Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

CIPS Exam L3M2 Topic 2 Question 27 Discussion

Actual exam question for CIPS's L3M2 exam
Question #: 27
Topic #: 2
[All L3M2 Questions]

Imagine that the Chief Executive of a UK bank attempted to learn the name of a whistleblower within the bank - the whistleblower had earlier reported wrongdoing within the bank to the state banking authorities anonymously. Trying to find the name of the whistleblower was a breach of the organisation's internal protocol which guaranteed anonymity to whistleblowers. Imagine the regula-tory authorities in both the UK and the US took action as a result. What is the most likely action which would be taken by the authorities?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

The statement is false.

CIPS actively campaigns against modern slavery anywhere in the world.


by Emerson at Dec 09, 2024, 06:46 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium L3M2 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Bok
29 days ago
This is a serious breach of protocol. The regulators won't take this lightly. A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - that's the appropriate punishment for trying to unmask a whistleblower.
upvoted 0 times
Ma
5 days ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - it sets a precedent for other banks to respect whistleblower anonymity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willodean
11 days ago
C) The bank was closed down - they should face severe consequences for violating whistleblower protection protocols.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefania
14 days ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - that's the appropriate punishment for trying to unmask a whistleblower.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Verdell
1 months ago
Haha, the CEO must have been sweating trying to find that whistleblower's name. A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - that's the price they pay for breaking the rules!
upvoted 0 times
...
Doyle
1 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. B) No further action seems a bit too lenient, and C) The bank was closed down seems a bit extreme. I'm going to go with A) The bank was fined a substantial sum.
upvoted 0 times
Lindsey
2 days ago
Yeah, that seems fair. They shouldn't have tried to reveal the whistleblower's identity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ammie
15 days ago
I think A) The bank was fined a substantial sum is a likely outcome.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Blondell
1 months ago
Wow, the CEO really messed up here. I'd say A) is the most likely outcome - a hefty fine to send a message and remind everyone that whistleblower anonymity is sacrosanct.
upvoted 0 times
Alfred
16 days ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum
upvoted 0 times
...
Ciara
26 days ago
B) No further action - nothing happened
upvoted 0 times
...
Nidia
29 days ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Chuck
2 months ago
This is clearly a breach of the whistleblower protection protocol. The correct answer is A) The bank was fined a substantial sum. Trying to identify a whistleblower is a major violation.
upvoted 0 times
Vallie
29 days ago
D) The Chief Executive was imprisoned
upvoted 0 times
...
Junita
1 months ago
C) The bank was closed down
upvoted 0 times
...
Whitney
1 months ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Skye
2 months ago
I'm not sure, but I think the Chief Executive being imprisoned could also be a possibility.
upvoted 0 times
...
Phung
2 months ago
I agree with Mattie, breaching anonymity is a serious issue that should be penalized.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mattie
2 months ago
I think the most likely action would be the bank getting fined.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel