Connect with us

News

Wirecard whistleblower slams new German law

Published

on

Wirecard whistleblower slams new German law

The Wirecard insider who exposed the fraud that led to its collapse has attacked Germany’s whistleblower protection law, dismissing fines for non-compliance as a “slap on the wrist” and lamenting its failure to force companies to offer anonymous reporting channels to staff.

“It’s just crazy, because it’s thrown cold water on the objective of the whole thing,” Pav Gill told the Financial Times ahead of the Tuesday launch of his start-up, Confide. “Most whistleblowing is anonymous because of the real fear of reprisal and exposure.”

His comments come as whistleblowing and governance are in focus on both sides of the Atlantic. A recent US Supreme Court ruling has made it harder for companies to retaliate against whistleblowers.

Gill was a lawyer inside Wirecard when the German payments group was valued at €24bn and regarded as Europe’s most promising technology business. He was forced out after trying to investigate internal complaints of forged documents and suspect payments in Singapore. Helped by his mother, he blew the whistle, providing the FT with files that led to the unravelling of Wirecard’s accounting fraud in 2020.

The scandal gave impetus to an EU whistleblowing directive issued in 2019 that has since been implemented in a patchwork of laws across the bloc that all came into force by December, creating the opportunity for Confide to assist the half-million companies rushing to comply.

Advertisement

As with rules about data and online surveillance, or climate impact reporting, Europe sets standards for corporate behaviour that impose costs beyond its borders. “The EU’s biggest export industry is regulation,” joked Singaporean Gill, who is establishing Confide’s EU base in The Hague, a centre of international justice, with support from the city’s development agency.

Under the directive, companies with more than 50 staff must have channels to facilitate, log, assess and, where appropriate, investigate complaints, while some classes of business, such as those in finance or at risk of money laundering, must do so regardless of size. The tasks involved can be outsourced.

Confide’s platform allows whistleblowers to anonymously report complaints and respond to queries, offering companies secure case management, reporting and a paper trail to demonstrate compliance.

Gill contrasted Spain’s approach, which includes fines of up to €1mn for serious offences, with that of Germany where the maximum fine is just €50,000.

Passage of the defanged German law resulted from a political compromise after conservative opposition to the scope of initial legislation and its potential cost on business. Danyal Bayaz, a Green politician, said: “It seems that the memories from the Wirecard scandal are fading quickly not only among those accused of fraud.”

Advertisement

Pressure group Transparency International has argued that implementation fell short of the directive’s aims across Europe, with “a lack of general protection for whistleblowers who report corruption, and no obligation to examine their reports in several EU countries”, and that none of 20 countries examined “fully meets best practice”.

Confide, which offers encrypted channels and services for investigating and categorising complaints, highlights tensions in regulations that harden protections for whistleblowers in some countries, while also giving boardrooms greater opportunity to address issues in private.

“I want to help companies to have less Pavs out there, to have less of me,” said Gill. “If you have something workable, trustable in place, then you will have less external whistleblowing cases.”

He added: “I’ve been through it on both sides of the spectrum, I’ve sat from the general counsel side and I’ve seen how companies always struggle in dealing with misconduct issues when they are raised, how poorly it’s managed.”

“When you’re talking to people that actually use these systems, like a big mining company or a big oil and gas company, they are just completely inundated with thousands of these reports a month: ranging from ‘there is not enough coffee in the pantry’, to delayed shipments, procurement concerns, vendor concerns — but also real stuff like potential criminal, potential money laundering concerns.”

Advertisement

His pitch is not about empowering the rank and file. “Frankly, not many companies like that,” he said. “They may lip-service it, but it’s always seen as employees versus us.”

Instead, he frames it as “an early detection tool to suss out what’s going on” — and he accepts that unscrupulous leaders could benefit as they did at Wirecard.

At the German group, he said, “they created this hotline after I was investigating them, and the scary thing is that it was going straight to Jan Marsalek” — a senior executive with ties to Russian intelligence who remains on the run.

