CIPS L3M2 Exam - 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?

AThe bank was fined a substantial sum

BNo further action - nothing happened

CThe bank was closed down

DThe Chief Executive was imprisoned

Show Suggested 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

Vicente

3 months ago

I’m surprised they even tried to find out who it was!

upvoted 0 times

...

Catalina

3 months ago

No way the CEO would go to prison for this!

upvoted 0 times

...

Mohammad

3 months ago

Really? I doubt they'd close the bank down over this.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lavelle

4 months ago

Totally agree, a hefty fine seems likely.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kenny

4 months ago

I think the bank would get fined a lot.

upvoted 0 times

...

Donte

4 months ago

I wonder if they would actually close down the bank or imprison the CEO; that seems extreme, but I guess anything is possible.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jeannetta

4 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tandra

4 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like they wouldn't just let it slide, so option B seems unlikely.

upvoted 0 times

...

Luisa

5 months ago

I remember discussing how regulatory authorities often impose fines for breaches like this, so I think option A could be likely.

upvoted 0 times

...

Teddy

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carmela

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Temeka

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elenor

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Bok

9 months 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

Ria

8 months ago

B) No further action - nothing happened - that would send the wrong message about protecting whistleblowers.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ma

9 months ago

A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - it sets a precedent for other banks to respect whistleblower anonymity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Willodean

9 months ago

C) The bank was closed down - they should face severe consequences for violating whistleblower protection protocols.

upvoted 0 times

...

Stefania

9 months ago

A) The bank was fined a substantial sum - that's the appropriate punishment for trying to unmask a whistleblower.

upvoted 0 times

...

Verdell

9 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

10 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

Brandee

8 months ago

Agreed, breaching anonymity is a serious violation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

8 months ago

Yeah, that seems fair. They shouldn't have tried to reveal the whistleblower's identity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ammie

9 months ago

I think A) The bank was fined a substantial sum is a likely outcome.

upvoted 0 times

...

Blondell

10 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

9 months ago

A) The bank was fined a substantial sum

upvoted 0 times

...

Ciara

9 months ago

B) No further action - nothing happened

upvoted 0 times

...

Nidia

9 months ago

A) The bank was fined a substantial sum

upvoted 0 times

...

Chuck

10 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