Whistleblowers: protection, incentives and reporting channels as a safeguard to the public interest

Whistleblowing has become a dynamic regulatory field. Several jurisdictions have recently opened public consultations in this relation. They recognise the need to protect the good faith whistleblower disclosing alleged wrongdoing to ensure, in fine, the respect of the public interest.

This article presents international framework on whistleblowing (Part I.), model laws (Part II.), national reference regulation (Part III.) and national regulation which is commendable for specific aspects (Part IV.).

I. International and regional conventions

United Nations (UN)

Article 33 of the UN Convention against Corruption prescribes:

Each State Party shall consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.”

In addition, article 8 of the Convention calls for the establishment of measures and systems to facilitate the reporting of acts of corruption by public officials.

Council of Europe (CoE)

Article 9 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption protects employees by stating:

Each Party shall provide in its internal law for appropriate protection against any unjustified sanction for employees who have reasonable grounds to suspect corruption and who report in good faith their suspicion to responsible persons or authorities.”

Organization of American States (OAS)1

The Inter-American Convention against Corruption envisages preventive measures and the establishment of systems to protect public servants and private citizens who, in good faith, report acts of corruption, including protection of their identities.

African Union (AU)2

The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combatting Corruption qualifies whistleblowing as the core instrument of combatting corruption and calls on States to:

– Adopt legislative and other measures to protect informants and witnesses in corruption and related offences, including protection of their identities;

– Adopt measures that ensure citizens report instances of corruption without fear of consequent reprisals.

European Union (EU)

The law of the European Union does not contain an EU-wide legislation on the whistleblower protection. In this respect, the European Commission has recently opened public consultations. For the moment, it is not yet clear whether a legislative act or a soft-law approach will be proposed.

II. Model laws and guiding principles


The OAS model law grants protection to good faith whistleblowers and witnesses of acts of corruption. The model law envisages legal assistance, confidentiality and other protective measures, e.g. change of workplace, suspension with pay, police protection, change of identity, monetary assistance, etc. International and inter-institutional cooperation is foreseen in this respect. When it comes to the noncompliance with the duty to grant the preventive measures, administrative, civil, and criminal liability shall be triggered. Moreover, a creation of special protection agency is suggested. Furthermore, the model law obliges to disseminate the whistleblower legislation among workers and to the general public. A template form for reporting acts of corruption is presented as well.

United States (US)

The US model law governs the “protected disclosure”. It contains the definition of whistleblowing and the prohibition of discrimination. The burden of proof stays with the employee. The model law foresees the possibility of a civil law action. In addition, the employee’s dismissal/settlement can solely be approved by the court. Finally, remedies such as attorney’s fees and a whistleblower’s reward are proposed.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

The OECD (G20) considers that a dedicated legislation on whistleblower protection shall be governed by the following principles3:

– Clear definition of scope, persons and acts protected, including the “good faith” clause;

– Reporting procedure and channels are clearly defined;

– Robust and comprehensive protection system against detrimental actions is instituted;

– A specific protection body is created;

– Awareness raising, communication and training is foreseen.

Following the G20 commitments in 2011, some authors4 stated that the US, UK and South Korea have the best performing legislation on the whistleblower protection. Albeit, the multiplicity of laws and their inconsistency represents a significant burden in US, i.e. 47 different laws are applicable to whistleblowing5.

III. National reference legislation

Globally, the majority of jurisdictions possess a regulatory framework protecting whistleblowers. Albeit in some aspects they differ greatly. Certain countries have adopted a dedicated legislation on the whistleblower protection, others typically regulate the domain under their anti-corruption laws. We believe that all-encompassing legislation on whistleblower protection is the best approach, as there exist other illegal practices apart from corruption that need to be tackled to safeguard the public interest ( abuse of power, damage to the environment and health, etc.). Moreover, regulatory fragmentation and inconsistency is avoided with such an approach.

