2018 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

Whistleblower 

Program

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DISCLAIMER

This is a report of the Staff of the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission. The Commission 

has expressed no view regarding the analysis, 

findings, or conclusions contained herein.

DISCLAIMER

This is a report of the Staff of the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission. The Commission 

has expressed no view regarding the analysis, 

findings, or conclusions contained herein.

DISCLAIMER

This is a report of the Staff of the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission. The Commission 

has expressed no view regarding the analysis, 

findings, or conclusions contained herein.

DISCLAIMER

This is a report of the Staff of the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission. The Commission 

has expressed no view regarding the analysis, 

findings, or conclusions contained herein.
CONTENTS

Message from the Chief of the Office of the Whistleblower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

History and Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Activities of the Office of the Whistleblower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Claims for Awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Whistleblower Awards Made in Fiscal Year 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Overview of Award Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Profiles of Award Recipients. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Preserving Individuals’ Rights to Report to the Commission and 

Shielding Employees from Retaliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Whistleblower Tips Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Increase in Whistleblower Tips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Whistleblower Allegation Type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Geographic Origin of Whistleblower Tips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Processing of Whistleblower Tips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

TCR Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Assistance by OWB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Proposed Whistleblower Rule Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Protection Fund. . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix A. Whistleblower Tips by Allegation Type 

Comparison of Fiscal Years 2015–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix B. Whistleblower Tips Received by 

Geographic Location, United States and its Territories, Fiscal Year 2018. . . . 33

Appendix C. Whistleblower Tips Received by 

Geographic Location International, Fiscal Year 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Report available on the Web at: www.sec.gov/whistleblower

WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 1

M E S S AG E F R O M T H E C H I E F O F T H E 

O F F I C E O F T H E W H I S T L E B LOW E R 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 was a record-breaking year for the U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s (SEC or Commission) whistleblower program. The whistleblower 

program continued to grow and make substantial contributions to the Commission’s 

enforcement and investor protection efforts. The Commission ordered its largest 

whistleblower awards to date this past fiscal year. In fact, the Commission awarded 

more dollars in FY 2018 to meritorious whistleblowers who provided new and critical 

information than in all prior years combined. The Commission also received more 

whistleblower tips in FY 2018 than in any other previous year. 

While the dollars awarded and volume of tips received are reflections of the program’s 

success, we are most proud of the program’s added value in the protection of the Main 

Street investor. Since the program’s inception, the SEC has ordered wrongdoers in 

enforcement matters brought with information from meritorious whistleblowers to 

pay over $1.7 billion in total monetary sanctions, including more than $901 million in 

disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and interest, of which approximately $452 million has 

been, or is scheduled to be, returned to harmed investors. 

Finally, FY 2018 also saw proposed changes to the program’s implementing regulations 

(Whistleblower Rules), following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Digital Realty Trust, 

Inc. v. Somers1 (Digital Realty), as well as other changes proposed by the Commission. 

Substantial Dollars Awarded in Fiscal Year 2018

The Commission has awarded over $326 million to 59 individuals since the beginning 

of the whistleblower program. In FY 2018 alone, the SEC awarded more than $168 

million in whistleblower awards to 13 individuals whose information and cooperation 

assisted the Commission in bringing successful enforcement actions. This amount 

exceeds the total amount awarded in all prior years combined and reflects the 

significance of the information that whistleblowers are reporting to the Commission.

In addition, the SEC made two of its largest-ever whistleblower awards this past fiscal 

year—a total combined $83 million award shared by three individuals, and an award 

of almost $54 million shared by two individuals. The recipients of these large awards 

provided significant information regarding serious violations that otherwise may have 

gone unnoticed and resulted in substantial enforcement actions. 

Prioritizing Meritorious Claims 

The main goal of the whistleblower program is to incentivize the reporting of specific, 

timely, and credible information to the Commission. Therefore, one of the top priorities 

of the Office of the Whistleblower (OWB) has been, and will continue to be, processing 

meritorious award claims. As such, OWB prioritizes those claims that, based on our 

initial triaging and communications with investigative staff, appear to be award-eligible.

“. . . the Commission 

awarded more dollars 

in FY 2018 to meritorious 

whistleblowers who 

provided new and 

critical information 

than in all prior 

years combined.

”

1 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018).
2 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

“Anti-retaliation 

protections continue 

to be a critical 

component in the success 

of the Commission’s 

whistleblower program.”

As demonstrated by the awards made this fiscal year, meritorious whistleblowers have, 

among other things, helped the Commission by alerting the agency to widespread, 

multi-year securities violations, and supplying information and documentation of 

violations that impacted retail customers. Meritorious whistleblowers in FY 2018 were 

diverse and included, among others, a company outsider and whistleblowers residing 

or working overseas. We hope that by rewarding whistleblowers who provide valuable 

information to the Commission staff, more individuals will come forward and report 

information of securities violations, which in turn, helps the Commission better protect 

investors and the marketplace. 

Increase in Whistleblower Tips Received in Fiscal Year 2018

The Commission received over 5,200 whistleblower tips in FY 2018. This represents 

the highest increase in tips since the beginning of the program—a nearly seventy-six 

percent increase since FY 2012. Additionally, there was an increase in tips received in 

the months following the Supreme Court ruling in the Digital Realty case, which may 

have been attributable, in part, to the ruling. 

Whistleblower Protections in Fiscal Year 2018

In Digital Realty, the Supreme Court held that the whistleblower provisions of 

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) require that a person report 

a possible securities law violation to the Commission in order to qualify as a 

whistleblower protected against employment retaliation under Section 21F(h) of 

the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank), 

thus invalidating the Commission’s rule interpreting that provision’s anti-retaliation 

protections to apply regardless of whether a report of possible securities law violations 

was made to the Commission, to a different government agency, or internally to an 

employer. The ruling resolved a Circuit Court split regarding whether individuals 

who had reported only to their employers, rather than to the Commission, were 

protected under Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation protections. This is a significant change 

in whistleblower protections, and potential whistleblowers should be mindful of this 

ruling when deciding when to report their concerns to the Commission. Following the 

ruling, the Commission proposed amendments to bring the Whistleblower Rules in 

line with the holding of the Court. 

Anti-retaliation protections continue to be a critical component in the success of 

the Commission’s whistleblower program. Individuals who fear reprisal from their 

companies for reporting will be less likely to bring their information to the Commission. 

Supporting enforcement actions against companies and individuals who retaliate against 

whistleblowers or take actions to impede whistleblowers’ communications with the 

Commission will remain a focus of OWB’s mission in the upcoming fiscal year. We will 

continue to work to ensure that whistleblowers can freely report information to the 

Commission without fear of reprisal. 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 3

Proposed Amendments to Whistleblower Rules

Capitalizing on its nearly seven years of experience administering the whistleblower 

program, the Commission proposed amendments to the Whistleblower Rules 

during FY 2018 to build upon the success of the program. In addition to clarifying 

the requirements for anti-retaliation protection under the whistleblower statute, the 

proposed amendments would provide the Commission with additional discretion 

in making whistleblower awards to ensure that meritorious whistleblowers are

appropriately rewarded for their efforts and increase efficiencies in the whistleblower

claims review process. 

The proposing release was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2018, and the 

comment period ended on September 18, 2018.2 Pages 26–28 of this report provide a 

fuller discussion of the proposed rule amendments. 

Conclusion

The impact of the whistleblower program on the Commission’s enforcement efforts 

and its contributions to the protection of Main Street investors continue to be strong. 

We are proud of the accomplishments of the whistleblower program in FY 2018. 

We look forward to the enduring success of the program in the years ahead. 

We encourage those who believe they have credible information concerning a potential 

federal securities law violation to expeditiously submit a tip via the Commission’s 

online portal (www.sec.gov/whistleblower). 

If individuals or their counsel have any questions about the program, including 

questions about how to submit a tip to the Commission, we encourage them to call 

OWB’s whistleblower hotline at (202) 551-4790. 

JANE NORBERG

Chief, Office of the Whistleblower

November 15, 2018

2 Amendments to the Commission’s Whistleblower Program Rules, 83 Fed. Reg. 34,702 

(proposed July 20, 2018).
4 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

HISTORY AND PURPOSE

“It is OWB’s mission 

to administer a 

vigorous whistleblower 

program that will help 

the Commission identify 

and halt securities 

frauds early and 

quickly to minimize 

investor losses.