Hence the importance of anonymity. “You could be the most fraudulent company like Wirecard. What it allows them is to see how visible the fraud is to their own employees and vendors. The only difference now is they can’t go take revenge because they don’t know who they are,” he said.

An audit trail for internal concerns might also make it harder for senior executives to argue — like former Wirecard chief executive Markus Braun has in his ongoing criminal trial — that they were blind to issues inside the companies they ran.

Advertisement

Confide is raising seed capital, after initial funding from angel investors, and Gill is going after a market in which the “G” in ESG starts to receive the sort of attention and demands for reporting that has forced companies to account for their environmental and societal impact. “Whether it’s FTX, Boeing, the Post Office scandal, or even Wirecard, they are all governance failures,” he said.

Highlighting recrimination at Boeing, following a series of manufacturing and safety issues, Gill said: “A possible idea is that shareholders have access to whistleblowing reports. That would be a very powerful stick from a check and balance point of view.”

News

See All of Trump’s Changes to the White House So Far

Published

on

See All of Trump’s Changes to the White House So Far

In a year, the president has altered 10 spaces in the White House.

For generations, each American president has left his stamp on the White House. But in just a year of his second term, President Trump has overseen a collection of changes that is unprecedented in scale, speed and cost.

Some changes are cosmetic, while others are structural. As with his executive style, he has broken long-held norms in his makeover of the “People’s House.” Critics have questioned Mr. Trump’s demolition of the East Wing before gaining approvals, and the administration is under legal pressure over plans to build a ballroom in its place.

Advertisement

It is difficult to know the full price tag of the renovations, but they come at a time when cost of living and inflation are top of mind for many Americans. Mr. Trump has said that he is personally paying for some projects, and that he and his donors would foot the bill for the $400 million ballroom.

Here are the 10 areas he transformed.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump is not done yet.

In an interview with The Times this month, he said that designs were being drawn up for a second level on top of the West Colonnade. Called the “Upper West Wing,” it would hold offices for West Wing aides and “future first ladies.”

Advertisement

Photo credits

Advertisement

Cover: Doug Mills/The New York Times

Cabinet Room: Drew Angerer/The New York Times and Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

Oval Office: Dirck Halstead/Getty Images, Eric Draper/The White House, via National Archives, Doug Mills/The New York Times and Bruce White, via White House Historical Association

Oval Office study: David Valdez/The White House, via National Archives, Pete Souza/The White House and Doug Mills/The New York Times

West Colonnade: Doug Mills/The New York Times and Elizabeth Frantz for The New York Times

Advertisement

Rose Garden: Doug Mills/The New York Times and Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Palm Room: Jack E. Boucher/Historic American Buildings Survey, via Library of Congress and Doug Mills/The New York Times

Advertisement

Flagpoles: Doug Mills/The New York Times

Lincoln Bathroom: Andrea Hanks/The White House and Doug Mills/The New York Times

Entrance Hall: Doug Mills/The New York Times and Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Advertisement

East Wing Ballroom: Detroit Publishing Co., via Library of Congress, Kevin Carter/Getty Images, Doug Mills/The New York Times, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images and Bettmann Archive, via Getty Images

Continue Reading

News

Donald Trump walks back comments about UK soldiers in Afghanistan

Published

on

Donald Trump walks back comments about UK soldiers in Afghanistan

Donald Trump has said UK soldiers who fought in Afghanistan were “among the greatest of all warriors” after previously drawing criticism for his claims that Nato troops stayed away from the frontlines during the conflict.

In a post on social media on Saturday, the US president said: “The great and very brave soldiers of the United Kingdom will always be with the United States of America.

“In Afghanistan, 457 died, many were badly injured, and they were among the greatest of all warriors.

“It’s a bond too strong to ever be broken. The UK military, with tremendous heart and soul, is second to none (except for the USA). We love you all, and always will!”

The post came a day after Trump was criticised for his remarks that Nato allied troops “stayed a little off the frontlines” in Afghanistan.

Advertisement

Keir Starmer raised the comments directly with the US president in a conversation on Saturday, No 10 said.