In particular, several jurisdictions protect only the public officials as eventual whistleblowers, whilst others include the private sector. Thus it is important to define adequately the scope of the legislation and specific definitions, e.g. whistleblower, improper conduct, etc. Many countries have set up a reporting procedure together with a reward fund and a few envisage specific portals, postboxes or hotlines to facilitate the whistleblowing.

Accordingly, we present good examples of national laws on whistleblowing – highlighting in Italic the relevant provisions and in bold the respective regulatory techniques.

1. The law of Japan has a wide application as it covers wrongdoings that interfere with the protection of individuals’ lives and bodies, their interest as the consumers, with fair competition, and with citizens’ lives, bodies, property and other interests as well as with the conservation of the environment,.

The law grants protection to employees in public and private sector under the condition that the disclosure is made without a  purpose  of  obtaining a  wrongful  gain, a  purpose  of causing  damages  to others,  or  any other  wrongful  purpose”. The law offers protection to dispatched workers, which is a rare but commendable regulatory approach. Japan considers void any contract provision preventing the disclosure of illegal practices. More generally, the law contains the prohibition of disadvantageous measures towards the whistleblower and previews for remedial measures, without defining them further. It also briefly defines a reporting procedure.

2. The law of South Korea qualifies whistleblowing as a duty of every public official. As other laws, it allows the disclosure of past and future public interest violation, i.e. which is likely to occur. South Korea is extremely inventive in terms of listing unconventional detrimental actions of employers against whistleblowers. The list includes unjustified audit, cancellation of license or training, cancelation of contract for goods or services, putting the whistleblower on a blacklist, etc. The law contains a specific provision on the respect of confidentiality of the whistleblower identity and envisages disciplinary actions in case of its violation. Furthermore, South Korea foresees protective measures and the cooperation between different institutions, e.g. administrative authorities, counseling and medical centers, etc. Commendably, the law grants compensation for psychological ill-treatment, litigation fees and moving expenses of a whistleblower. In a situation where whistleblowing leads to the detection of a crime (other than the reported one) perpetrated by the whistleblower, his/her punishment may be mitigated or remitted. Finally, a whistleblower may request a reward if his/her reporting resulted directly in the recovery or increase in revenues for the government.

3. The Whistleblower Protection Law of Malaysia grants:

(a) Protection of confidential information;

(b) Immunity from civil and criminal action; and

(c) Protection against detrimental action

to any person making a disclosure of wrongdoing based on his “reasonable belief”.

Malaysia has instituted a detailed complaint procedure, together with a specifically defined protection and complaint procedure with deadlines for whistleblowers subjected to detrimental action. Injunctions, compensation and other measures such as relocation of place of employment are foreseen. Malaysia prescribes personal liability of an individual against whom such a civil action is taken, which can also serve as a preventive measure. As an incentive, disclosure of improper conduct and complaining on detrimental actions triggered by the whistleblowing are rewarded.

4. Jamaica confers immunity to good faith whistleblowers against criminal, civil and disciplinary liability. This also applies to atypical workers, such as subcontractors and volunteers. Interestingly, the law covers multiple forms and a wide range of improper conduct:

(a) Criminal offence;

(b) Failure to carry out a legal obligation;

(c) Conduct that is likely to result in a miscarriage of justice;

(d) Conduct that is likely to threaten the health or safety of a person;

(e) Conduct that is likely to threaten or damage the environment;

(f) Conduct that shows gross mismanagement, impropriety or misconduct in the carrying out of any activity that involves the use of public funds;

(g) Act of reprisal against or victimization of an employee;

(h) Conduct that tends to show unfair discrimination on the basis of gender, race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion or political opinion; or

(i) Wilful concealment of any act described in paragraphs (a) to (h).

An identical provision can be found in the proposed whistleblower protection laws of Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana, which evidently shows the inspiration received from a comparative regulatory analysis in the region. Moreover, Jamaica envisages a monetary fine and imprisonment for everyone who would intimidate an employee willing to disclose such a wrongdoing.

