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?

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

Bok

1 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

Ma

8 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

14 days ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Stefania

17 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

Brandee

24 hours ago

Agreed, breaching anonymity is a serious violation.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

5 days ago

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

upvoted 0 times

...

Ammie

18 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

19 days ago

A) The bank was fined a substantial sum

upvoted 0 times

...

Ciara

29 days ago

B) No further action - nothing happened

upvoted 0 times

...

Nidia

1 months 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