”

Dodd-Frank3 amended the Exchange Act4 by, among other things, adopting Section 

21F,5 entitled “Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection.” Section 21F directs 

the Commission to make monetary awards to eligible individuals who voluntarily 

provide original information that leads to successful Commission enforcement actions 

resulting in monetary sanctions over $1 million and successful related actions.6

Awards must be made in an amount equal to 10 to 30 percent of the monetary 

sanctions collected.7 To ensure that whistleblower payments would not diminish 

the amount of recovery for victims of securities law violations, Congress established 

a separate fund, called the Investor Protection Fund (Fund), from which eligible 

whistleblowers are paid. 

The Commission established OWB, an office within the SEC’s Division of Enforcement 

(Enforcement), to administer and effectuate the whistleblower program. It is OWB’s 

mission to administer a vigorous whistleblower program that will help the Commission 

identify and halt securities frauds early and quickly to minimize investor losses. 

In addition to establishing an awards program to encourage the submission of highquality information, Dodd-Frank and the Commission’s Whistleblower Rules8

 also 

establish confidentiality protections for whistleblower submissions,9 including the ability 

to file a whistleblower tip anonymously with the assistance of an attorney. Employers 

are prohibited from retaliating against whistleblowers for providing information 

to the Commission.10 The Commission’s proposed rule amendments would modify 

the Whistleblower Rules to comport with the ruling in the Digital Realty case that 

an employee must report possible securities law violations to the Commission to 

qualify for protection against retaliation.11

Dodd-Frank’s Section 924(d) requires OWB to report annually to Congress on 

OWB’s activities, whistleblower complaints received, and the response of the 

Commission to such complaints.12 In addition, Section 21F(g)(5) of the Exchange 

Act requires the Commission to submit an annual report to Congress that 

addresses the following subjects:

• The whistleblower award program, including a description of the number of 

awards granted and the types of cases in which awards were granted during the 

preceding fiscal year;

• The balance of the Fund at the beginning of the preceding fiscal year;

3 Pub. L. No. 111-203, § 922(a), 124 Stat. 1841 (2010).

4 15 U.S.C. § 78a, et seq.

5 Id. § 78u-6.

6 “Related actions” is defined at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(a)(5) and 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-3.

7 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(b)(1).

8 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.21F-1 through 21F-17.

9 Id. § 240.21F-7.

10 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1).

11 See Amendments to the Commission’s Whistleblower Program Rules, 83 Fed. Reg. 34,702 

(proposed July 20, 2018).

12 15 U.S.C. § 78u-7(d).
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 5

• The amounts deposited into or credited to the Fund during the preceding 

fiscal year;

• The amount of earnings on investments made under Section 21F(g)(4) during 

the preceding fiscal year;

• The amount paid from the Fund during the preceding fiscal year to 

whistleblowers pursuant to Section 21F(b);

• The balance of the Fund at the end of the preceding fiscal year; and

• A complete set of audited financial statements, including a balance sheet, 

income statement, and cash flow analysis.13

OWB, in consultation with other offices within the Commission, has prepared this 

report, which covers the period October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018, to 

satisfy the reporting requirements of Section 924(d) of Dodd-Frank and Section 

21F(g)(5) of the Exchange Act. The sections in this report addressing the activities 

of OWB, the whistleblower tips received during FY 2018, and the processing of 

whistleblower tips primarily address the requirements of Dodd-Frank’s Section 

924(d). The sections addressing the Fund and whistleblower incentive awards 

made during FY 2018 primarily address the requirements of Section 21F(g)(5) of 

the Exchange Act. 

13 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(g)(5).
6 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

AC T I V I T I E S O F T H E O F F I C E O F T H E 

WHISTLEBLOWER

Section 924(d) of Dodd-Frank directed the Commission to establish a separate office 

within the Commission to administer and enforce the provisions of Section 21F of 

the Exchange Act. Jane Norberg heads the Office as Chief of OWB. There are two 

Assistant Directors and twelve attorneys who are dedicated to the work of the Office, 

including, among other things, processing award claims, as well as an attorney devoted 

to communications with the public. OWB is also staffed by four paralegals and an 

administrative assistant. Following is an overview of OWB’s primary responsibilities 

and activities over the past fiscal year. 

Assessment of Award Applications 

The whistleblower program was designed, in part, to provide monetary incentives to 

individuals with relevant information concerning potential securities violations to report 

their information to the Commission. As such, much of OWB’s work relates to the 

assessment of claims for whistleblower awards. 

OWB posts a Notice of Covered Action (NoCA) on its webpage (www.sec.gov/

whistleblower/claim-award) for every Commission enforcement action that results 

in monetary sanctions of over $1 million. Those individuals who have submitted 

whistleblower tips pursuant to the program’s requirements and whose information 

significantly advanced the particular investigation that led to the Covered Action may 

submit an application in response to a posted NoCA. 

Although it is ultimately a whistleblower’s responsibility to make a timely application 

for an award, OWB may contact whistleblowers who have been actively working with 

investigative staff—or who have previously contacted OWB about the posting of a 

particular Covered Action—to confirm they are aware of the posting and applicable 

deadline for submitting claims for award. 

Based on an initial review, as well as communications with the relevant investigative 

staff, OWB prioritizes those claims that appear to be award-eligible. OWB attorneys 

assess the application and the eligibility of the claimant and confer with relevant 

investigative or other Commission staff to understand the contribution of the claimant, 

if any, to the success of the Covered Action. OWB then makes recommendations to 

the Claims Review Staff, currently comprised of five senior officers in Enforcement, 

as to award eligibility. Pages 9–15 of this report provide a fuller explanation of how 

applications for awards are processed at the Commission, as well as what awards were 

made during this past fiscal year.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 7

Advancing Anti-Retaliation Protections and 

Combating Efforts to Impede Reporting

OWB identifies and monitors whistleblower complaints alleging retaliation by employers 

or former employers in response to an employee’s reporting of possible securities law 

violations. The Commission may bring an enforcement action against companies or 

individuals who violate the anti-retaliation provisions of Dodd-Frank. But, in a change 

from prior years, such enforcement actions can only be brought when a whistleblower 

reports to the Commission. This change reflects the Supreme Court’s ruling in Digital 

Realty regarding who qualifies as a whistleblower covered by Section 21F(h)’s antiretaliation protections, which is discussed more in depth at pages 18–19 of this report. 

OWB continues to view anti-retaliation protections as a high priority to ensure that 

whistleblowers can report to the Commission without fear of reprisal. OWB will 

continue to work with investigative staff to identify cases where companies take reprisals 

for whistleblowing efforts that may be appropriate for enforcement action.

In addition, OWB monitors the usage of confidentiality, severance, and other kinds 

of agreements, or engagement in other practices, to interfere with individuals’ ability 

to report potential wrongdoing to the SEC. Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a) provides 

that “[n]o person may take any action to impede an individual from communicating 

directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation, including 

enforcement, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement...with respect to such 

communications.”14 OWB continues to work closely with investigative staff to identify 

and investigate practices in the use of confidentiality and other kinds of agreements, or 

other actions, that may violate Rule 21F-17(a). 

Intake of Whistleblower Tips 

The Commission’s Tips, Complaints, and Referrals Intake and Resolution System 

(TCR System) serves as a central repository for all tips and complaints received by 

the Commission, as well as referrals from self-regulatory organizations and other 

government agencies. In January 2018, the Commission released an updated, more 

user-friendly version of the TCR System. OWB encourages all individuals to submit 

their whistleblower tips and any additional information electronically through the 

Commission’s online portal. There are several benefits of using the online portal, 

including the fact that individuals receive an immediate acknowledgement of their 

submission along with a confirmation number. The tip is also automatically populated 

in a queue for staff who triage tips and complaints. For greater efficiency and quicker 

review, OWB recommends electronic submission over hard-copy submission.

For more information on the number and types of tips received, please refer to pages 

20–23 of this report.

“OWB continues to 

view anti-retaliation 

protections as a high 

priority to ensure 

that whistleblowers 

can report to the 

Commission without 

fear of reprisal.”

14 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-17(a).
8 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Communications with Whistleblowers

OWB serves as the primary liaison between the Commission and individuals who 

have submitted information or are considering whether to submit information to 

the agency concerning a possible securities violation. OWB created a whistleblower 

hotline, in operation since May 2011, to respond to questions from the public about 

the whistleblower program. Individuals may leave messages on the hotline by calling 

(202) 551-4790. All calls to the hotline are returned by OWB attorneys within 

24 business hours. 

During FY 2018, the Office returned nearly 2,770 phone calls from members of the 

public. Since the hotline was established, OWB has returned over 21,380 calls from 

the public. 