Commendably, Jamaica has stringently determined reporting chains and their time lines. E.g. if the authority refuses the investigation, it needs to justify its decision within 15 days. Furthermore, the law envisages public awareness campaigns for employees, employers and general public. Additionally, a periodic review of existing procedures is planned. Finally, a list of authorised persons to whom a disclosure may be made to is annexed to the law.

5. The legislation of Australia is of high quality. It is very specific, detailed and clear when it comes to the procedure of handling disclosure, the role of competent authorities and scope of the law. For example, even implied and conditional/unconditional threat of reprisal is qualified as an offense. However, it is limited in scope in so far as it concerns only public officials.

Diverse civil remedies are in place in Australia, e.g. reinstatement of employment, injunctions, an apology. Proceedings in these respects are free of charge. Similar to the law of India, Australia envisages an annual report produced by the Ombudsman. The report shall indicate the number of disclosure investigations, types of disclosable conduct reported and the actions taken. Finally, education and awareness programs are foreseen, including for former public officials.

In February 2017, Australia closed targeted public consultations for the protection of tax and corporate whistleblowers. Parliamentary inquiry is still ongoing.

6. The law of Serbia is extremely broad in its scope. It clearly determines the disclosure procedure and grants various procedural guarantees to a whistleblower.

The law offers protection to any natural person, including to persons in the process of recruitment. In contrast with other laws that remain silent on the “good faith”, “reasonable belief” condition of a disclosure, the Serbian law offers a solution: the truthfulness of the information disclosed would be credible to a person possessing the same average level of knowledge and experience as the whistleblower” at the time of the whistleblowing.

Under the Serbian law, a protected disclosure can concern an infringement of legislation, violation of human rights, exercise of public authority in contravention with the purpose it was granted, or any danger to life, public health, safety, and the environment. The disclosure may also aim to prevent large-scale damage. Under the law, even anonymous disclosure may be protected, as well as disclosure containing classified information. In addition, it contains a specific provision on the data protection of a whistleblower. Serbia differs among internal, external and public whistleblowing. It enlists 14 prohibited detrimental actions in relation to:

1. Hiring procedure; 2. Obtaining the status of an intern or volunteer; 3. Work outside of formal employment; 4. Education, training, or professional development; 5. Promotion at work, being evaluated, obtaining or losing a professional title; 6. Disciplinary measures and penalties; 7. Working conditions; 8. Termination of employment; 9. Salary and other forms of remuneration; 10. Share in the profits of the employer; 11. Disbursement of bonuses or incentivizing severance payments; 12. Allocation of duties or transfer to other positions; 13. Failing to take measures to provide protection from harassment by other persons; 14. Mandatory medical examinations or examinations to establish fitness for work.”

Judicial relief for a whistleblower shall be granted in an urgency procedure. Judges in charge need to possess a special knowledge on whistleblowing protection, received through trainings by the Judicial Academy. Moreover, the law obliges the employer to prove that measures taken against the whistleblower are justified for reasons other than the whistleblowing. Furthermore, the defendant can be judged in absentia and the principle of ex officio investigation is foreseen. Finally, the parties are offered the mechanism of alternative dispute resolution.

IV. Special aspects

As to setting up of a protection authority for whistleblowers, the law of Canada and US could serve as a regulatory reference. They contain inter alia provisions regarding the authority’s tasks and on its procedures.

Alberta (Canada) foresees that an employee who is considering to make a disclosure may receive an advice from a designated officer or the public Interest Commissioner beforehand.

The law of Ghana offers legal assistance and police protection to whistleblowers and his/her relatives.

Uganda foresees a percentage participation to reward the whistleblower, i.e. 5% of the net liquidated sum of money recovered as a result of the disclosure.

Bosnia and Herzegovina envisages to annually blacklist institutions, where acts of corruption occurred, together with the types of detrimental actions reported. This evidently results in the “public shaming”. Moreover, an individual can request for a whistleblower status. Accordingly, the person is protected against any form of liability even in cases of disclosing an official secret to the competent authority.

Commendably, Canada has recently introduced a new reporting channel for confidential disclosure in the energy sector:an online website, a hotline and a confidential postbox are made available to the public.

Ireland requires from the Minister to conduct a review of the operability of the legislation and report on the findings to the legislator. Equally, Alberta (Canada) envisages such a review every 5 years.

V. Links

List of national laws on the whistleblower protection can be found here.

The OECD (G20) Action Plan with guiding principles for whistleblower legislation.

Transparency International Australia report and executive summary on whistleblower protection legislation in G20 countries (2014).

This article has been written by Ajda Mihelčič, M.A.S., on behalf of the Regulatory Institute, Brussels.

Annex I.: English translation of the whistleblower protection legislation of Japan

provided by The Japanese Law Translation.

Whistleblower Protection Act

Act No. 122 of June 18, 2004


Article 1 

The Purpose of this Act is to protect Whistleblowers to provide for  nullity, etc. of  dismissal  of Whistleblower. on  the  grounds  of Whistleblowing  and  the measures  that  the  business operator and Administrative Organ shall take concerning Whistleblowing, and  to  promote  compliance  with  the  laws and regulations  concerning  the  protection of  life,  body,  property,  and  other  interests of  citizen,  and  thereby to  contribute  to  the  stabilization of  the  general  welfare  of  the  life  of  the  citizens  and  to  the sound  development  of socio economy.


Article 2 

The term “Whistleblowing” as  used  in this  Act  shall  mean  whistleblowing  made by a  worker  (which  shall  mean  worker  as  provided for  in  Article  9 of  the  Labor Standards Act  (Act  No. 49 of 1947);  the same shall apply hereinafter), without a  purpose  of  obtaining an  wrongful  gain, a  purpose  of causing  damages  to others,  or  any other  wrongful  purpose, about Reportable  Fact  that  has been occurred, is being occurred  or  is about to be occurred by “Business Operator” (which  shall  mean any of  the following  business operators (which  shall  mean  juridical person, other  organization  and  individual  who  operates a  business)),  or  such  persons as  officer,  employee  or  agent in  the  workplace  where  the  worker  is occupied in  performing  the  Business Operator’s  business activities, to  the  said  Business Operator  or  the  person  designated by  the  said Business Operator  in advance  (hereinafter  referred to as “Business Operator, etc.”), to an Administrative Organ with  the  authority  to  impose  disposition  (which  shall mean an  order,  rescission,  and  other  acts involving  the  exercise  of  public  authority;  the same shall apply hereinafter)  or  recommendation, etc. (which  shall  mean a  recommendation  and  other  acts which are not  disposition;  the same shall apply hereinafter) upon  the  said  Reportable  Fact,  or  to any  person  who are recognized to be necessary to do  whistleblowing  to  the  said  Reportable  Fact  in  order  to  prevent  the  occurrence  thereof  or  the  spread  of  damage  caused  thereby (including  person  who suffers  or  might suffer  damage  from  the  said  Reportable  Fact, but excluding any  person  who might  cause  damages  to  the  competitive position  or  any other  legitimate interests  of  the Business Operator;  the  same  shall  apply  in Item (iii) of  the  following  Article.).

(i) Business Operator  which  employs  the  said  worker  itself (except  Business Operator  in  the  following Item);

(ii) In  the  case the said  worker  is a  dispatched worker  (which  means  Dispatched  worker  as  provided for  in Item (ii) of  Article  2 of  the  Act on  Securing  the  Proper Operation of Worker Dispatch Business  and  Improvement of Working Conditions for  Dispatched Workers (Act  No. 88 of 1985. Referred to in  Article  4 as “Worker Dispatching  Act”)), Business Operator  which  accepts  the  service  of  worker dispatching (which  means  worker dispatch  provided for  in Item (i) of  the  Article  2 of  the  said  Act;  the  same  shall  apply  in  paragraph  2 of  Article  5);  or

(iii) Business operator  of which  the  said  worker  is in pursuance of  the  business  in  the  case  the  business operator  listed in  the  preceding two Items engages in  work  based on a  contract for work  or  any other  agreement  concluded with  said  business operator.

