The UK government has initiated a consultation regarding reforms to whistleblowing laws, which includes proposals to grant the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) powers to offer rewards to individuals reporting economic crime. This development was announced on Monday by Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds and Minister for the Future of Work, Kate Dearden.
The consultation, which opened on Monday and is set to conclude on 8 January 2027, follows a review by Jonathan Fisher KC. It seeks public input on various aspects, including eligibility criteria, reward caps, and whether to criminalise false reports or the harassment of whistleblowers under the proposed scheme.
While acknowledging the potential benefits for the anti-fraud agency, some legal professionals have expressed scepticism. Concerns have been raised regarding how financial incentives might influence jury perceptions, the moral implications, and the potential for damage to internal corporate trust.
Jo Mackie, a partner at Michelmores, described the scheme as “fundamentally flawed,” citing the introduction of a “moral hazard” where a whistleblower’s financial motives could always be questioned. Ian Hargreaves, a partner at Quillon Law, noted that many view whistleblowing as a “public and social duty” rather than a profit-making activity.
Legal experts have also highlighted differences between the UK and US legal systems, particularly concerning how the SFO would utilise information from paid whistleblowers. Lloyd Firth, a partner at WilmerHale, suggested the value lies in obtaining “inside track” intelligence for investigators rather than testimony. Lucy Blake, a partner at Jenner & Block, pointed out a potential hurdle in UK jury trials, where a whistleblower whose payout depends on a conviction could face cross-examination that might undermine their credibility.
Lawyers have also warned about potential risks to corporate culture and internal governance. Mackie stated that the scheme could directly “undermine internal corporate governance,” while Gena Ritchie, a lawyer at VWV, cautioned that without proactive internal fraud prevention, the scheme risks creating deep “distrust within an organisation.”