May 25, 2012

WikiLeaks More Effective Than SEC, Says Enron Whistleblower

A former Enron accountant who blew the whistle on fraud at the energy giant says she doesn't trust the Securities and Exchange Commission to handle tips from company insiders, even though the agency plans to offer a generous new bounty for information about fraud.

“I don’t think the SEC’s culture is one that will make this effective one iota,” said Sherron Watkins, a one-time vice president at Enron, referring to expanded protections for whistleblowers included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

If she was in the same situation today as 10 years ago, when Watkins approached government authorities about accounting fraud at Enron, she would probably instead take her information to an organization like WikiLeaks, Watkins said.

In August 2001, Watkins warned then-Enron chief executive Ken Lay that Enron “might implode in a wave of accounting scandals.” After she was ignored, she told her story to government investigators. But by then it was too late and Enron had begun collapsing under the weight of allegations of massive fraud at the Houston-based energy giant. 

Watkins said that she did not believe that the SEC is capable of evaluating and acting on valid tips that involve complicated financial maneuverings. The fallout from ignoring whistleblower Harry Markopoulos, who repeatedly warned the SEC of Bernie Madoff’s multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme, but was ignored, still haunts the agency, Watkins said. 

“The perception is that you wouldn’t be listened to” by the SEC, she said during a panel discussion about whistleblowers held by the New York State Society of Public Accountants.

Under the Dodd-Frank law, company employees who provide information about suspected fraud to the SEC will get a bounty if the tip leads to a payout of more than $1 million. Whistleblowers are then entitled to 10 to 30 percent of the payout.

The SEC received hundreds of e-mails and letters after publishing its proposed regulations for whistleblowers. The comment period ended in mid-December and the agency has yet to finalize the rules.

Since the Madoff scandal, the SEC has hired a new enforcement director, Robert Khuzami, and eliminated a layer of management. The agency has also adopted a new mechanism to evaluate the 60,000 or more tips it gets each year.

Former SEC commissioner Paul Atkins, also on the panel, said that despite reforms at the SEC, “the new folks haven’t risen to the challenge of problems presented by Madoff and others.”

Atkins also warned of unintended consequences of the new law. For example, he said, an employee who detects a fraud of less than $1 million might keep silent about it until the fraud grows to the size where he or she would qualify for a monetary award.

An SEC spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

Marion Koenigs, a deputy director for enforcement at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, was the third member of the panel. “Doing the right thing is not easy,” she said of the difficult decisions faced by would-be whistleblowers, in response to some of the concerns raised by her fellow panelists.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Staff Writer

Benjamin Hallman covers business and finance for the Center. He joined in June 2010 after nearly five years as a legal affairs reporter at The American Lawyer, where he covered the business of law, white collar crime, and regulatory Washington. Hallman has reported on the accounting fraud prosecutions of HealthSouth’s Richard Scrushy and Qwest’s Joesph Nacchio; on the massive Google book search settlement; and, from Iraq, on American-led efforts to rebuild the Iraqi justice system. His story about the crash of Lehman Brothers was anthologized in The Best American Legal...

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.