(2) The term “Whistleblower” as used in this Act shall mean a worker who has done whistleblowing.

(3) The term “Reportable Fact” as used in this Act shall mean any of  the  following  facts:

(i) Fact  of  criminal act  provided for  in  the  Acts (including  the  orders  based on  those  Acts;  the same shall apply to  the  following Item) listed in  the  appendix, concerning  the protection of  interests  such  as  the  protection of  individuals’  lives  and  bodies,  the  protection of  interest  of  the  consumers,  the  conservation of  the  environment,  the  protection of  fair competition,  and  the  protection of  citizen’s  lives, bodies,  property  and  other  interests;  or

(ii) Fact, in  the  case  where a  violation  of a  disposition  pursuant to  the  Act  listed in  the  appendix constitutes  the  fact  provided for  in  the  preceding Item, which is  the  ground of  the  said  disposition  (including  the  fact, in  the  case  where  the  said  ground is  the  fact  which is  the  violation  of other  disposition  or  not complying with  recommendation, etc.  pursuant to  the  Act  listed in  the  appendix, which is  the  ground of  the  said  other  disposition  or  recommendation, etc.).

(4) The term “Administrative Organ” as used  in this  act  shall  mean any of  the  following  organs:

(i) Cabinet Office,  the  Imperial Household  Agency,  organs  provided for  in  Article  49,  paragraph  1  or  2 of  the  Act for Establishment of the Cabinet Office  (Act  No. 89 of 1999),  organs  provided for  in  Article  3,  paragraph  2 of  the  National Government Organization Act  (Act  No. 120 of 1948),  organs  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Cabinet which were  established  pursuant to  laws,  organs  established within one of  these  organs,  or  the  personnel  of  the  above mentioned  organs who are  authorized  by laws to independently  exercise  such  authority;  and,

(ii) Organs (excluding assemblies) of local  public  entities.

(Nullity of Dismissal)

Article 3 

In  the  case  a Whistleblower is  dismissed by  the  business operator  provided for  in Item (i) of Paragraph 1 of  the  preceding  Article  on  the  basis of Whistleblowing  provided for  in each of  the  following Items in  the  respective  case,  the  dismissal  shall be  void:

(i) In  the  case  a Reportable  Fact  is  considered to have occurred, occur  or  be about to occur: Whistleblowing to  the  said  the  Business Operator, etc.;

(ii) In  the  case  there are  reasonable grounds to believe  that  the  Reportable  Fact  has occurred, occurs  or  is about to occur: Whistleblowing to an Administrative Organ with  the  authority  to  impose  Disposition  or  Recommendation, etc.;  or

(iii) In  the  case  there are  reasonable grounds to believe  that  the  Reportable  Fact  has occurred, occurs  or  is about to occur  and  when any of  the  following applies: Whistleblowing to any  person  to whom  such  Whistleblowing is  considered necessary to  prevent  the  occurrence of  the  Reportable  Fact  or  the  spread  of  damage  caused by  the  Reportable  Fact:

(a) In  the  case  the  Whistleblower has  reasonable grounds to believe  that  he/she  will  receive  dismissal  or  other  disadvantageous  treatment  if he/she does  whistleblowing  as  provided for  in  the  preceding two Items;

(b) In  the  case  the  Whistleblower has  reasonable grounds to believe  that  the  evidence  pertaining to  the  Reportable  fact  might be  concealed,  counterfeited,  or  altered if he/she does  whistleblowing  as  provided for  in Item (i);

(c) In  the  case  the  Whistleblower was  requested by  the  Business Operator, without any  justifiable reason, not to blow a whistle  provided for  in  the  preceding two Items;

(d) In  the  case  the  Whistleblower does not  receive  notice  from  the  said  Business Operator, etc., about  the  commencement  of an  investigation  on  the  Reportable  fact within twenty days from  the  day of  the  Whistleblowing  provided for  in Item (i) made in writing (including a  record  made by an electronic  method, a magnetic  method,  or  any other  method  not recognizable to human senses.;  the same shall apply to  Article  9),  or  the  said  Business operator, etc. does not  investigate without any  justifiable reason;  or

(e) In  the  case  the  Whistleblower has a  justifiable reason  to believe  that  some  damage  to  the  life  or  body  of an  individual  is  caused  or  about to be  caused.