Many of the calls OWB receives relate to how the caller should submit a tip to be 

eligible for an award, how the Commission will maintain the confidentiality of a 

whistleblower’s identity, requests for information on the investigative process or 

tracking an individual’s complaint status, and whether the SEC is the appropriate 

agency to handle the caller’s tip. OWB provides a menu of options with answers to 

frequently asked questions on the voicemail hotline. 

In addition to communicating with the public through the hotline, the Office 

communicates with whistleblowers who have submitted tips, claims for awards, 

and other correspondence to OWB. 

Public Outreach and Education 

One of OWB’s primary goals is to promote public awareness of the Commission’s 

whistleblower program. As part of that outreach effort, the Office aims to promote 

the program and educate the public about the program through OWB’s webpage 

(www.sec.gov/whistleblower). The webpage contains information about the 

program, copies of the forms required to submit a tip or claim an award, a listing 

of enforcement actions for which a claim for award may be made, links to helpful 

resources, including a section dedicated to retaliation-related issues, and answers to 

frequently asked questions. 

OWB also actively participates in numerous webinars, media interviews, presentations, 

press releases, and other public communications. In FY 2018, OWB participated in 

many public engagements aimed at promoting and educating the public about the 

Commission’s whistleblower program. The Office’s target audience generally includes 

potential whistleblowers, whistleblower counsel, and corporate compliance counsel 

and professionals. OWB’s Chief also participates in legal panels and other forums with 

other federal agencies with similar whistleblower programs. 

“During FY 2018, 

the Office returned 

nearly 2,770 phone 

calls from members 

of the public.”
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 9

CLAIMS FOR AWARDS

Whistleblower Awards Made in Fiscal Year 2018

In FY 2018, the Commission ordered whistleblower awards of approximately 

$168 million to 13 individuals, each of whom voluntarily provided original 

information that either led to the opening of an investigation or significantly 

contributed to a successful enforcement action. 

Below are the top ten highest awards made under the SEC’s whistleblower program 

both by Covered Action (i.e., considering all awards made within a single Covered 

Action) and by award amount through FY 2018. The awards highlighted in red 

were made this past fiscal year.

$17 million

$14 million

$15 million

$8 million

$50 million

$39 million

$33 million

$30 million

$22 million

$20 million

Per Award Amount

March 2018

September 2018

March 2018

September 2014

August 2016

November 2016

June 2016

September 2018

September 2013

November 2017

From program inception to end of Fiscal Year 2018, the SEC awarded over $326 million to 59 individuals.

$16 million

$14 million

$7 million

$5–6 million

$83 million

$54 million

$30 million

$22 million

$20 million

$17 million

Per Covered Action

March 2018

September 2018

September 2014

August 2016

November 2016

June 2016

November 2017

September 2013

January 2017

May 2016

TOP 10 SEC WHISTLEBLOWER AWARDS

The Commission’s $83 million award in March 2018 included an almost $50 million 

joint award to two individuals, which is also the Commission’s highest award to date, 

as well as an award of $33 million to a third individual. The Commission also made a 

$54 million award in September 2018, with a $39 million award to one individual, and 

a $15 million award to a second individual.
10 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Below is an overview of the whistleblower awards made by the Commission during the 

past fiscal year.

Three Individuals Receive Largest-Ever Awards Totaling Almost $83 Million 

On March 19, 2018, the Commission announced two of its largest-ever whistleblower 

awards, with two individuals sharing a nearly $50 million joint award and another 

whistleblower receiving more than $33 million.15 The first two individuals jointly 

provided significant information that prompted the Commission to open the first of two 

investigations and ongoing assistance that saved the Commission a substantial amount 

of time and resources. The third individual supplied the Commission with additional 

information that initiated and acted as the cornerstone of the Commission’s second 

investigation resulting in the Covered Action. 

More Than $54 Million to Two Whistleblowers

On September 6, 2018, the Commission announced an award of more than 

$54 million to two whistleblowers, $39 million to one whistleblower and $15 million 

to another, whose critical information and continued assistance helped the agency 

bring an important enforcement action.16 The $39 million award is the second-largest 

individual award in the history of the program. 

More Than $16 Million Awarded to Two Whistleblowers

On November 30, 2017, the Commission announced an award of more than 

$16 million to two whistleblowers.17 The first whistleblower alerted the staff to 

the particular misconduct that was the focus of the staff’s investigation and the 

cornerstone of the subsequent action and provided continuing assistance, including 

the identification of potentially relevant documents and witnesses. The second 

whistleblower provided additional significant information and ongoing cooperation 

to the staff during the investigation that saved a substantial amount of time and 

agency resources. 

Former Company Insider and Foreign National Receives $4.1 Million Award

On December 5, 2017, the Commission announced an award of more than 

$4.1 million to a former company insider who both alerted the Commission to a 

widespread, multi-year securities law violation and continued to provide important 

information and assistance throughout the SEC’s investigation.18 The whistleblower 

was a foreign national working outside of the United States.

15 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 82897, File No. 2018-6 (Mar. 19, 2018); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2018-44, “SEC Announces Its Largest-Ever Whistleblower Awards.”

16 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 84046, File No. 2018-11 (Sept. 6, 2018); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2018-179, “SEC Awards More Than $54 Million to Two Whistleblowers.”

17 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 82181, File No. 2018-2 (Nov. 30, 2017); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 20187-216, “More Than $16 Million Awarded to Two Whistleblowers.”

18 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 82214, File No. 2018-3 (Dec. 5, 2017); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2017-222, “Former Company Insider Earns More Than $4.1 Million for 

Whistleblower Tip.”
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 11

Nearly $4 Million to Overseas Whistleblower

On September 24, 2018, the Commission announced an award of nearly $4 million 

to an overseas whistleblower whose tip prompted the Commission to open an 

investigation.19 The whistleblower provided continuing and extensive assistance that 

helped the Commission bring a successful enforcement action.

$2.2 Million Award to Whistleblower Who First Reported to Another 

Federal Agency Before the SEC

On April 5, 2018, the Commission announced an award of more than $2.2 million to 

a former company insider who first reported the information to another federal agency 

but later provided the same information to the SEC, which helped the SEC bring the 

successful action.20 This was the first award paid under the “safe harbor” of Exchange 

Act Rule 21F-4(b)(7), which provides that if a whistleblower first submits information 

to another federal agency but submits the same information to the SEC within 120 days, 

the SEC will treat the information as though it had been submitted to the SEC at the 

same time that it was submitted to the other agency. 

Former Company Insider Receives $2.1 Million Award

On April 12, 2018, the Commission announced an award of more than $2.1 million 

to a former company insider who provided information that led to multiple successful 

enforcement actions and who provided ongoing assistance during the investigation.21

Award of Approximately $1.5 Million

On September 14, 2018, the Commission announced an award of more than 

$1.5 million to a whistleblower who provided the SEC with vital information 

and ongoing assistance that proved important to the overall success of the 

enforcement action.22

Award of More Than $1 Million

On October 12, 2017, the Commission announced an award of more than $1 million 

to a company outsider who provided new information and substantial corroborating 

documentation of a securities law violation by a registered entity that impacted 

retail customers.23

19 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 84270, File No. 2018-13 (Sept. 24, 2018); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2018-209, “SEC Awards Almost $4 Million to Overseas Whistleblower.”

20 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 82996, File No. 2018-8 (Apr. 5, 2018); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2018-58, “SEC Awards More Than $2.2 Million to Whistleblowers Who First 

Reported Information to Another Federal Agency Before SEC.”

21 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 83037, File No. 2018-9 (Apr. 12, 2018); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2018-64, “SEC Awards Whistleblower More Than $2.1 Million.”

22 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 84125, File No. 2018-12 (Sept. 14, 2018); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2018-194, “Whistleblower Receives Award of Approximately $1.5 Million.”

23 See Order Determining Award Claim, Exchange Act Rel. No. 81857, File No. 2018-1 (Oct. 12, 2017); 

SEC Press Rel. No. 2017-195, “SEC Announces Whistleblower Award of More Than a Million Dollars.”
12 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Overview of Award Process 

For a whistleblower to receive an award, there are a number of preconditions that must 

be met. The diagram below provides a snapshot of the overall process, from the filing of 

the whistleblower tip to payment of the whistleblower award. As reflected, the time 

between the submission of a whistleblower tip and when an individual may receive an 

award payment can be several years, particularly where the underlying investigation is 

especially complex, where there are multiple, competing award claims, or where there 

are claims for related actions. OWB undertakes extensive due diligence to ensure a 

careful and thorough evaluation of all award claims.

