Dodd-Frank Act

In comments published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Heidi Hansberry concludes "Although the FCPA sends a laudable message to U.S. companies and the world, it has nevertheless exceeded its bounds, especially with the whistleblower provisions added by the Dodd–Frank Act." (Hansberry, 2011) She effectively persuades her audience through her writing by presenting the argument of how protecting the whistle-blowers to the extreme that they are now has had an adverse effect. She had the following three points that I will concentrate on that I believe were the most effective in persuasion; whistleblower anonymity, the lack of punishment for false claims, and the cap on rewards for information.

The first argument that Hansberry argues that is effective is the concerns over the whistleblower’s anonymity. She presents the argument that when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act was in 2010, it included provisions for whistleblowers to remain completely anonymous. This has lead to more people coming forward to report fraud and reporting problems to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). While this may appear to be a good thing, too many times a person is coming forward with bad intentions or justifications for reporting the abuse. Hansberry suggests that due to the fact that the prosecutors can’t defend themselves against their accuser, they are more likely to pay the penalty or admit fault since they can not defend against. She goes on to suggest that Congress should eliminate the protection of anonymity of whistleblowers to ensure that whistleblowers are coming forward with good intentions.

Another part of the Comment’s argument against protecting the anonymous whistleblowers has to do with the lack of punishment for false claims. Hansberry argues that while the whistleblowers are remaining completely anonymous, there is more of a chance of false claims. With no reprisal written into the Dodd-Frank Act...