that could mean they're ripping off Medicare, Medicaid, lying to get a federal contract. We did a big case where they were selling bulletproof vests that didn't work. So procurement, drugs, the works anytime there's a federal dollar involved, if someone's ripping off the taxpayer, this law covers it. So the law was founded during the Civil War. Because they were fraudsters ripping off the Union army they were selling, saw justice, gunpowder, they actually were selling like blind horses contaminated meat, and are the Republicans at the time who were on the side of the North in the Civil War, were saying This threatens our ability to win the war. They passed the False Claims Act, which empowered every witness to these frauds to step forward, file a claim in federal court and obtain a bounty so so there wasn't employment law, like we know it today. And there weren't big employers like big companies, like we know today, there were fraudsters stealing from the government. So they set up this bounty program, you get a reward, if what you turn in results in collections for the government, if the government doesn't collect, you get nothing. So the government and the taxpayer are always the biggest winners. But the whistleblower can be incentivized. And, and everybody knows there's great risk of being a whistleblower. So so it's, if you take that risk, you can end up on your feet financially. Now, law has was modernized in 1986, and just works unbelievably well.

Cindy Moehring: 00:09:04

Wow, so give us some sense of how much money has been collected or saved, if you will, for the taxpayers under the False Claims Act. Do you have any sense of that?

Stephen Kohn: 00:09:15

So what happens is because they have to pay the whistleblower if their case is successful, or to the penny, we've monetized the success of whistleblowers. So between 1986 when the law was passed, and today, about close to 50 billion was collected in the whistleblower cases, and 25 billion collected where there was no whistleblower. The whistleblowers are two to one more effective so on the one hand, you have the whole arm of the FBI inspectors, contract compliance officers, all paid for by the taxpayer. All right. Interviews. On the other hand, the whistleblowers who are free of charge, right? Take all the risk are ultimately the most effective sources of information. Now these numbers are large, you can see how big it is, but it's nothing compared to deep terms. In other words, the people who are taking these contracts know that their own employees can turn them in. They know that there's treble damages, they know that they're getting big problems, they can even go to jail. So they change behavior. Yes, studies have now been done about the term deterrent effect. And it's at least 10 to one. I say, from what I look at the numbers, it's 20 to one. So if you say 50 billion, that's 500 billion. If it's 21, it's 2 trillion. If I match,

Cindy Moehring: 00:10:59

yeah, those are crazy amounts. See it?

Stephen Kohn: 00:11:02

And I see it all the time. But one way I see it is some of our largest cases now are US companies or publicly traded companies in Europe, because they don't have the same deterrent culture. Today, these laws aren't really they haven't been well used in Europe. And so corruption is so much my cases in Europe are 20 times easier to prove than the same type of case in United States where they've gotten better, more honest, more compliant in Europe. They're crazy. I mean, they're violating the law. Interesting, have effective oversight. There is no false claims act. Most European countries have no whistleblower protection.

Cindy Moehring: 00:11:48

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Very interesting in the Serious Fraud Office over there is, is trying to get itself kind of put together, but it isn't quite as organized as we are here.

Stephen Kohn: 00:12:00

Great Britain, which has done more than any other nation, your is approximately, I would say, 30 years behind us.

Cindy Moehring: 00:12:07

Right. Right. Right. Wow. Okay, so bring us up to current day here. We talked about where whistleblower law started the False Claims Act, how long that's been around and modernize still the most powerful as you described it. But today beyond the False Claims Act, kind of are the main whistleblower laws today? Has there been a proliferation of them? What is that? What does the landscape look like now for whistleblower law?