$

Whistleblowers

Investor 

Protection 

Fund

Whistleblowers

Submit Tips 

to the SEC

Tip Analysis/

Investigation

Cases Filed/

Penalties 

Ordered

Notices of 

Covered Actions 

Posted

Whistleblowers 

File Claims

1 2 3 4 5

Final Orders 

Issued/Resolution 

of Appeals

Additional 

Analysis

Possible 

Record and 

Reconsideration 

Requests

Preliminary 

Determinations 

Issued

Review/Analysis 

of Claims

10 9 8 7 6

HOW THE PROCESS WORKS

The discussion below focuses on the award claims process, from the posting of 

the NoCA (Step #4 above) to the issuance of a Final Order by the Commission 

(Step #10 above). 

NoCA Posted 

OWB posts on its webpage a NoCA for each Commission enforcement action where a 

final judgment or order, by itself or together with other judgments or orders in the same 

action issued after July 21, 2010, results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million.24

During FY 2018, OWB posted 142 NoCAs.

OWB sends email alerts to GovDelivery when the NoCA listing is updated.25

Whistleblowers and other members of the public may sign up to receive an update 

via email every time the list of NoCAs on OWB’s webpage is updated. OWB posts 

new NoCAs on its webpage on the last business day of each month.

24 By posting a NoCA for a particular case, the Commission is not making a determination either that a 

whistleblower tip, complaint, or referral led to the Commission opening an investigation or filing an action 

with respect to the case or that an award to a whistleblower will be paid in connection with the case.

25 GovDelivery is a vendor that provides communications for public-sector clients.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 13

Whistleblowers File Claims

Once a NoCA is posted, claimants have 90 calendar days to apply for an award by 

submitting a completed award application on Form WB-APP to OWB.26 Only claimants 

who have a clear nexus between the information they submitted on their whistleblower 

tip to the Commission and the charges in the underlying action should apply for an 

award in any given matter. In making that determination, claimants are encouraged to 

(i) consider whether they had any communications with the relevant Enforcement staff 

who brought the action and (ii) review the relevant charging documents and consider 

the proximity between the Commission’s specific charges and the claimant’s tip. As 

discussed in more detail at pages 26–28 of this report, the proposed amendments to 

the Whistleblower Rules include tools that could deter frivolous claims, which drain 

resources and slow down the review process for meritorious claims. Frivolous claims 

can substantially complicate and delay the award process. 

While OWB endeavors to contact whistleblowers who have worked with investigative 

staff to inform them of the application deadline, it is the responsibility of the claimant 

to make a timely application for award. The Commission has denied late-filed award 

claims. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the Commission’s denial of 

two claimants whose award applications were submitted approximately two years after 

the required deadline.27 As such, OWB encourages whistleblowers and their counsel 

to regularly review the monthly NoCA postings or to sign up to receive emails to alert 

them as to when new NoCAs are posted. 

Review and Analysis of Award Claims

Based on an initial review of the award application and in consultation with investigative 

staff, OWB makes a preliminary assessment of the whistleblower claim. In keeping with 

OWB’s goal of processing meritorious claims, claims that appear to be eligible for an 

award are prioritized for processing. 

OWB attorneys evaluate each application for a whistleblower award. In addition 

to analyzing the information provided by the claimant on the Form WB-APP, OWB 

attorneys look at prior correspondence between the claimant and the Commission and 

consult intra-agency databases to understand the origin of the case and what tips or 

other correspondence the claimant may have submitted to the Commission. In addition, 

whenever possible, OWB attorneys work closely with investigative staff responsible 

for the relevant action, and/or other Commission staff who may have interacted with 

the claimant or have other relevant knowledge, to understand the contribution or 

involvement the claimant may have had in the matter. 

Utilizing the information and materials provided by the claimant in support of the 

application, as well as other relevant materials reviewed, OWB attorneys prepare a 

recommendation to the Claims Review Staff as to whether the claimant meets the 

criteria for receiving an award, and if so, the recommended percentage of the award. 

Depending on the complexity of the award claim and the number of claimants 

who applied, this due diligence process may take a significant amount of time for 

OWB attorneys to conduct. While a less diligent process could result in quicker 

determinations for claimants, OWB strives to reach the soundest, not the quickest, result. 

26 17 C.F.R. §§ 240. 21F-10(a), (b).

27 See Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim, Exchange Act Release No. 77368 (Mar. 14, 2016), 

pet. for rev. denied sub nom. Cerny v. SEC, 707 F. App’x 29 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 2005 (2018).
14 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Most award claim recommendations also generally go through a multi-tiered, robust 

review process, including review and comment by Enforcement’s Office of Chief 

Counsel and the Commission’s Office of General Counsel. 

Preliminary Determinations Issued

The Claims Review Staff, designated by the Co-Directors of Enforcement, considers 

OWB’s recommendation on the award application in accordance with the criteria 

set forth in Dodd-Frank and the Whistleblower Rules. The Claims Review Staff 

currently is composed of five senior officers in Enforcement, including the Co-Directors 

of Enforcement. The Claims Review Staff then issues a Preliminary Determination 

setting forth its assessment of whether the claim should be approved or denied and, if 

approved, setting forth the proposed award percentage amount.28

The Whistleblower Rules outline a number of positive and negative factors that the 

Commission and Claims Review Staff may consider in assessing an individual’s award 

percentage.29 Award percentages are based on the particular facts and circumstances of 

each case, and are not based on any predetermined mathematical formula. 

Factors that may increase an award percentage include the significance of the 

information provided by the whistleblower, the level of assistance provided by the 

whistleblower, the law enforcement interests at stake, and whether the whistleblower 

reported the violation internally through his or her firm’s internal reporting channels 

or mechanisms.30

Factors that may decrease an award percentage include whether the whistleblower was 

culpable or involved in the underlying misconduct, interfered with internal compliance 

systems, or unreasonably delayed in reporting the violation to the Commission. 

Possible Record and Reconsideration Requests

A claimant may submit a written request within 30 calendar days of the date of the 

Preliminary Determination asking for a copy of the record that formed the basis of the 

Claims Review Staff’s decision as to the claim for award. As a precondition to receiving 

a copy of the record, OWB requires claimants and their counsel, if the claimant is 

represented, to execute a confidentiality agreement limiting the use of such materials to 

the claims review process.31 In keeping with our statutory obligation of confidentiality, 

OWB carefully redacts each record to remove any information that could identify 

another whistleblower in the matter. A claimant also has 30 calendar days to request a 

meeting with OWB, which OWB may grant at its discretion. 

Claimants may seek reconsideration of the Preliminary Determination by submitting 

a written response to OWB within 60 calendar days of the later of (i) the date of the 

Preliminary Determination, or (ii) if the record was requested, the date when OWB 

made the record available for a claimant’s review.32 If a claim is denied and the claimant 

does not object within the time period prescribed under the Whistleblower Rules, then 

the Preliminary Determination of the Claims Review Staff becomes the Final Order of 

the Commission.

28 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(d).

29 Id. § 240.21F-6.

30 But see the discussion of the Digital Realty decision on pages 18–19 of this report. 

31 Id. § 240.21F-12(b). Rule 21F-12(b) states, “The Office of the Whistleblower may also require you to 

sign a confidentiality agreement, as set forth in § 240.21F-(8)(b)(4) of this chapter, before providing 

[Preliminary Determination] materials.”

32 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-10(e).

“Award percentages 

are based on the 

particular facts and 

circumstances of 

each case, and are 

not based on any 

predetermined 

mathematical

formula.”
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 15

Requests for reconsideration should include new information or argument and 

not simply restate what was included in the original award claim application. 

OWB attorneys may spend a considerable amount of time evaluating requests for 

reconsideration. OWB attorneys analyze claimants’ legal arguments and take other 

steps before recommending a Proposed Final Determination for the Claims Review 

Staff to submit to the Commission. Because of the amount of time it takes to process 

reconsideration requests, OWB encourages claimants and their counsel to consider 

the merits of their reconsideration request in a particular matter and not to ask for 

reconsideration as a matter of course. 

Final Order Issued and Resolution of Appeals

After considering any requests for reconsideration, the Claims Review Staff makes a 

Proposed Final Determination, and the matter is submitted to the Commission for 

its decision.33

All Preliminary Determinations of the Claims Review Staff that involve granting an award 

are submitted to the Commission for consideration as Proposed Final Determinations 

irrespective of whether the claimant objected to the Preliminary Determination.34

Within 30 days of receiving the Proposed Final Determination, any Commissioner may 

request that the Proposed Final Determination be reviewed by the Commission. If no 

Commissioner requests such a review within the 30-day period, then the Proposed Final 

Determination becomes the Final Order of the Commission. Claimants who are issued 

a denial have a right to appeal the Commission’s Final Order within 30 days of issuance 

to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, or to the 

circuit where the claimant resides or has his or her principal place of business.35

Final Orders of the Commission are publicly-available on the Commission’s website 

and OWB’s webpage. The public Final Orders are redacted to protect award 

claimants’ confidentiality. 