A Downing Street spokesperson said:

“The prime minister spoke to the president of the United States, Donald Trump, this afternoon.

“The prime minister raised the brave and heroic British and American soldiers who fought side by side in Afghanistan, many of whom never returned home. We must never forget their sacrifice, he said.

“As Ukraine approaches the fourth year of war since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the leaders agreed on the need to see progress towards a sustainable ceasefire.

Advertisement

“Whilst diplomatic efforts continue, the prime minister reiterated that international partners must continue to support Ukraine in its defence against Putin’s barbaric attacks.

“The leaders also discussed the need for bolstered security in the Arctic, and the prime minister said it was an absolute priority for his government.

“The leaders discussed the importance of the UK-US relationship, which continues to stand the test of time.

“They agreed to speak soon.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Videos From Minnesota Show How Aggressive ICE Has Gotten During Arrests and Encounters With Protesters

Published

on

Videos From Minnesota Show How Aggressive ICE Has Gotten During Arrests and Encounters With Protesters

Clockwise from top left: Monica Bicking, via Storyful; Status Coup News, via Storyful; Brendan Gutenschwager, via Storyful; and Level Up with Gene and Jay, via Facebook.

Advertisement

Federal immigration agents have broken windows and dragged occupants out of their vehicles. They have forcefully tackled people to the ground. They have pushed and shoved protesters, and deployed pepper spray directly in their faces.

For weeks, residents have documented the scenes unfolding as federal agents pursue President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. The videos have circulated widely and intensified outrage and fear among many Minnesotans.

Marty Kurcias, 76, who was protesting at the airport on Friday, said the aggressive treatment he has seen of Minnesotans was jarring. “It can’t go on like this,” he said, adding, “We don’t abide by cruelty or violence.”

Advertisement

Trump administration officials have defended the tactics as necessary in the face of widespread protests. But the heavy-handed use of force has drawn mounting scrutiny.

The New York Times reviewed dozens of videos taken in recent weeks and identified multiple aggressive tactics that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents used during immigration arrests and in encounters with protesters.

Advertisement

Officers forcibly entered homes without a judge’s warrant.

On Sunday, federal agents were seen dragging a man from his home in St. Paul. The man was later identified as ChongLy Scott Thao, a Hmong immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen with no criminal record, according to his family. Mr. Thao and his family said that the armed agents did not present a warrant or allow him to show identification at the time of arrest.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Mr. Thao refused to be fingerprinted or facially identified and that he had matched the description of two sex offenders they were seeking.

Advertisement

An internal memo, leaked by a whistle-blower group, showed that ICE officials had drafted guidance saying that their officers could enter homes without a judicial warrant and that they could rely instead on administrative warrants that are issued by a government agency and do not go through the federal court system.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the department, acknowledged that officers had relied on administrative warrants to enter homes to conduct arrests.

Advertisement

John Sandweg, who served as an acting director of ICE under President Barack Obama, said the practice of entering homes without a judicial warrant would be a significant departure from decades-old ICE policies and procedures.

They interrogated people because of their ethnicity or accents.

Administration officials have repeatedly said that the operations in Minnesota have targeted violent criminals and people who pose a serious threat to the community. But immigration agents have confronted and interrogated people because of what they assumed their race or ethnicity to be.

Advertisement

A video posted on social media and additional footage provided to The New York Times show one man, Ramon Menera, questioned by immigration agents who told him they were asking for documentation because of his accent.

Mr. Menera told The Times that he is a U.S. citizen and that the agents released him after he provided them with his passport card.

Advertisement

In July, a federal judge prohibited immigration agents in the Los Angeles area from targeting people based on assumptions about their race or ethnicity, but the Supreme Court lifted the order in September.

They broke windows and dragged occupants from their cars.

Immigration agents are taking sharp measures to detain and arrest people. That includes people who do not appear to be a danger to the community and in some cases people who are not the targets of immigration enforcement operations at all.