Stephen Kohn: 00:12:38

Sure. So the policy makers looked at false claims, and it worked. And they looked at the specific tactics used to incentivize whistleblowers, and how the information could be processed. From there, they amended the IRS tax for major tax for it's 2 million or more. So you're thinking think government procurement, it's very large in contracting, right, to a similar whistleblower law covering all tax frauds. That's why we got the Swiss bank cases, that guy. Then they moved the Dodd Frank Act to all securities frauds. So that's Wall Street. And with that they did Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is foreign bribery. That's how we're really able to look at what's going on internationally, because FCPA becomes transnational. And then they did the Commodity Exchange Act, which is actually the largest part of the economy is all commodities, transactions, everything that's real as a commodity. So it's that that law is growing tremendously every year. So you got secure, you got the publicly traded economy, you have the commodities tax, we're fighting right now for money laundering. That's so important, because all corruption or not pretty much all corruption is rooted in money laundering. If you take a bribe, you have to hide your beneficial ownership. Right? If you do drugs, dealing in drugs, terrorists, finances, tax evasion, any form of illegal activity, you have to hide your money, and that's money. So that's our next next goal, and we're fighting that hard. was changed. The other thing that changed big time is people realize that whistleblowers need anonymity and confidentiality. Okay, that has happened in Dodd Frank. They have the best confidentiality requirements under federal law. So over 60,000 people have filed claims under Dodd Frank and I do not know of one person whose confidentiality has been breached. None of our clients even close. The other thing that happened is they realized that the whistleblower laws Have to be predicated on common sense to where an employee is. So if an employee is going to report say internally, which most do, you need a protection for internal, also need the right for them to go to the government. Because that's if, if it's a big fraud, if the people you work for are criminals, you got to just go straight to the government. If you think the company may clean it up, you may want to go in turn. Regardless, you're going to have the same types of retaliation. People don't like to be told they violated the law. It's as simple as no one wants to be told by a subordinate. They messed up. So retaliation is very natural. So most of our laws now cover internal, external, and create and really leave it up to the whistleblower, to figure out the best avenue to go forward.

Cindy Moehring: 00:16:04

Okay, and they would still be protected, is begging is retaliation, which we all know, that's one of the main reasons why people don't speak up is there is fear of retaliation, and it happens, we know that it happens from time to time. Is that a separate claim in many of these laws now and have the Yeah, let's talk about that for a

Stephen Kohn: 00:16:23

minute. It's interesting whistleblower law started with protection against retaliation, whether or not what you blew the whistle turns out to be a violation. They wanted to protect the reporting channels, because they understood that people couldn't report you'd never know if there was a problem. Right, but now they've morphed into incentivizing evidence of actual crimes. Why? Because the whistleblowers had the evidence of actual big crimes, crimes that killed people Aleut rip off investors. I mean, they have the information. So once the policy makers understood that, hey, these whistleblowers actually have evidence that law enforcement needs, we got to incentivize people coming forward. And that's where the False Claims Act came in. It went from no one report in 1000, to effective reporting across industries. So it changed it from an anomaly to business as usual for law enforcement. Now, all the law enforcement agencies that work with whistleblowers, praise them sick, really praise them in a big way. They call it the most effective the most important, essential, right? So one forcement has now married with the whistleblower. Okay, and where does that leave the corporation? They have a choice. First, be honest, and police yourself. Right, second, have legitimate internal reporting channels that actually provide protection and protect your whistleblowers, or the whistleblowers must go outside the company and confidentially report. It's a choice every company has,

Cindy Moehring: 00:18:23

right. And so it shouldn't incentivize companies, well deter them from bad wrong doing and incentivize them to clean up their house and get it right and to embrace those who are willing to speak up internally to bring problems to light with an understanding that it's all toward trying to make the company better. Right. And trying to bring things to the attention. But you're,

Stephen Kohn: 00:18:46

but that and that's what we seen when I mentioned the deterrent effect. Yeah. Yeah. Have a deterrent effect companies do react to the potential and the fear of being caught. Yeah. But just want to say one thing on retaliation. Yes. If someone is raising information that can cause their supervisor, their job, can cost the company profits, can cost hire up, officials embarrass them, they will face retaliation. So a company, if they really want to have a good whistleblower program must understand that the whistleblower will be retaliated by the target of disclosure. And they better have a system to deal with brightness if they don't. It's going to go very badly.

Cindy Moehring: 00:19:43

Yeah. And so, you know, I think many companies have now moved to treating retaliation as a separate claim, just like the whistleblower protection laws have done and that retaliation is a separate claim. I know there was just a recent award for retaliation alone. In the Wells Fargo case, I think it was quite large.