There are a number of factors that may affect the length of time it takes for OWB to 

review an award claim and for the Commission to issue a Final Order. For example, the 

number of claimants, both meritorious and non-meritorious, applying for an award in 

connection with a Covered Action affects the time it takes to process a claim. Similarly, 

the presence of novel issues, or the need to supplement the record with additional 

information from the claimant, may also lengthen the time it takes to process a claim. 

There may be a delay when there is a claim for an award in connection with a related 

action, requiring OWB to coordinate with or receive assistance from another regulator 

to understand what contribution the whistleblower may have made in the related 

action. Additionally, requests for the record and for reconsideration can substantially 

delay the issuance of a Final Order. We anticipate increased efficiencies in the claims 

review process if certain proposed rule amendments are adopted by the Commission.

For more information about the proposed rule amendments, please see pages 26–28 

of this report.

33 Id. §§ 240.21F-10(g)-(h).

34 Id. §§ 240.21F-10(f), (h).

35 Id. § 240.21F-10(h). A whistleblower’s rights of appeal from a Commission Final Order are set forth in 

Section 21F(f) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(f), and Exchange Act Rule 21F-13(a), 17 C.F.R. 

§ 240.21F-13(a).
16 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

P R O F I L E S O F AWA R D R E C I P I E N T S 

Protecting whistleblower confidentiality is an integral component of the whistleblower 

program. Dodd-Frank prohibits the Commission and its staff from disclosing any 

information that reasonably could be expected to reveal the identity of a whistleblower, 

subject to certain exceptions. Consequently, information that may tend to reveal a 

whistleblower’s identity is redacted from Commission orders granting or denying 

awards before they are issued publicly. This may include redacting the name of the 

enforcement action upon which the award is based. 

Consistent with our statutory obligation to maintain whistleblower confidentiality but 

in an effort to provide more transparency, this section provides information about the 

profiles of past award recipients—from the whistleblower program’s inception to the 

end of FY 2018—while still protecting the identity of any particular individual. 

Since program inception, the Commission has issued awards of over $326 million to 

59 individuals in connection with 48 Covered Actions, as well as in connection with 

several related actions. Many of the tips or complaints that were submitted by these 

successful whistleblowers share similar characteristics. The information provided 

by each award recipient was specific. For example, the whistleblowers identified 

particular individuals involved in the misconduct, or provided specific documents that 

substantiated their allegations or explained where such documents could be located. 

In some instances, the whistleblowers identified specific financial transactions that 

evidenced fraud, or provided detailed assessment of the wrongdoing. The misconduct 

reported by award recipients is often relatively current or ongoing at the time it was 

reported to the Commission. Additionally, nearly all of the award recipients provided 

Commission staff with additional assistance and/or information (e.g., answered staff 

questions or provided testimony) after they submitted their initial tips.

An individual may be eligible to receive an award where her or his information leads to 

a successful enforcement action—meaning generally that the original information either 

caused the staff to open an examination or investigation, or the original information 

significantly contributed to a successful enforcement action where the matter was 

already under examination or investigation. Of the whistleblowers who have received 

awards under the program, approximately 67% provided original information that 

caused staff to open an investigation or examination, and approximately 33% received 

awards because their original information assisted with an already-existing investigation 

or examination. In assessing whether information assisted with an ongoing matter, the 

Commission considers factors such as whether the information allowed the Commission 

to bring an action in significantly less time or with fewer resources, and whether 

it supported additional successful charges, or successful claims against additional 

individuals or entities.36 When the Commission has found claimants to be ineligible for 

awards on non-procedural grounds, it is often because the claimants’ information did 

not result in the opening of an investigation or examination, opening of a new line of 

inquiry in an existing investigation or examination, nor significantly contribute to an 

ongoing investigation or examination. 

“Since program 

inception, the 

Commission has 

issued awards of 

over $326 million 

to 59 individuals 

in connection 

with 48 Covered 

Actions, as well as in 

connection with several 

related actions.

”

36 Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protections, 76 Fed. Reg. 34,300, 34,325 (June 13, 2011).
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 17

There is no requirement under the Whistleblower Rules that an individual be an 

employee or company insider to be eligible for an award. However, approximately 

69% of the award recipients to date were current or former insiders of the entity about 

which they reported information of wrongdoing to the SEC. Of the award recipients 

who were current or former employees of a subject entity, approximately 83% raised 

their concerns internally to their supervisors, compliance personnel, or through internal 

reporting mechanisms, or understood that their supervisor or relevant compliance 

personnel knew of the violations, before reporting their information of wrongdoing 

to the Commission. 

Award recipients have also included investors who had been victims of the fraud, 

professionals working in the same or related industry, or other types of outsiders, such 

as individuals who had a personal relationship with the wrongdoer or individuals who 

have a special expertise in the market. 

Whistleblowers have helped the Commission bring cases against a variety of individuals 

and entities, many of which are involved in the financial services industry. Individuals 

comprised approximately 44% of the defendants and respondents in cases resulting 

in whistleblower awards. Approximately 34% of the defendants and respondents in 

cases in which a whistleblower received an award concerned entities registered with the 

Commission, including broker-dealers, investment advisers, or other registered market 

participants. Unregistered entities comprised approximately 22% of the defendants 

and respondents. 

In addition, whistleblowers have assisted the Commission in bringing enforcement cases 

involving an array of securities violations. A number of the award recipients reported 

information to the Commission concerning offering frauds, such as Ponzi, or Ponzilike, schemes. Other award recipients provided tips to the Commission relating to false 

or misleading statements in a company’s offering memoranda or marketing materials, 

false pricing information, accounting violations, internal controls violations, and FCPA 

violations, among other types of misconduct. 

Under the Whistleblower Rules, individuals are permitted to jointly submit a tip 

to the Commission. Seven of the matters for which whistleblower awards were 

ordered involved two or more whistleblowers jointly submitting information to 

the Commission. 

Individuals who provide information that leads to successful SEC actions resulting in 

monetary sanctions over $1 million also may be eligible to receive an award if the same 

information led to a related action, such as a parallel criminal prosecution. Six of the 

award recipients to date have received payments based, in part, on collections made in 

related criminal or other qualifying related actions. 

Past whistleblower award recipients hail from several different parts of the United 

States, and twelve recipients were foreign nationals or residents of foreign countries 

at the time they submitted their tips to the Commission. 

“. . . whistleblowers 

have assisted the 

Commission in bringing 

enforcement cases 

involving an array of 

securities violations.”
18 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

P R E S E R V I N G I N D I V I D U A L S ’ R I G H T S T O 

R E P O R T T O T H E C O M M I S S I O N A N D S H I E L D I N G 

EMPLOYEES FROM RETALIATION

Section 21F(h)(1) of Dodd-Frank expanded protections for whistleblowers and 

broadened prohibitions against retaliation.37 Following the passage of Dodd-Frank, 

the Commission implemented rules that enabled the SEC to take legal action against 

employers who have retaliated against whistleblowers. To date, the Commission has 

brought three anti-retaliation enforcement actions.

Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a) prohibits any person from taking any action to prevent an 

individual from contacting the SEC directly to report a possible securities law violation. 

The Rule states that “[n]o person may take any action to impede an individual from 

communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law 

violation, including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement . . . 

with respect to such communications.”38 To date, the Commission has brought nine 

enforcement actions involving violations of Rule 21F-17.

FY 2018 saw a major shift with respect to the scope of the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation 

protections. Under the Commission’s Whistleblower Rules, the anti-retaliation 

protections applied to employees who reported possible securities law violations, 

whether internally, to other law enforcement agencies, or to the SEC. Recognizing the 

important role that internal compliance programs play in helping the Commission 

prevent, detect, and stop securities law violations, there are multiple provisions in the 

Whistleblower Rules meant to support individuals who choose to report internally in 

the first instance, including a potential increase in award percentage.

The federal courts of appeals, however, were divided over whether the Dodd-Frank 

anti-retaliation protections applied to employees who report potential violations of the 

securities laws internally without also reporting to the Commission. The United States 

Supreme Court granted certiorari in Digital Realty to address the scope of the DoddFrank anti-retaliation protections.