Advertisement

A widely shared video taken in Minneapolis shows immigration agents dragging a woman, later identified as Aliya Rahman, from her car, after one agent shattered the window on the passenger side.

Advertisement

Brendan Gutenschwager, via Storyful

The Homeland Security department later said that the woman was an “agitator” who ignored multiple commands to move her vehicle away from the scene. Ms. Rahman told CNN that she was not there to protest, and that she had received conflicting commands.

Advertisement

Another video shows one agent breaking the window of a car after a man inside refuses to open the door. Multiple agents then tackle the man, later identified as Orbin Mauricio Henriquez Serrano, to the ground.

Advertisement

Status Coup News/Jon Farina, via Storyful

Shattering a window and pulling someone out of their car can escalate an encounter significantly, said Geoffrey P. Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. It would be suitable only in a situation in which the federal agents had probable cause to suspect that the target had committed a violent crime like murder, rape or robbery, he said.

It was not immediately clear whether the man fit that description. The Homeland Security Department said only that he was an undocumented immigrant from Honduras who failed to obey officers’ orders.

Advertisement

They used force on people who were already restrained.

The Times found multiple instances of several agents tackling someone to the ground and proceeding to handle that person aggressively, in one instance placing a knee on the person’s neck.

Advertisement

In another case, video shows five immigration agents holding a man to the ground as one agent repeatedly strikes the man in the face with his knee.

Advertisement

Monica Bicking, via Storyful

A strike to the head is generally considered deadly force, justified only to defend against imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person, said Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law. “There was nothing in that video that indicated that was the situation,” she said.

The available video does not show what led up to the encounter. Ms. McLaughlin said in a statement to The Times that the man had violently resisted arrest. She added that officers are trained to use the minimum necessary amount of force.

Advertisement

They met protesters with force.

Immigration agents have increasingly clashed with protesters in recent weeks after a federal officer shot and killed a woman, Renee Good, on Jan. 7. Protesters have gathered in small groups and in large crowds, honking car horns, blowing whistles and yelling at and filming ICE agents. Immigration agents have been filmed exchanging insults and jeers with the protesters.

Advertisement

Videos showed multiple cases when agents were quick to use physical force with protesters, shoving or tackling them. In one instance, an agent gets out of a car, walks up to a protester who is standing in front of the agent’s car and shoves him into the middle of the street.

Advertisement

Level Up with Gene and Jay, via Facebook

Ms. Lopez said that the First Amendment gives people the broad right to protest, record and yell things, even profanity, at officers.

In a statement to The Times, Ms. McLaughlin characterized the protesters as “rioters and terrorists,” and said that they had assaulted law enforcement and vandalized federal vehicles.

Advertisement

They deployed chemical irritants at close range.

Videos also documented multiple occasions when, in confrontations with protesters, immigration agents deployed chemical irritants with little to no warning — firing directly in people’s faces.

Advertisement

A federal judge in Minneapolis cited several episodes of “gratuitous deployment of pepper spray” in a ruling last week that ordered agents not to retaliate against peaceful protesters. A federal appeals court temporarily lifted those restrictions on Wednesday.

In a video of a protest taken on Jan. 7 near where Ms. Good was killed, federal agents can be seen on multiple occasions hitting protesters in the face with pepper spray and other irritants at close range. Earlier in the video, one of the protesters throws a snow ball at one of the agents, and some protesters are blocking an agent’s vehicle.

Advertisement

Status Coup News, via Storyful

They continued to operate with anonymity.

Advertisement

In many of the videos The Times reviewed, immigration agents drove in unmarked cars, and wore ski masks, neck gaiters or other face coverings. Many also wore a cap and shades, further obscuring their identities, a practice that has been common in immigration operations across the country.

Federal officials have said that face coverings protect the agents and their families from retaliation, such as having their home address or contact information shared online.

Advertisement

But the practice runs counter to protocols for most other law enforcement personnel, like police officers whose uniforms include badge numbers. And critics have suggested that the agents have been emboldened to act with impunity, knowing that their identities are hidden and that it would be difficult to hold them accountable.

Continue Reading

Trending