Stephen Kohn: 00:20:05

So well, just recently, the Department of Labor gave an award of $22 million to a high level official at Wells Fargo who was retaliated against. Now what's stunning about this is that the Labor Department can only give an award based on proven damages both what you suffered and what within reason, you will suffer because you became a whistleblower. So if they calculated 22 million, you can begin to see the fear that high level executives, often with the best information about fraud and wrongdoing have, they have a lot at stake. So the laws that have paid like my banker case, $100 million, we have another case where whistleblower got 100 million. Most people look at those and say, This is crazy. Crazy. It's not crazy at all. Because if you're gonna get someone who could realistically suffer 20 or $30 million in economic damages to step forward, you better have a really good incentive. And it does work.

Cindy Moehring: 00:21:25

Yeah, yeah. So Steve, I gotta tell you, this starts to sound a little complicated to the simple, you know, person who's just trying to do their job and doesn't ask to stumble across something. But lo and behold does. And there's so many different laws now that we talked about for different segments of society, starting with fraud against the government, goes to the IRS, so tax fraud, you know, then you move into Wall Street, and then you've got commodities. I'm sure I missed one or two there along the way. If you're an individual, like, how, where do you? Where do you start? If you have a concern in let's say, you're not even at a public company?

Stephen Kohn: 00:22:11

Sure. So our whistleblower laws have been scandal driven, I like to say it's the two plane crash rule, which is kind of revolting. But when I started practicing law, the airline pilots were pushing for whistleblower protections if they wanted to, say not fly a plane because they thought it was unsafe or report a concern. And these pilots were testifying every year in Congress about the pressures they felt to fly, when they knew there was a safety risk. And then, in 2000, Alaska Airlines have a crash. And oh, this is terrible. Lots of people died. And then like two months later, they have a second crash. It took them to court, they passed a law for airline employees. And we have seen, we've seen that right down the line for when the Challenger blew up, they passed the law. When Enron imploded, they passed a law when Wall Street collapsed in 2008. They passed a law. So these laws are good. But what is telling you is we don't have one whistleblower law, it's that we have a federal law that makes it illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, religion, one law reform, nationwide, 1000s of lawyers know how to use it, well understood. We have no less than 60 laws, all is different. The early ones are weak and terrible. But then the learned lessons, the more modern ones are better, some have reward, some don't. It just and an every single state has procedures. So there's only like three states left that don't have any whistleblower laws. And sometimes the state laws are better than the federal. So yeah, it's confusing, but it is understandable. But the most important thing is, in my view, be understood understand that raising a concern that could cost a company profits where it could embarrass a manager, these this is a big risk. This is a big move. And you shouldn't learn your rights before you do it. So when they come after you, which they very well, might you have the maximum legal protection?

Cindy Moehring: 00:24:37

Yeah, yeah. Well, and I would think that it would, you know, in most cases, it's going to be to the benefit of the individual and to the company to use the channels that do exist within the companies to try to report and get resolution internally and see if that might resolve the resolve the issue sometimes it doesn't. And

Stephen Kohn: 00:25:04

one would hope. But that's not reality right now still.

Cindy Moehring: 00:25:09

Yeah.

Stephen Kohn: 00:25:11

Remember 60,000 whistleblowers have entered the SEC. Dodd Frank whistleblower program 60,000 under one law alone, that is telling you where the culture of Wall Street is today.