In February 2018, the Court in Digital Realty held that the whistleblower provisions 

of the Exchange Act require that an employee report a possible securities law 

violation to the Commission to qualify for protection against employment retaliation 

under Section 21F. The Court thus invalidated the Commission’s rule interpreting 

Section 21F’s anti-retaliation protections to apply in cases where an employee had 

reported only internally. In the months following the Digital Realty decision, there 

was an increase in the number of whistleblower tips received by the Commission, 

which may have been attributable, in part, to the decision. 

37 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1).

38 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-17(a).
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 19

Following the Digital Realty decision, the Commission issued proposed rule 

amendments to Rule 21F-2. The proposed rule would modify Rule 21F-2 so that it 

comports with the Court’s holding by, among other things, establishing a uniform 

definition of “whistleblower” that would apply to all aspects of Exchange Act 

Section 21F. 

Retaliation protection remains a key tenet of the whistleblower program, and OWB 

will continue to support enforcement investigations where retaliation occurred after 

the whistleblower reported securities violations to the Commission. Furthermore, 

OWB will continue to support the enforcement of the whistleblower protections of 

Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a), which prohibits any person from taking any action to 

prevent an individual from contacting the SEC directly to report a possible securities 

law violation. OWB will continue to work closely with investigative staff to identify 

and investigate practices in the use of confidentiality and other kinds of agreements, 

or engagement in other practices, to interfere with individuals’ ability to report 

potential wrongdoing to the SEC.

“OWB will continue to 

support enforcement 

investigations where 

retaliation occurred 

[and] . . . will 

continue to support 

the enforcement of 

the whistleblower 

protections of Exchange 

Act Rule 21F-17(a) . . .”
20 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

W H I S T L E B LOW E R T I P S R E C E I V E D 

The Whistleblower Rules specify that individuals who would like to be part of the 

whistleblower program must submit their tip via the Commission’s online portal or 

by mailing or faxing their tip on Form TCR to OWB.39 Whistleblowers who use the 

online portal to submit a tip receive a computer-generated confirmation of receipt with 

a TCR submission number. For those who submit a hard-copy Form TCR by mail 

or fax, OWB sends an acknowledgement letter, which includes a TCR submission 

number, or a deficiency letter explaining that the information was not properly 

submitted under the Whistleblower Rules. All whistleblower tips referring to potential 

securities law violations received by the Commission are entered into the TCR System 

and are evaluated by the Commission’s Office of Market Intelligence (OMI) within 

Enforcement. The Commission’s TCR System was recently updated to include more 

user-friendly features, including the ability to upload much larger attachments. OWB 

encourages individuals and their counsel to submit tips using the Commission’s online 

portal, rather than through a hard-copy Form TCR. Furthermore, claimants and their 

counsel are encouraged to submit their tip via only one method. For example, the same 

tip should not be entered through the online portal and then mailed in hard copy to the 

office. This can create duplication of work for OWB intake staff. 

Increase in Whistleblower Tips

Throughout the history of the whistleblower program, the Commission’s receipt of 

whistleblower tips has reflected an upward trajectory, and the number of tips received 

this past fiscal year proves to be no exception to this trend. Since August 2011, the 

Commission has received over 28,000 whistleblower tips, and in FY 2018 alone, 

received more than 5,200 tips. The table below shows the number of whistleblower 

tips received by the Commission on a yearly basis since the inception of the 

whistleblower program.40

FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

334 3,001 3,238 3,620 3,923 4,218 4,484 5,282

As reflected in this table, from FY 2012, the first year for which we have full-year data,41

to FY 2018, the number of whistleblower tips received by the Commission has grown 

by approximately seventy-six percent.42

“From FY 2012 . . . to 

FY 2018, the number 

of whistleblower 

tips received by 

the Commission 

has grown 

by approximately 

seventy-six percent.

”

39 17 C.F.R. § 240.21F-9(a).

40 The Commission also receives tips from individuals who do not wish to be part of the whistleblower 

program. The data in this report is limited to whistleblower tips and does not reflect all tips or complaints 

received by the Commission during the fiscal year.

41 Because the Whistleblower Rules became effective on August 12, 2011, only seven weeks of whistleblower 

data is available for FY 2011.

42 In FY 2016 and FY 2017, the Commission received an unusually high number of whistleblower tips 

from two individuals, and received an unusually high number of whistleblower tips from one individual in 

FY 2018. The data for these fiscal years excludes tips received from these individuals—both in this section 

of the report and in the appendices to this report. 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 21

Whistleblower Allegation Type

Whether submitting tips on Form TCR or through the online portal, whistleblowers 

should identify the nature of their complaint allegations. In FY 2018, the most common 

complaint categories reported by whistleblowers were Offering Fraud (20%), Corporate 

Disclosures and Financials (19%), and Manipulation (12%).43

The following graph reflects the number of whistleblower tips received in FY 2018 by 

allegation type.44

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,400

1,200

983

202

262

624

157

57

1,210

109

1,054

333

252

Trading and

Pricing

Offering

Fraud

Not

Reported

Municipal

Securities and 

Public Pension

Corporate FCPA

Disclosures 

and Financials

Manipulation Insider

Trading

Unregistered

Offerings

Market Other*

Event

43 This breakdown reflects the categories selected by whistleblowers and, thus, the data represents the 

whistleblower’s own characterization of the violation type. 

44 The category of “Other” indicates that the submitter identified the whistleblower TCR as not fitting into 

any allegation category that is listed on the questionnaire.
22 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

The types of securities violations reported by whistleblowers have remained generally 

consistent over the last seven years. Since the beginning of the program, Corporate 

Disclosures and Financials, Offering Fraud, and Manipulation have consistently ranked 

as the three highest allegation types reported by whistleblowers. Appendix A to this 

report provides a comparison among the number of whistleblower tips by allegation 

type that the Commission received during FY 2015 through FY 2018. In addition, in 

this past fiscal year, 39 tips were submitted as involving “Initial Coin Offerings and 

Cryptocurrencies,” an allegation category added to the TCR System in the fourth 

quarter of FY 2018. The addition of this allegation category reflects a desire to refine 

data capture to better understand misconduct in the developing digital asset arena. 

Geographic Origin of Whistleblower Tips

Through OWB’s extensive outreach efforts to publicize and promote the Commission’s 

whistleblower program, the Commission continues to receive whistleblower 

submissions from individuals throughout the United States, as well as internationally. 

During FY 2018, California, New York, Florida, Texas and New Jersey yielded the 

highest number of whistleblower tips.

FREQUENCY

0–20

21–40

41–60

61–100

>101
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 23

Since the beginning of the whistleblower program, the Commission has received 

whistleblower tips from individuals in 119 countries outside the United States. In 

FY 2018 alone, the Commission received whistleblower submissions from individuals 

in 72 foreign countries. After the United States, OWB received the highest number 

of whistleblower tips this past fiscal year from individuals in Canada, the United 

Kingdom, and Australia. The map below reflects the countries in which whistleblower 

tips originated during FY 2018.

Appendices B and C to this report provide detailed information concerning the sources 

of domestic and foreign whistleblower tips that the Commission received during 

FY 2018. 
24 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

P R O C E S S I N G O F W H I S T L E B LOW E R T I P S 

OMI evaluates incoming whistleblower TCRs and assigns specific, credible, and timely 

TCRs to members of the Commission staff for further analysis or investigation.

TCR Evaluation 

OMI reviews every TCR submitted by a whistleblower to the Commission that 

references a possible securities law violation. OMI examines each tip to identify those 

with high-quality information that warrant the additional allocation of Commission 

resources. Generally, when the evaluation of a tip could benefit from the specific 

expertise of another Division or Office within the SEC, the tip is forwarded to staff in 

that Division or Office for further analysis. When OMI determines that a tip should 

be considered for investigation, OMI assigns the tip to one of the Commission’s eleven 

regional offices, a specialty unit, or to an Enforcement group in the Home Office. Tips 

that relate to an existing investigation are forwarded to the staff working on the matter. 

The Commission may use information from whistleblower tips in several different 

ways. For example, the Commission may initiate an enforcement investigation based 

on the whistleblower’s tip. Even if the tip does not cause an investigation to be opened, 

it may still help lead to a successful enforcement action if the whistleblower provides 

additional information that significantly contributes to an ongoing or already-existing 

investigation. Tips may also prompt the Commission to commence an examination of 

a regulated entity, which may lead to an enforcement action or to the entity correcting 

the problem or clarifying an issue. 

