Whistleblowing
Contributing Editors
In this new age of accountability, organisations around the globe are having to navigate a patchwork of new laws designed to protect those who expose corporate misconduct. IEL’s Guide to Whistleblowing examines what constitutes a protective disclosure, the scope of regulations across 24 countries, and the steps businesses must take to ensure compliance with them.
Learn more about the response taken in specific countries or build your own report to compare approaches taken around the world.
Choose countries
Select specific jurisdictions to filter on
Choose questions
Choose the questions you would like answering, or choose all for the full picture.
04. Is there a specific sanction if whistleblowing procedures are absent within the Company?
04. Is there a specific sanction if whistleblowing procedures are absent within the Company?
Flag / Icon
France
France
- at Proskauer
- at Proskauer
There is no specific legal sanction for failing to create a whistleblowing procedure.
However, the absence of an internal reporting channel increases the risk for the company’s reputation as whistleblowers could use external reporting such as public disclosure in the press or social media.
Besides, any person who obstructs the transmission of a report may be exposed to criminal suit and a penalty of up to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of 15,000 EUR.
Flag / Icon
Germany
Germany
- at Oppenhoff
- at Oppenhoff
If there are no whistleblowing procedures in the company (ie, an internal reporting system is not implemented and operated), this constitutes an administrative offence punishable by a fine. This fine may amount to up to 20,000 EUR (section 40 (2) No. 2, (5) HinSchG).
At this point, it should be noted that there is a high incentive for employers to implement an internal reporting channel, since the external reporting channel is available to the whistleblower in any case. Consequently, if an internal reporting office were not implemented or operated, the whistleblower would be forced to report directly to the external reporting office. As a result, the employer would not be able to make internal corrections without the reported information leaving the company.
Download your results as a PDF
Download as pdf link
Contributors
Australia
Pinsent Masons
Austria
GERLACH
Belgium
Van Olmen & Wynant
Brazil
CGM
Croatia
Babic & Partners
Denmark
IUNO
France
Proskauer
Germany
Oppenhoff
India
Khaitan & Co
Ireland
Arthur Cox
Italy
Zambelli & Partners
Japan
City-Yuwa
Latvia
Ellex Klavins
Lithuania
Ellex Valiunas
Luxembourg
Castegnaro
Malta
Camilleri Preziosi
Nigeria
Bloomfield LP
Poland
Baran Książek Bigaj
Portugal
Cuatrecasas
Romania
STALFORT Legal. Tax. Audit.
Singapore
Braddell Brothers LLP
Spain
Cuatrecasas
Sweden
Lindahl
United Kingdom
Proskauer
United States
Proskauer
Contributors
France
Proskauer
Germany
Oppenhoff