Cindy Moehring: 00:25:32

Wow. 60,000 That's, that's a lot. And, and you've read Ms over 10 books, but in terms of like knowing your rights, I mean, this, the new whistleblower handbook, that kind of details, all of that out is certainly a helpful place. It's a big book, but it takes us there's a lot of lives, like you said, but this I also think is a real helpful resource, but it almost feels to me like, you know, somebody's probably going to need some advice, like getting getting an attorney and getting some advice. If you feel as though the issue isn't being resolved internally in a way that you believe is correct, or that you're actually being heard and that it's being resolved, then you may have to think about other action. And then that requires you to think about, are you willing to go there, given all of the risks and the concern for retaliation, and you know, all the rest, because it's a lot but look over 60,000? Like you said, I've already been filed with the SEC under Dodd Frank, and the whistleblower awards do continue to increase since they first you know, for the whistleblower office, which wasn't that long ago. And I know it's gone up every year, what do you know how much was awarded in 2021. And what's been the trend over the last several years she

Stephen Kohn: 00:26:49

didn't 2021 It's like 700 million. But the SEC program is paid. Since its inception, about 1.5 billion. The False Claims Act has paid like 8 billion, there's been over 10 billion paid to whistleblowers, and I remember, the whistleblower, the average award is around 10 to 15% of whistleblowers been to pay 10 billion, that's telling you, their allegations have brought in about 100 million 100 billion to the alien, and victims. One thing I want to say is, I think if you're going to blow the whistle, you need to learn your rights. Even before you raise your concern internally, I am extremely down on internal compliance programs that are run by attorneys, because the company can hide behind the attorney client privilege and actually use the program to cover things up. They also have the right to use any evidence the whistleblower turns in against them. In an employment case, so many whistleblowers think they're they're doing the right thing. They're working with the company to resolve a problem, but they don't understand the company can can actually use that against them in employment. And I've seen it in K, I did a case where they had the chief of compliance, take the stand and attack my whistleblower for no good reason, good whistleblower, I just said that's the end of their compliance program, no one will ever use it. And it's controversial. And you need to know your rights need to know how you need to know the culture of your company, and reputation on how it handles people who step forward before you step forward. The other thing is, we've in many, many cases, and what we see is some companies never have a whistleblower case. It's not because they're like a dictatorship. It's because they clearly are doing things right. And it functions other companies repeat whistleblowers, like I just want to say is that Wells Fargo has had a lot of trouble. And they've been in the news, a lot of scandals. So it was surprising to me to see a Wells Fargo whistleblower get a very large award, the company has cultural issues that they haven't addressed. So this is just diversity out there. You have to be smart. But the thing you have to always understand is when you're going to do the right thing. Don't think that's enough. Being right enough, doing the right thing isn't enough. You have to make sure you're protected. That's my Yeah.

Cindy Moehring: 00:29:34

Yeah. And I really liked what you said, though, about company culture, understanding the company culture, and leaders of companies to understand the importance that that company culture plays in the minds of the employees in terms of whether they feel psychologically safe to raise an issue. And so, you know, companies share what they do, I think when whistled Lawmakers do come forward to rectify problems so that their program feels safe to others.

Stephen Kohn: 00:30:06

And that's my challenge, when will accompany a fortune 500 company put Sharon Watkins on the board of directors, or as the chair of their audit committee. She was right. She was loyal. She was smart. She has every single skill you would want in a director. Yet none. To the best of my knowledge, no whistleblower has ever been placed on the board of a major company. Now when the civil rights movement, some companies adjusted and they decided to put women on their board, African Americans on their board, they understood that bringing in some of these excluded segments of society was not just good for the company was good for business. Yeah, for a whistleblower it separate happened. And he's just following what I find is done. We can go and look at some of these cases where the whistleblower was right. Where they went internally first tried to work it out. And the company ended up getting sanctioned by 500 million. So if you listen to the whistleblower, the company could have saved $500 million. Right? Why director of any company of all the 1000 biggest companies can sit there and say my participation saved directly saved this company. $500 million Yeah, how many? Yet I turned there's 1000 whistleblowers that meet that criteria. No one so what that is telling me we've made progress. But within this see straight whistleblowers are still persona.