OWB tracks whistleblower tips that are referred to Enforcement staff for investigation. 

OWB currently is tracking over 900 matters in which a whistleblower’s tip has 

caused a Matter Under Inquiry or investigation to open, or has been forwarded 

to Enforcement staff for review and consideration in connection with an ongoing 

investigation. Not all of these matters, however, will result in an enforcement action, 

or an enforcement action where the required threshold of over $1 million in monetary 

sanctions will be ordered. Whistleblower tips may also be used to open an examination 

or referred to examination staff in connection with a planned or ongoing exam.

In general, whistleblower tips that are specific, credible, and timely, and which 

are accompanied by corroborating documentary evidence, are more likely to be 

forwarded to investigative staff for further analysis or investigation. For instance, if 

the tip identifies individuals involved in the scheme, provides examples of particular 

fraudulent transactions, or points to non-public materials evidencing the fraud, the 

tip is more likely to be assigned to Enforcement staff for investigation. Tips that make 

blanket assertions or general inferences based on market events are less likely to be 

forwarded to or investigated by Enforcement staff.

“. . . whistleblower 

tips that are specific, 

credible, and 

timely, and which 

are accompanied 

by corroborating 

documentary 

evidence, are more 

likely to be forwarded 

to investigative staff 

for further analysis 

or investigation.”
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 25

In certain instances, OMI or other Enforcement staff may determine it is more 

appropriate that a whistleblower’s tip be investigated by another regulatory or law 

enforcement agency. When this occurs, the tip is referred to the other agency in 

accordance with the Exchange Act’s whistleblower confidentiality requirements. 

Tips that relate to the financial affairs of an individual investor or a discrete investor 

group usually are forwarded to the Commission’s Office of Investor Education and 

Advocacy (OIEA) for resolution. Comments or questions about agency practice or the 

federal securities laws also are forwarded to OIEA. 

Assistance by OWB

OWB supports the tip allocation and investigative processes in several ways. When 

whistleblowers submit tips on a Form TCR in hard-copy by mail or fax, OWB enters 

the information into the TCR System so it can be evaluated by OMI. Tips submitted by 

whistleblowers through the Commission’s online portal are automatically forwarded to 

OMI for evaluation. During the evaluation process, OWB may assist by contacting the 

whistleblower to obtain additional information to help in the triage process. 

After submitting an initial tip, a whistleblower is free to, and often does, submit 

additional information or materials to buttress his or her earlier allegations. Additional 

information may be submitted through the online portal, with reference to the original 

TCR submission number (if known), or may be submitted directly to the investigative 

staff if the whistleblower is working with staff on the matter. To the extent additional 

information is sent to OWB in hard-copy by mail or fax, OWB then uploads the 

additional information to the TCR System. While OWB sends acknowledgement letters 

confirming receipt of Form TCRs or deficiency letters where appropriate, due to the 

increasing volume of additional information submitted in paper form to OWB, and the 

ready availability of electronic submissions, OWB does not provide acknowledgement 

letters in response to additional information.
26 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

P R O P O S E D W H I S T L E B LOW E R R U L E 

A M E N D M E N T S 

The proposed amendments to the Whistleblower Rules were published in the Federal 

Register on July 20, 2018. The public comment period ended on September 18, 2018.45

The Commission received approximately 100 unique letters and two form letters from 

commenters. Commission staff is currently reviewing the comments.46 The proposed 

amendments are intended to increase efficiencies in the whistleblower claims review 

process, provide the Commission with additional tools in making whistleblower 

awards to ensure that meritorious whistleblowers are appropriately rewarded for 

their efforts, and align the requirements for anti-retaliation protection under the 

Whistleblower Rules with the holding in Digital Realty. The proposed amendments 

would make certain modifications and clarifications to the existing rules, as well as 

several technical amendments.

Increased Efficiencies in Claims Review Process

The proposed rule amendments are intended to increase efficiencies in the claims 

review process by clarifying the Commission’s ability to bar individuals from 

submitting whistleblower applications where they are found to have submitted false 

information to the Commission or where they repeatedly make frivolous award 

claims in Commission actions. The proposed rules would codify the Commission’s 

current practice with respect to barring applicants who submit false, fictitious, 

or fraudulent statements in their dealings with the Commission and permit the 

Commission to permanently bar any applicant from seeking an award after the 

Commission determines that the applicant has abused the process by submitting three 

award applications that the Commission finds to be frivolous or lacking a colorable 

connection between the tip (or tips) and the Commission action. The proposed 

rule would expressly provide, however, that OWB shall advise any claimant of the 

Office’s assessment that the claimant’s award application for a Commission action is 

frivolous or lacking a colorable connection between the tip and the action for which 

the individual has sought an award. If the applicant withdraws the application at 

that time, it would not be considered by the Commission in determining whether 

to exercise its authority to impose a bar for three or more frivolous applications or 

applications lacking a colorable connection between the tip and the Commission action 

for which the award was sought. 

In addition, the proposed rule amendments would provide the Commission with a 

summary disposition procedure for certain types of likely denials, such as untimely 

award applications, applications that involve a tip that was not provided to the 

Commission in the form and manner that the rules require, and applications where 

the claimant’s information was never provided to or used by investigative staff. The 

proposed summary disposition procedure is intended to help facilitate a more timely 

resolution of such relatively straightforward denials, while freeing up staff resources to 

focus on processing potentially meritorious award claims. 

“The proposed 

amendments are 

intended to increase 

efficiencies in the 

whistleblower claims 

review process . . .”

45 See Amendments to the Commission’s Whistleblower Program Rules, 83 Fed. Reg. 34,702 

(proposed July 20, 2018).

46 Comments to the proposed rules are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-18/s71618.htm
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 27

Additional Tools in Award Determinations

The proposed rule amendments would provide the Commission with additional tools 

in making awards, including by: (i) allowing awards based on deferred prosecution 

agreements (DPAs) and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) entered into by the U.S. 

Department of Justice or a state attorney general in a criminal case, or a settlement 

agreement entered into by the Commission outside of the context of a judicial or 

administrative proceeding to address violations of the securities laws; (ii) providing 

additional considerations for small and exceedingly large awards; and (iii) eliminating 

potential double recovery under the current definition of “related action.”

Allowing awards based on NPAs, DPAs, and settlement agreements outside of the 

context of a judicial or administrative proceeding would help ensure that whistleblowers 

are not disadvantaged because of the particular form of an action that was pursued.

In the context of potential awards that could yield a payout of less than $2 million to a 

whistleblower, the proposed rules would authorize the Commission in its discretion to 

adjust the award percentage upward under certain circumstances (subject to the 30% 

statutory maximum) to an amount up to $2 million. 

Under the proposed rules, if a potential award could yield total collected monetary 

sanctions of at least $100 million, the Commission could exercise its discretion to adjust 

the award percentage so that it would yield a payout (subject to the 10% statutory 

minimum) that does not exceed an amount that is reasonably necessary to reward the 

whistleblower and to incentivize other similarly situated whistleblowers. In no event, 

however, would the award be adjusted below $30 million (or below the 10% statutory 

minimum). This proposed rule would apply to award applications that are connected to 

a NoCA posted on or after the effective date of the rules. 

In addition, the proposed amendments would clarify that a law-enforcement or separate 

regulatory action would not qualify as a “related action” if the Commission determines 

that there is a separate whistleblower award scheme that more appropriately applies to 

the enforcement action. 

Uniform Definition of “Whistleblower”

As discussed elsewhere in this report, the proposed amendments would modify Rule 

21F-2 so that it comports with the Supreme Court’s holding in Digital Realty. The 

Court in Digital Realty held that the whistleblower provisions of the Exchange Act 

require that a person report a possible securities law violation to the Commission 

in order to qualify for protection against employment retaliation, thus invalidating 

the Commission’s rule interpreting Section 21F’s anti-retaliation protections to apply 

in cases of internal reports. The proposed amendments would, among other things, 

establish a uniform definition of “whistleblower” that would apply to all aspects of 

Exchange Act Section 21F—i.e., the award program, the heightened confidentiality 

requirements, and the employment anti-retaliation protections. To qualify for antiretaliation protection, the rule proposal notes that the individual must have submitted 

his or her information to the Commission “in writing.” 
28 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Interpretive Guidance

In addition to the proposed rule amendments, the Commission published proposed 

interpretive guidance to help clarify the meaning of “independent analysis” as that 

term is defined in Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(b)(3) and utilized in award applications. 

