Shopping a corrupt employer -would you?

[whistleblowerswife]

Have name changed.

Dh was recently made redundant from a public sector organisation. During his time there, he was aware of a lot of dodgy dealings by senior managers and downright corruption and cover up. Examples included chief exec and his henchmen awarding large contracts to friends and taking back-handers, said friends continuing to be paid unexplained sums even when contracts had been terminated, work travel expenses for family holidays, certain people (e.g. finance director) being awarded large pay increases for their silence.

Chief exec is now suspended and dh has now been asked by Public Audit Office if he would like to tell them anything. He would. The problem is that he has no concrete evidence. All the info he has is based on the work rumour mill and there is nothing he can exactly tell them for definite. Anything he does say will sound like sour grapes as he was made redundant because he knew too much.

So, could dh get in trouble himself for not speaking out sooner?
Could dh get in trouble for spreading malicious gossip if some of it's not true?
Could he find word bad spread around against him and affect his chances of future employment?

Am very conflicted about this and as much as I want him to get some revenge on the bastards, I also want him to be able to walk away from a poisonous atmosphere with his head held high and forget the battles.

What would you do if it was you?

Is it possible he could give them info anonymously that might point them in the right direction?

If I was your DH I would write down everything I could think of, rough dates, any names he can remember. Even if it's not exact it will provide clues of where the Audit Office can look for concrete evidence.

I don't think it sounds like sour grapes - especially if the Audit Office have requested the information. Can he do this and still maintain a low profile?

if he has been asked to do so - i think he should. the information he gives - even if anecdoctal will be able to lead then to the right documentation or computer files or just point them where to look.

as he has no concrete evidence - this is his defence - exactly what you said - he didn't think any one would believe him and he has no concrete proof

Agree with Custado. Without evidence it's just gossip, but the investigators can use the information he supplies to focus their enquiries.

without evidence it is just gossip, but with gossip, evidence can be found if there is anything to be found.

Your husband should differentiate between what he knows (roumour) and what he saw or heard or expereinced himself.

If he was aware of others who have experienced stuff he should pass on those names, rather than try and give a third hand account.

I would whistleblow. But i also appreciate that there are consequences to acting and not acting, so it just depends on what type of person your DH is.

Thanks. Food for thought.

He couldn't remain anonymous with the Audit Office - they've actually contacted him at home. He has written it all out in a long email in which he has named names and is debating whether to send.

The main 'culprit' was a real smoothy charmer and very clever not to sign things or email anything incriminating. He'd get the henchmen to do that. The evidence will really be an absence of evidence e.g. the proper processes of competitive tendering completed before awarding contracts. A lot of this could have been covered up with a backdated paper trail now that the heat is on.

"A lot of this could have been covered up with a backdated paper trail now that the heat is on."

Which any auditor worth their salt will be able to take to pieces.