• Direct or Indirect Threat
  The victim fears of losing his/her job and credibility
  
  
• Focussing on the Informant
  The employer could also be cunning and show that the informant is being a “problem employee” who is not to be taken seriously. Or perhaps direct the spotlight away from the crime being reported and more on the employee himself creating a façade that all is not well with the informant’s accusations and that he himself should perhaps be investigated.
  
  
• Humiliation and Isolation
  Commonly reported incidents are to humiliate and isolate the informant. Making him / her feel worthless by giving him / her trifle tasks to complete and even degrading tasks. Also, perhaps taking the matter so far as to separate him / her from his / her colleagues and making it difficult for him / her to socialise with them at all as the colleagues fear the same kind of treatment from their seniors.
  
  
• Work Pressure
  Another method could perhaps be to do completely the opposite and give the informant outrageous deadlines, extremely difficult job assignments / projects and place tremendous amount of pressure on the informant.
  
  
• Make the Informant the Suspect
  Another method of victimisation is threatening prosecution of the informant using classified company information and spotlighting the misconduct with this classified information.
  
  
• Dismissal
  Then lastly, another tactic is to “lay off” the informant with the excuse that the company can no longer afford to keep him on, meanwhile they are hiring new staff.

[Extract: “…every employer has a responsibility to take all necessary steps to ensure that employees who disclose such information are protected from any reprisals as a result of such disclosures; And in order to create a culture which will facilitate the disclosure of information by employees relating to criminal and other irregular conduct in the workplace in a responsible manner by providing comprehensive statutory guidelines for the disclosure of such information and protection against any reprisal as a result of such disclosures…”

This greatly assisted employees by knowing that they now will be protected from victimisation and that their identity will remain anonymous. Many companies then also decided to employ the services of such professional service providers that specialise in managing such a reporting line.

However, unfortunately some directors/persons in authority did not act correctly upon tip-offs received and even turned a “blind eye”, as many of the culprits/criminals who were in managerial positions and were simply given a “golden handshake” in order to leave the company.

The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, Act No. 12 of 2004 (South Africa) was then introduced.

[Extract: “…Section 34 of the Act that states that any person who holds a position of authority and who knows or ought reasonably to have known or suspected that any other person has committed an offence under the Act has the duty to report the corrupt transaction to any police official, …the manager, secretary or a director of a company as defined in the Companies Act, 1973, and includes a member of a close corporate as defined in the Close Corporations Act, 1984 (South Africa);

• the executive manager of any bank or other financial institution;
• any partner in a partnership;
• any person who has been appointed as chief executive officer or an equivalent officer, department, entity, financial institution, foundation, fund, institute, service, or any other institution or organisation, whether established by legislation, contract or any other legal means; or
• any other person who is responsible for the overall management and control of the business of an employer.

The effect of section 34 is that fault in the form of negligence is sufficient to constitute a criminal offence.

The Act demands a re-assessment of each organisations corporate governance practices to ensure that the required controls are in place to address and avert the risk of criminal prosecution. In addition, the provisions of the Act provide organisations who have suffered loss as a result of actions by persons in positions of authority with the option of laying a criminal charge against the particular person in terms of the Act.”]

In short, anyone who is aware of fraud or corruption taking place whereby the amount exceeds ZAR100 000.00 and does not report it to the Police is guilty of a crime.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (U.S.A) states that companies with external auditors cannot use the services of the auditor for a period longer than 5 years. In addition those same external auditors may not provide an additional specialised service such as services of a contracted reporting line. For the obvious reason that the external audit company may very well have to investigate their own staff if such reports have been made.