MENU
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?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium L3M2 Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
The statement is false.
CIPS actively campaigns against modern slavery anywhere in the world.
34 comments · newest first
VI
Vicente
11 months ago
I’m surprised they even tried to find out who it was!
CA
Catalina
11 months ago
No way the CEO would go to prison for this!
MO
Mohammad
12 months ago
Really? I doubt they'd close the bank down over this.
LA
Lavelle
12 months ago
Totally agree, a hefty fine seems likely.
KE
Kenny
1 year ago
I think the bank would get fined a lot.
DO
Donte
1 year ago
I wonder if they would actually close down the bank or imprison the CEO; that seems extreme, but I guess anything is possible.
JE
Jeannetta
1 year ago
This reminds me of a case study we did where a bank faced severe penalties for similar actions, so I lean towards A as well.
TA
Tandra
1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like they wouldn't just let it slide, so option B seems unlikely.
LU
Luisa
1 year ago
I remember discussing how regulatory authorities often impose fines for breaches like this, so I think option A could be likely.
TE
Teddy
1 year ago
I'm a bit stumped on this one. The question doesn't provide much detail on the specific circumstances or the severity of the breach. Without more information, it's hard for me to confidently predict the authorities' likely response. I'll have to make an educated guess, but I'm not feeling super certain about any of the answer choices.
CA
Carmela
1 year ago
Okay, let me think this through step-by-step. The key facts are that the bank's CEO tried to identify a whistleblower, which violated the bank's internal protocol guaranteeing anonymity. This is a serious breach, so I imagine the authorities would want to send a strong message. Closing down the bank or imprisoning the CEO both seem a bit extreme, so I'm leaning towards the bank being fined.
TE
Temeka
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question mentions both the UK and US authorities taking action, so I'm not sure if the answer would be the same in both countries. I'll need to think carefully about the potential differences in how they might respond.
EL
Elenor
1 year ago
This seems like a straightforward question about the consequences of a bank breaching its own whistleblower policy. I'm pretty confident the correct answer is A - the bank would likely be fined a substantial sum by the regulatory authorities.
BO
Bok
1 year 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.
RI
Ria
1 year ago
B) No further action - nothing happened - that would send the wrong message about protecting whistleblowers.
MA
Ma
1 year ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - it sets a precedent for other banks to respect whistleblower anonymity.
WI
Willodean
1 year ago
C) The bank was closed down - they should face severe consequences for violating whistleblower protection protocols.
ST
Stefania
1 year ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - that's the appropriate punishment for trying to unmask a whistleblower.
VE
Verdell
1 year 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!
DO
Doyle
1 year 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.
BR
Brandee
1 year ago
Agreed, breaching anonymity is a serious violation.
LI
Lindsey
1 year ago
Yeah, that seems fair. They shouldn't have tried to reveal the whistleblower's identity.
AM
Ammie
1 year ago
I think A) The bank was fined a substantial sum is a likely outcome.
BL
Blondell
2 years 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.
AL
Alfred
1 year ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum
CI
Ciara
1 year ago
B) No further action - nothing happened
NI
Nidia
1 year ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum
CH
Chuck
2 years 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.
VA
Vallie
1 year ago
D) The Chief Executive was imprisoned
JU
Junita
1 year ago
C) The bank was closed down
WH
Whitney
1 year ago
A) The bank was fined a substantial sum
SK
Skye
2 years ago
I'm not sure, but I think the Chief Executive being imprisoned could also be a possibility.
PH
Phung
2 years ago
I agree with Mattie, breaching anonymity is a serious issue that should be penalized.
MA
Mattie
2 years ago
I think the most likely action would be the bank getting fined.