Cindy Moehring: 00:32:00

You know, when you would think after the cultural shift that at least I perceived after Sharon Watkins and others were the Time Magazine persons of the year. I do think that helped to shift. The culture around whistleblowing, made it feel like it should be lifted up. More whistleblower programs were created within companies, more helplines were created more whistleblowing, I think started to happen. But you're right. We haven't crossed that. That chasm yet to celebrating them at the highest levels? Yes. So I

Stephen Kohn: 00:32:38

remember 20-25 years ago, people who say called sex discrimination, sexual harassment cases, they were way marginalized. But like DC once put a police chief in who had filed a sex discrimination case, I know some other police departments have actually installed as their Chief of Police, people who earlier in their career raise like race discrimination complaints, you know, so there's been some, you know, you can see around the edges, some progress, but within the private sector, within the C Street, a uniform rejection of whistleblowing within their ranks, you know, within the people who they're going to let in, regardless of loyalty, effectiveness, savings, and being proven correct. And one of the reasons I'm passionate on this is because I've worked with whistleblowers since 1984. They're some of the smartest best people, and it's like, Oh, my God, they just paid this person who could be such a great employee, you know, a million dollars to leave.

Stephen Kohn: 00:33:47

is just crazy.

Cindy Moehring: 00:33:52

There are some things that are just worse. It's a work in progress, I would say. So I agree with you. And it is a work in progress. Yeah. But I so so after, after Sharon and the others were, you know, persons of the year of the on the cover of Time magazine. I do think we started to see whistleblowing claims expand. So give us a sense, like how many contacts on average does your firm get a year?

Stephen Kohn: 00:34:22

So my friend gets approximately 1000 requests for help. And we can take on about 20 cases.

Cindy Moehring: 00:34:31

Oh, my

Stephen Kohn: 00:34:32

you guys were small. But we also, you know, the cases are all difficult. They're all complex. And many of them are like, multimillion dollar if not billion dollar frauds. And the whistleblowers really put themselves at risk. So you have to, you know, they take tender loving care. The National whistleblower center, we set up an entirely separate referral service out of there that we don't have anything to do with because we're overwhelmed. They get 3000 requests for help, and only they're able to find a lawyer for. So we're still at a place in our society where most whistleblowers cannot obtain effective counsel. But that is changing in that areas like Dodd Frank and false claims, where the government has joined us as a real partner. So the False Claims Act, the Justice Department's Civil Fraud Division is taking up the cases and championing the whistleblowers, the SEC has done the same thing, their office of the whistleblower celebrates whistleblowing, they protect their confidentiality, and the cases they pick up, which are just not enough, but the ones they pick up. They're doing great investigations. And for the most part, all these agencies are honestly paying rewards. Now we take them to court, we have a lot of differences with them. Sure. The whole if the whistleblower qualifies, they pay the award, even if it's very large. So as the government partners with us, things really can move forward. Without government partnership, it's very, very bad.

Cindy Moehring: 00:36:16

So to these individuals that are seeking representation is one of the criteria that they must report internally, first to their own organization and have some sense that that failed before they can take it external.

Stephen Kohn: 00:36:29

No, there is no requirement, you must report internally, none. You can go straight to the government. My prayer is that you speak to a lawyer even you have to pay them before you blow the whistle to find your options and maybe poke around Have there been other retaliation cases against the company? Watch the company's reputation, what are your options? And before you raise your first concern, to pick it out, there's something else that's happened. And we're totally anonymous. The corporate whistleblowers have also become the confidential informants of white collar crime. Hmm. So. Okay, so an executive, I'm saying I represent now executive vice presidents, you know, people high up in the company, they seek the corruption, they see fraud, they know that other officials are participating or profiting, so they don't, they know that going internal is probably a dead end. Or would put them at risk. So they come to someone like myself, they tell me what's going on, and I and then the key is, can they be anonymous and confidential. Vice Presidents of major multinational company working there five years, just feeding information to the feds, chief financial officers feeding information while they still work there. Because they because they can be confidential and anonymous. And they don't have to lose their jobs. And they could obtain the evidence. Now, these are very unique cases, because they're really cases where the corruption is at the highest level. So if you're an executive vice president, and you're going to report corruption, if it's someone like some manager of a department, you'll clean that up. But if it's the president of the company, where do you go? So and this is very unique, and it's very new, but highly effective. Because if the corruption is at the highest levels and condoned at the highest levels of the company, you're talking about the largest frauds, and the most important ones to tackle this has the ability to go after those large cases has never existed until Dodd Frank with anonymity and confidentiality. Yeah, that

Cindy Moehring: 00:38:59

that is a new, that's kind of a new foray, I would say, into the whistleblower laws. So so let's talk about you mentioned something earlier. And I want to circle back to it and flush it out just a little bit. The international flavor or or complexion that is added to these cases, and whether or not somebody who is International is able to take advantage of these whistleblower laws in the US and how would that work? And how much of the caseload is that starting to take up?

Stephen Kohn: 00:39:34

It's growing every day. So let's just start our first major international case, Swiss banking. So in Switzerland whistleblowing is illegal. And for a banker to turn in one of their clients, you go to jail. So there is nothing you can do in Switzerland to blow the whistle on illegal banking practices, and you can't go within your company because it's legal in Switzer. So the first big Swiss bank whistleblower against UBS, came to the United States under the IRS law, and turned them in. And you can see that that was the only option. Now this person actually happened, tried to go internally, but then got smashed down. After this first one, we've had many whistleblowers from Switzerland. And they're all anonymous and confidential, and other European bankers, because they have very strict confidentiality rules there. So how could the United States ever learn that someone had an illegal Swiss bank account was evading tax with a numbered account? How can we ever know that? We'll never turn it in? The account has a number, and the American who's cheating, they're not going to turn themselves then they have no reason to they have no fear. Right? What's the banker blew the whistle. Everything changed. And that's what we're seeing in other countries. So let's assume you work for a US company or a publicly traded company doing oil in Angola. Okay. It doesn't matter what law exists in Angola. If the government officials in Angola are taking bribes, you will not survive as a whistleblower in Angola. So all of a sudden, every single outlet for blowing the whistle legitimately in Angola is closed to you. Right where you go. Right? Or US laws for foreign bribery. You can now come to the United States. And this is a massive game changer. Because what I have learned is that there are many corporate officials who really believe in honesty. Yeah, who hate the bribery, who see how the bribery undermines democracy undermines development countries, right. And, and before Dodd Frank, they have no option. They just have to go along. There's nothing they could there's nowhere to go. After Dodd Frank. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, an anonymous and confidential reporting, they can come to the United States, hire a lawyer and effectively report bribery. In the last 10 years FCPA has collected over 20 billion in fines and penalties most from companies not registered in the United States.

Cindy Moehring: 00:42:32

Companies not even registered in the United States.

Stephen Kohn: 00:42:35

So the Commodity Exchange Commission when against Viet Tal, a commodities trader, a Dutch company just recently, Glencore got whacked 1.1 billion, I forget, they're not they're the UK or Swiss company, but they're not a US company. And if you look at the FARC, Ericsson got nailed, I think over a billion dollars, Siemens was nailed. So if a company trades stocks with us through American Depository Receipt is kind of technical. But if it's a foreign company that lets Americans buy shares in their companies, their American companies, they have to compete. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was expanded to protect American companies from foreign companies that we're trying to get a competitive edge by. So I've expanded our transnational jurisdiction. And and now whistleblowing is in it is at the core of it. Mm hmm. We just want to provide its drugs for paying bribes in Greece, they were sanctioned 320 million.

Cindy Moehring: 00:43:42

I'm sorry, say that last part. Again,

Stephen Kohn: 00:43:45

your bodice drug company, a Swiss company for so a Swiss company, paying bribes in Greece by the United States and had to pay 320 million in fines and penalties. This is what we're seeing around the world whistleblowing works. But in countries that don't have effective whistleblowing. Yeah. If there is a US law, people are using it.

Cindy Moehring: 00:44:10

Got it. Got it. Wow. Fascinating. So,

Stephen Kohn: 00:44:15

um,

Cindy Moehring: 00:44:16

one last question about your nonprofit center that we've talked about just a little bit the national whistleblower center. So when what tell us what the purpose of that center really is, and when did that get set up? And what's their focus?