To be considered “analysis,” the Commission’s rule requires that a whistleblower’s 

examination and evaluation of publicly available information “reveal[] information 

that is not generally known or available to the public.”47 Under the proposed guidance, 

in order to qualify as “independent analysis,” a whistleblower’s submission must 

provide evaluation, assessment, or insight beyond what would be reasonably apparent 

to the Commission from publicly available information. 

The full text of the proposed rule amendments is available at: 

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2018/34-83557.pdf

47 17 CFR § 240.21F-4(b)(3). 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 29

S E C U R I T I E S A N D E XC H A N G E C O M M I S S I O N 

INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND

Section 922 of Dodd-Frank established the Investor Protection Fund to provide funding 

for the Commission’s whistleblower award program, including the payment of awards 

in related actions.48 As required by statute, all payments are made out of this Fund, 

which is financed entirely through monetary sanctions paid to the SEC by securities 

law violators. No money has been taken or withheld from harmed investors to pay 

whistleblower awards. The Fund also is used to finance the operations of the suggestion 

program of the SEC’s Office of Inspector General.49 The suggestion program is intended 

for the receipt of suggestions from SEC employees for improvements in work efficiency, 

effectiveness, productivity, and the use of resources at the Commission, as well as 

allegations by SEC employees of waste, abuse, misconduct, or mismanagement within 

the Commission, and is operated outside of OWB.50

Section 21F(g)(5) of the Exchange Act requires certain Fund information to be 

reported to Congress on an annual basis. Below is a chart containing Fund-related 

information for FY 2018.

 FY 2018

Balance of Fund at beginning of fiscal year51 $ 297,387,453.49 

Unavailable amounts from FY 2017 available during fiscal year52 $ 310,478.00 

Amounts deposited into or credited to Fund during fiscal year $ 179,626,352.60 

Amount of interest receipts from investments during fiscal year $ 5,746,262.10 

Amount of receipts during fiscal year that are unavailable52 $ (12,234,592.57)

Amounts paid from Fund during fiscal year to whistleblowers $ (94,348,311.00)

Amounts estimated to be paid from Fund during fiscal year 

to whistleblowers

$ (77,127,230.29)

Amount disbursed to Office of the Inspector General during fiscal year $ (26,430.51)

Balance of Fund at end of fiscal year $ 299,333,981.82 

48 Section 21F(g)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(g)(2)(A).

49 Section 21F(g)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(g)(2)(B), provides that the Fund shall be 

available to the Commission for “funding the activities of the Inspector General of the Commission under 

section 4(i).” The Commission’s Office of General Counsel has interpreted this section to refer to Exchange 

Act Section 4D, which established the Inspector General’s suggestion program. That section provides 

that the “activities of the Inspector General under this subsection shall be funded by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission Investor Protection Fund established under Section 21F.” Id. § 78d-4(e).

50 Section 4D(a) of the Exchange Act, id. § 78d-4(a).

51 During FY 2018, the SEC changed how the balance of the Fund is defined for replenishment purposes. 

Prior to FY 2018, the balance was defined as total assets of the Fund. Beginning in FY 2018, the SEC 

changed to the available unobligated balance. As a result, the beginning balance differs from what was 

previously reported as the ending balance for FY 2017.

52 Amounts relate to available resources temporarily reduced during the fiscal year as a result of the Budget 

Control Act of 2011. These amounts become available at the beginning of the following fiscal year.
30 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Whenever the balance of the Fund falls below $300 million, a statutory replenishment 

mechanism is triggered. For a complete description of the mechanisms that Congress 

established to replenish the Fund, see Section 21F(g)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 

78-6(g)(3). 

Section 21F(g)(5) of the Exchange Act also requires a complete set of audited financial 

statements for the Fund, including a balance sheet, income sheet, income statement, 

and cash-flow analysis. That information will be included in the Commission’s Agency 

Financial Report, which will be separately submitted to Congress. 

32 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

APPENDIX A

W H I S T L E B LOW E R T I P S B Y A L L E G AT I O N T Y P E 

COMPARISON OF FISCAL YEARS 2015–2018

0

400

200

600

1,000

800

1,200

1,400

2018

2015

2016

2017

Corporate 

Disclosures 

and Financials

Offering

Fraud

Manipulation Insider

Trading

Trading and

Pricing

FCPA Unregistered

Offerings

Market

Event

Municipal

Securities and 

Public Pension

Other* Not Reported

97 94

114

956

57 57

1,210

109

192

150

186

210 213

273

482

613

687

938

954

1,054

983

472 468

624

262 262

333

202

252

157

231

257 271

238

143 144

102

125

67 67

996

1,162

646

758

*The category of “Other” indicates that the submitter identified the whistleblower TCR as not fitting into any allegation category that is listed on the 

questionnaire. Also, in the interest of space, this chart does not reflect 39 tips submitted under “Initial Coin Offerings and Cryptocurrencies,” an allegation 

category introduced during the fourth quarter of FY 2018.
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM | 33

APPENDIX B

W H I ST L E B LOW E R T I P S R E C E I V E D BY G E O G R A P H I C LO C AT I O N 

UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES, FISCAL YEAR 2018*

AK

AL

AR

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE

FL

GA

HI

IA

ID

IL

IN

KS

KY

LA

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH

OK

OR

PA

PR

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VA

VT

WA

WI

WV

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

76

276

159

84

74

107

73

40

46

89

162

345

39

98

30

64

251

44

4

44

18

5

25

11

15

11

12

6

6

2

12

2

34

2

6

33

2

12

4

3

7

156

22

39

31

18

32

46

2

71

554

*Multiple individuals may jointly submit a TCR under the Commission’s whistleblower program. Appendix B reflects the number of individuals 

submitting WB TCRs to the Commission within the United States, or one of its territories, and not the total number of domestic WB TCRs 

received by the Commission during FY 2018. For example, a WB TCR that is jointly submitted by two individuals—one in New York and one in 

New Jersey—would be reflected in Appendix B as a submission from both New York and New Jersey. The total number of individuals submitting 

WB TCRs in the United States or a U.S. territory during FY 2018 exceeded 3,300 and constituted about 62% of the individuals participating in the 

Commission’s whistleblower program for this period. Additionally, over 1,350 individuals, constituting approximately 26% of the total number of 

persons participating in the Commission’s whistleblower program in FY 2018, submitted WB TCRs without any foreign or domestic geographical 

categorization or submitted them anonymously through counsel.
34 | U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

APPENDIX C

W H I ST L E B LOW E R T I P S R E C E I V E D BY G E O G R A P H I C LO C AT I O N 

INTERNATIONAL, FISCAL YEAR 2018*

AFGHANISTAN

ARGENTINA

AUSTRALIA

AUSTRIA

BELGIUM

BOTSWANA

BRAZIL

BULGARIA

CAMEROON

CANADA

CHILE

CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF

CROATIA

CYPRUS

ECUADOR

EGYPT

FINLAND

FRANCE

FRENCH POLYNESIA

GERMANY

GHANA

GREECE

HONG KONG

ICELAND

INDIA

INDONESIA

IRAN

IRELAND

ISRAEL

ITALY

JAMAICA

JAPAN

KAZAKHSTAN

KENYA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

MALAYSIA

MEXICO

MONACO

MOROCCO

NEPAL

NETHERLANDS

NEW ZEALAND

NORWAY

PAKISTAN

PANAMA

PERU

PHILIPPINES

POLAND

PORTUGAL

ROMANIA

RUSSIA

SAUDI ARABIA

SINGAPORE

SLOVENIA

SOUTH AFRICA

SOUTH KOREA

SPAIN

SURINAME

SWEDEN

SWITZERLAND

TAIWAN

TANZANIA

THAILAND

TUNISIA

TURKEY

UKRAINE

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

UNITED KINGDOM

URUGUAY

VENEZUELA

VIETNAM

1

7

45

10

2

1

2

17

1

15

1

26

2

4

4

1

4

1

1

1

7

10

5

2

3

6

2

6

10

4

1

1

2

4

1

19

2

1

89

3

40

1

29

2

2

2

2

2

7

25

8

1

4

2

1

1

8

5

6

18

12

14

1

9

18

8

3

1

8

1

1

85

0 20 40 60 80 100

*As with domestic WB TCRs, multiple individuals from abroad may jointly submit a TCR under the Commission’s whistleblower program. Appendix C 

reflects the number of individuals submitting WB TCRs to the Commission from abroad, and not the total number of foreign WB TCRs received during 

FY 2018. The number of individuals submitting WB TCRs from abroad during FY 2018 exceeded 650, and constituted approximately 12% of the individuals 

participating in the Commission’s whistleblower program.

OFFICE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER

Washington, DC