Prince Sultan University in Saudi Arabia Whistleblower Case by Howard Wilkinson HW Requirements are attached below in the document for case analysis of the

Prince Sultan University in Saudi Arabia Whistleblower Case by Howard Wilkinson HW Requirements are attached below in the document for case analysis of the two whistleblowers The assignment requirements attached below
Summarize your findings from the two whistle-blower cases (Howard
Wilkinson (danske bank) research paper attached below & Daniel
Ellsberg (Pentagon paper) ”do the research paper”) Highlight the
similarities and differences between the two cases.
Submit your answers to the following questions. Support your ideas with examples
from the whistle-blower cases you studied.
1. What are the moral and ethical justifications of whistle-blowing?
2. In your view, do the actions of whistle-blowers help or hurt the society?
Explain.
3. What would you have done if you had been in the positions of the whistleblowers in the two cases that you studied? Why?
4. Provide an example of how someone your age could expose and publicly
raise concerns about misconduct or wrongdoing.
Word limit 1000 words
Double space and use Times New Roman font 12.
Marks will be deducted for spelling and grammar errors
The Famous Whistle-blower – Howard Wilkinson
Howard Wilkinson is a former worker at Danske who raised the alarm about illegal
laundering of money in 2013 in the financial institution. News reports on the loss of $234 billion
led to the realization of a whistleblower with a hidden identity. Mr. Wilkinson wished to remain
unknown, but Estonia newspaper went on to reveal his identity (National Whistle-blower Center,
2020). The whistleblower worked in the Danske financial institution from 2007 to 2014. During
this time, Wilkinson had raised several whistles blower-reports regarding the illegal laundering of
money, but no could listen to him. According to Wilmoth (2018), some other times, the alarm could
go off when the basement area of the bank is on fire. And to make it worse, the financial regulatory
bodies of Denmark never issued a timely response until nine years later. So, in September 2015, he
acknowledged that some $235 billion had been laundered through the Danske accounts for only
eight years.
Howard Wilkinson could report the suspicious financial issues to the Danske account
manager and the head of compliance and later the institution’s branch manager to delineate on
several financial problems in the bank. Later the compliance officer responded and promised
Wilkinson that the whole issue was under scrutiny, only for the bank’s branch manager to call
Wilkinson that the customer named Dormant Limited Liability Partnership Account had made a
wrong filing criterion and the customer would have to refile again. It was at this moment that the
whistleblower noticed some plausible behaviors based on the general environment of concerns at
the bank (Gurstelle, 2019). If Howard Wilkinson had never revealed anything about money
laundering, then it means the massive money laundering in the Danske scandal would never have
unfolded, and the Estonia investigations would have taken place. Additionally, Estonia would not
be strict on Anti-money laundering as it is today, and the country would never have also noticed
about the tax evasion and tax avoidance cases taking place in the Danske bank accounts.
If Howard Wilkinson did nothing, the ethical implications would involve a lack of
accountability to the adherence to the code of financial institutions in Estonia and a lack of honest
and ethical conduct involving the ethical management of the conflict of interest between
professional and personal relations in the Danske. Also, there would be no compliance with the
existing government rules, regulations and regulations as well as lack of fair, understandable, full,
timely and accurate of the fraud.
The whistleblowing led to a hostile environment to Howard Wilkinson from his employer.
He experienced scheduling upsets and termination on his contract on false pretence. Other financial
companies may be afraid to hire Howard Wilkinson for fear of blowing up any occurrence of
misconduct in the company. It is possible that the whistleblower can be caught up with the
punishment that accompanies the crime, and this means that he will face charges and an individual
level. In many instances working as a whistleblower leads to violation of one’s contract or even a
professional mandate. In this case, Howard Wilkinson may face extra penalties like civil litigations
for violating the agreements and confidences.
The money-laundering scheme in Estonia was made public when Mr. Wilkinson
confidentially raised concerns regarding illegal money laundering schemes, and news reports went
viral with the hidden identity of the whistleblower concerning the loss of $235 billion. However, an
Estonian newspaper revealed the identity of Howard Wilkinson. The selection of top whistleblower
attorneys Khon, Kohn and Colapinto to defend his ground has also played a part in publicizing the
problem.
By making the scheme of money laundering public to the whole world, Mr. Wilkinson has
helped in the tightening of the Danish Anti-Money Laundering Act as it was noticed that there are
financial firms that play loose on the laws. Carozza & Phillips (2020) note that the country is also
Estonia investigetng other sums of money siphoned from the country and hidden from other banks
through different means. It also led to the shutting down of Danske Bank for the lack of
transparency, credibility and had a bad reputation in the country. Also, the European banking
authority investing the Danish and Estonian regulators after suspecting malicious deals from the
country and its financial regulatory bodies.
If I were Mr. Wilkinson, I would report all the suspicious activities as many times as
possible, launch a private and confidential investigation, hold the information before going to the
public and cross-checking the available evidence. Additionally, I would be reporting the problem to
international authorities, hire top-notch lawyers in the whistleblowing industry and finally seeking
for maximum protection from the authorities.
The reason for carrying out the above steps would be to ensure that I emphasize that there is
money laundering by giving as many reports as possible. The only way to get evidence is a
thorough investigation, and that could be my top priority before going public. As I have no security
at the beginning of the case, I would not be too quick to go public about the problem. The reason for
reporting to the international authorities is because the local government had failed to act promptly.
My life would be at stake in such a case, and the only way I can live to the entirety of the case is by
ensuring that I have adequate security. For proper argument and facts about the case as well as
using the appropriate language and context, I would hire top-notch lawyers with robust experience
in the whistleblowing industry to help me in arguing my case.
References
Carozza D. & Phillips D. (April 2020). The smoke detector. An interview with Danske Bank
whistleblower Howard Wilkinson. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from https://www.fraudmagazine.com/cover-article.aspx?id=4295010144
Gurstelle G., L. (March 4, 2019). Massive Danske Bank Money Laundering Scandal Continues to
Unfold. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from
https://www.moneylaunderingnews.com/2019/03/massive-danske-bank-money-launderingscandal-continues-to-unfold/
National Whistle-blower Center (2020). Howard Wilkinson. Bank Fraud Whistle-blower. Retrieved
July 8, 2020, from https://www.whistleblowers.org/members/howardwilkinson/#:~:text=Bank%20Fraud%20Whistleblower,Howard%20Wilkinson,whistleblower%20but%20not%20the%20identity.
Wilmoth M., J. (October 23, 2018). How the Danske Bank Money-Laundering Scheme Was
Uncovered by a Whistle-blower. Retrieved July 8, 2020, from https://kkc.com/blog/howthe-danske-bank-money-laundering-scheme-was-uncovered-by-a-whistleblower/

Purchase answer to see full
attachment