Securities And Exchange Commission Bans Aspiring Whistleblower For Being A Pain In The Ass

Author:
Updated:
Original:

As many of you know, in 2010, the SEC created a whistleblower program wherein a person who "comes forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which over $1,000,000 in sanctions is ordered" can collect a nice little payout (awards range from 10-30% of the total collected). So you can't really blamed the unnamed man or woman who submitted 196 applications1 for awards over the last 3.5 years in an attempt to win a nice li'l finder's fee for him/herself, but the SEC can decide to make it official policy that any future cases submitted by this person shall be used for kindling, which it did last month.

The Securities and Exchange Commission in a sharply worded notice banned an anonymous individual from its whistleblower program because this person was submitting too many meritless applications for awards. The volume of this individual’s submissions “consumed significant staff resources” of the fledgling whistleblower program, which was established by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Financial Reform act, the agency said. The “unceasing submission of baseless claims has harmed the rights of legitimate whistleblowers and hindered the Commission’s implementation of the whistleblower program…delaying the Commission’s ability to finalize meritorious awards to other claimants,” the agency said.

It's unclear when the last straw occurred, and this person, in the eyes of the SEC staff, went from "semi-amusing eccentric trying to make a buck" to "LEAVE US ALONE YOU CRAZY BITCH," but it may have been December 12, 2013, when he/she "submitted 21 claims for awards in a variety of cases."

SEC Bans Would-Be Whistleblower Over Annoying Filings [Risk and Compliance]

1. Assuming the thinking here was that it's all a numbers game, and one of them had to slip through the cracks eventually?

Related

The Securities And Exchange Commission Requests A Little Credit Where Credit Is Due, Please!

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal ran a front page story reporting that the Securities and Exchange Commission had "blown" the cover of whistleblower Peter C. Earle. The article claimed that Earle, a former employee of Pipeline Trading Systems turned government informant, had his identity "inadvertently" revealed through a "gaffe" on the part of an SEC lawyer, who showed a Pipeline exec "a notebook from the whistleblower filled with jottings about trades, calls and meetings." The executive was said to have recognized Earle's handwriting and told his colleagues, who had previously suspected but did not know for sure that "Pete's the whistleblower." The story was easy to believe because if you've been keeping up with the SEC over the last number of years, you know that this sound exactly like something they'd accidentally do. Except that whereas the regulator fully copped to, for example, missing Madoff while trying to access ladyboyjuice.com 385 times/day, it says that this accusation? Is bull shit. It did not "inadvertently" "blow" anyone. Here's its strongly worded letter to the Journal saying as much: The Securities and Exchange Commission in no way exposed Peter Earle as a whistleblower, and our use of his notebooks in an investigative deposition was neither "inadvertent" nor a "breach" or "gaffe" ("Source's Cover Blown by SEC," Page One, April 25). It was a deliberate decision, which SEC lawyer Daniel Walfish discussed in advance with his supervisor, who was present for the deposition in which the notebooks were exhibited. Nor did the fully authorized use of the notebooks in any way compromise Mr. Earle or the integrity of the SEC's investigation of the Pipeline Trading Systems matter. Although it was widely known among executives of Pipeline and Milstream Strategy Group that Mr. Earle had approached the SEC after he was terminated from Milstream—a fact volunteered by several witnesses and acknowledged by Mr. Earle long before any use of his notebooks—the SEC declined to confirm his identity and still treated his status as a cooperating witness as confidential. The SEC made sure to obtain all of the notes of the approximately six Milstream traders, and in the SEC's deposition of Gordon Henderson (the supervisor of Mr. Earle and the other traders), the SEC used other traders' notes along with those of Mr. Earle. The use of these traders' notes—highly relevant evidence prepared in the ordinary course of their work at Milstream—in no way revealed whether Mr. Earle or any other trader was or was not cooperating with the SEC. George S. Canellos Director New York Regional Office U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission New York SEC Did Not Blow Source's Cover [WSJ] Earlier: SEC Burns Whistleblower In The Most SEC Way Possible