(Nullity of the Cancellation of a Worker Dispatch Contract)

Article 4 

In  the  case  the  Whistleblower is a  dispatched worker  working  under  the  direction  of  the  business operator  as  provided for  in Item (ii) of Paragraph 1 of  Article  2,  the  cancellation  of  the  worker dispatch contract  (which  means  a  worker dispatch contract  provided for  in Paragraph 1 of  Article  26 of  the  Dispatched Worker  Act) on  the basis of Whistleblowing  provided for  in  the  Items of  the  preceding  Article  shall be  void.

(Prohibition of Disadvantageous Treatment)

Article 5 

In  addition  to  Article  3,  the  business operator  provided for  in Item (i) of Paragraph 1 of  Article  2  shall not  give  any  disadvantageous  treatment  such  as  demotion, a  salary  cut  or  other  treatment  to Whistleblower who is  or  was its  employee  on  the  basis of  such  Whistleblowing as  provided for  in  the  Items of  Article  3.

(2) In  addition  to  such  disadvantageous  treatment  as  provided for  in  the  preceding  Article,  such  business operator  as  provided for  in Item (ii) of Paragraph 1 of  Article  2  shall not  give  any  disadvantageous  treatment,  such  as asking  the  business operator  dispatching  the  Whistleblower to  replace  him/her with another  dispatched worker, to Whistleblower who is a  dispatched worker  working  under  the  direction  of  the  business operator  on  the  basis of  such  Whistleblowing as  provided for  in  the  Items of  Article3.

(Provision on Construction)

Article 6 

The  provisions of  the  preceding three  Articles  shall not preclude  the  application  of  the  provisions of other  laws and regulations  (which  shall  mean  Acts  and  orders  based on  Acts;  the same shall apply to  Paragraph 1 of  Article  10)  that  prohibit  a  dismissal  or  any other  disadvantageous  treatment  of  worker  or  dispatched worker  on  the basis of  the  fact  that  the  worker  has blown a whistle  pertaining to  the  Reportable  Fact.

(2) The  provisions of  the  Article  3  shall not preclude  the  application  of  the  provision  of  Article  18-2 of  the  Labor Standards Act.

(Treatment of National Public Employees in the Regular Service)

Article 7 

Notwithstanding  the  provisions of  Article  3 to  Article  5,  the  prohibition  of  dismissal  or  any other  disadvantageous  treatment  of  the  national public officers in  the regular service,  court  officers to whom  the  Act on Temporary Measures  concerning Court Officer (Act  No. 299 of 1951) is applicable, Diet  officers to whom  the  Diet Officers Act  (Act  No. 85 of 1947) is applicable, SDF  personnel  specified in Paragraph 5 of  Article  2 of  the  Self-Defense Forces Act  (Act  No. 165 of 1954),  and  local public officers in  the  regular service  (referred to as “National Public Officers in  the  Regular Service, etc.” in this  Article) on  the  basis of Whistleblowing  provided for  in Items of  Article  3  shall be  governed by  the  provision  of  the  National Public Officer  Act  (Act  No. 120 of 1947,  including the cases where it is applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to  the  Act on Temporary Measures  concerning Court Officer),  Diet Officers ActSelf-Defense Forces Act,  and  Local Public Officers  Act  (Act  No. 261 of 1950). In this  case,  the  appointer  of National Public Officers in  the  Regular Service, etc.,  and  any other  business operator  provided for  in Item (i) of Paragraph 1 of  Article  2  shall apply  the  provisions of  these  Acts in  order  to  prevent  dismissal  or  any other  disadvantageous  treatment  of any National Public Officers in  the  Regular Service, etc., on  the bases of  the  Whistleblowing as  provided for  in  the  Items of  Article  3.