Stephen Kohn: 00:44:28

Sure. So when I started practicing, the laws were terrible. There were there were really very few laws. To be honest. None of the laws we use today existed. There's no law for corporate whistleblowing, no laws for tax nothing, nothing for foreign. So we knew from the start, we needed a policy center to advocate for better laws and to change public perception on whistleblowing to celebrate their contributions to let the American people understand How whistleblowers help democracy, save them money, protect the environment and how we need laws to protect these heroes. Right. So that's the whole purpose of the national whistleblower center to try to expand the legal protections and the public support. Recently, the National whistleblower center sponsored a Marist poll, public opinion poll. Totally objective. This is the same polls that do presidential elections rated a plus. Question, should whistleblowers have more rights? 80% said yes,

Stephen Kohn: 00:45:36

yes. Wow.

Stephen Kohn: 00:45:38

If a with should Congress act on behalf of whistleblowing? Yes. 80% said yes, one in four likely voters said it would impact their decision on who to vote for who have tremendous public support for whistleblowers still not seen. Now here's the amazing part. No change across all categories. Men woman about the same black white about the same Democrat Republican, the same rural, urban, the same 18 years old, 60 years old, the same. So So pretty much he never went lower than 70% Never went higher than 85%. But segment of the country, we saw a no division, like you see on so many other issues. Right? Something that we are very conscious of what's of lower senator is fighting every day to let the public know that it's a good thing. And we'll just cross our fingers and hope that that public recognition will convert.

Cindy Moehring: 00:46:47

Yeah, well, kudos to you for for addressing the public policy end of it as well throughout your life and your practice. Steve, this has been illuminating, and very informative and very helpful. And I just really appreciate the time you took kind of walking us through the history of the whistleblowing laws and how that whole area has expanded from the time of the founding fathers forward to today. And thank you for your work over 30 years in this area. If there's one last thing I could ask you, do you have any book or a podcast or a documentary or anything that you've seen lately that you think if the audience went to did to dive just a little bit deeper on this that they might find useful, helpful.

Stephen Kohn: 00:47:33

So I'm gonna go a little off script, and maybe we won't really figure it out. But Frederick Douglass, the most famous abolitionist, from before the Civil War is an incredible person. I don't need to go into some details, but should look them up if you don't know who he was, when the Dred Scott decision was issued, which was a notoriously racist, pro slavery decision that helped trigger the Civil War. When that came out. A lot of people were kind of down on American democracy down on the court down on the Constitution, because he said the Constitution gave black people no rights. And it was a very sour look. Frederick Douglass gave a speech and you can access it on the internet about the Dred Scott decision. Now he was born into slavery. In the north, he pretty much had no civil rights, no right to vote, many in many states who couldn't own property or do anything. So he's looking in the north where there is no real civil rights. And in the South were 3 million of his bondsman were in slavery, and he had been a runaway slave. And now he's going to address the US Constitution in light of Dred Scott. And this is his words. It is a glorious human rights declaration. He understood the US Constitution before the Civil War, as one of the most important and effective human rights declarations ever passed on Earth. And it's that interpretation of the US Constitution, as a government, of the people, by the people for the people right in the preamble that led him to his conclusion. And it's also in my view 100% consistent with my vision of the whistleblower role within that glorious human rights declaration. The people have a role to play in holding institutions account about speaking their minds to make sure things work, right. And the whistleblower laws recognize that. And I believe that Frederick Douglass in his vision of the Constitution, I think every single person in this country should read that and understand that he was right now it took a civil war in the civil rights movement and a lot of constitutional amendments.

Cindy Moehring: 00:50:23

Fighting for that

Stephen Kohn: 00:50:25

was right. I read Douglas, look up his speeches on after Dred Scott. I

Stephen Kohn: 00:50:31

wasn't shocked when I read it. I thought he's going to announce the Constitution. Like, like,

Stephen Kohn: 00:50:39

look what the Supreme Court has set. Right? Opposite. Exactly.

Cindy Moehring: 00:50:44

Wow. Well, I will find that and drop it in the show notes for the audience. Steve, thank you so much. That is a very high note to leave us on. I appreciate your time. Very, very good.

Stephen Kohn: 00:50:58

Thank you. Bye. Bye.