Sarbanes-Oxley, as you know, came with some whistleblower protections that have been in the news since the legislation became law. We noted recently the interesting cases of whistleblowers (whistleblower news) against Fidelity Investments (Fidelity news) and BB&T. It's still too early to be able to say definitely whether whistleblowers will fare better in the current administration, though there are signs of stepped up enforcement.

But there are reasons to think that whistleblowers who come forward have a much better chance than anonymous whistleblowers. Researchers from Bentley College and the University of New Hampshire have studied this and have concluded that subconscious biases influence directors charged with investigating whistleblower allegations, causing them to give less credibility to anonymous tips than to reports with names attached to them, and to be less inclined to investigate when the allegations pose a significant threat to their reputation, according to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

You have to wonder if even named whistleblowers are given significantly better treatment. One issue identified by the study is the extent to which the directors in charge of the probe are likely to be embarrassed. The bottom line is that blowing the whistle is never easy. 

For more:
- here's an article

Related Articles:
Whistleblowers taking aim at Fidelity, BB&T and others
Bank whistleblower scores a victory
Whistleblower issues still abound
Interesting ruling in whistleblower case