(Respect of Justifiable Interests, etc., of Others)

Article 8 

Any  worker  who is to do  whistleblowing  as  provided for  in  the  Items of  Article  3  shall  make efforts not to  damage  the  justifiable  interests of others  and  the  public interests.

(Notice of Remedial measure, etc.)

Article 9 

Any  business operator  which  receives Whistleblowing made in writing as  provided for  in Item (i) of  Article  3 from a Whistleblower  shall  make efforts to  notifythe  Whistleblower,  without delay,  that  the  business operator  has  taken  measures to stop  the  Reportable  Fact  or  other  necessary measure  to rectify  or  that  the  business operator  has not discovered  the  Reportable  Fact  pertaining to  the  said  Whistleblowing.

(Measures That Should Be Taken By the Administrative Agency)

Article 10 

Any Administrative Organ which  receives Whistleblowing as  provided for  in Item (ii) of  Article  3 from a Whistleblower  shall  conduct  the  necessary  investigations,  and  if  such  investigations  confirm  the  existence  of  the  Reportable  Fact,  the  Administrative Organ  shall  take  appropriate measures  such  as  the  measures required by  laws and regulations.

(2) In  the  case  the  Whistleblowing  provided for  in  the  preceding Paragraph is about  criminal act  as  provided for  in Item (i) of Paragraph 3 of  Article  2,  provisions of  the Code of Criminal Procedure  (Act  No. 131 of 1948)  shall  apply  to  the  criminal  investigation  and  prosecution,  notwithstanding the provision of  the  preceding Paragraph.


Article 11 

When an Administrative Organ  receives Whistleblowing  provided for  in Paragraph 1 of  the  preceding  Article, if  the  Administrative Organ is not  authorized  to  impose  a  disposition  or  a  recommendation, etc. about  the  Reportable  Fact  pertaining to  said  Whistleblowing,  the  said  Administrative Organ  shall  inform  the  said Whistleblower to Administrative Organ which has  the  authority  to  impose  a  disposition  or  a  recommendation, etc. about  the  Reportable  Fact  pertaining to  said Whistleblowing.

Supplementary Provisions

(Effective Date)

Article 1 

This  Act  shall  come into  force  as from  the  day  provided for  in a cabinet  order, which  shall be  set within two years from  the day of promulgation,  and  apply  to Whistleblowing made on  and  after  the  effective date.


Article 2 

Approximately five years after this  Act  comes into  force,  the  Government  shall  examine  the  state  of  enforcement  of this  Act  and  shall  take  necessary measures based upon those  results.

Attached List  (related to Article 2 hereof)

(i) Penal Code  (Act  No. 45 of 1907)

(ii) Food Sanitation Act  (Act  No. 233 of 1947)

(iii) Securities Trade  Act  (Act  No. 25 of 1948)

(iv) Act  Concerning Standardization  and  Proper Labeling on Quality of Agricultural  and  Forestry Products (Act  No. 175 of 1950)

(v) Air Pollution Control Act  (Act  No. 97 of 1968)

(vi) Waste Disposal  and  Cleaning  Act  (Act  No. 137 of 1970)

(vii) Act on the Protection of Personal Information  (Act  No. 57 of 2003)

(viii) Any  Acts other than those  provided for  in  the  preceding Items  that  are  provided for  in a cabinet  order  as  Acts concerning  the  protection of  interests  such  as  the protection of  individuals’  lives  and  bodies,  the  protection of  interest  of  the  consumers,  the  conservation of  the  environment,  the  protection of  fair competition,  and  theprotection of  citizen’s  lives, bodies,  property  and  other  interests. “

1 OAS brings together all 35 independent states of the Americas and constitutes the main political, juridical, and social governmental forum in the Hemisphere. In addition, it has granted permanent observer status to 69 states, including the European Union (EU).

2 Continental organisation consisting of all 55 countries on the African continent.

4 See Transparency International Australia, the University of Melbourne and the Griffith University action plan.

5 Idem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 − 1 =