Eye on Economic Crime: UK Government Launches Landmark Consultation on Whistleblowing Reform and SFO Financial Incentives Scheme

On 12 October 2026, the UK Government Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (working with the Serious Fraud Office ("SFO") and the Home Office) published a consultation on reform of the UK whistleblowing framework, including, importantly, seeking views on the design of a scheme to financially reward individuals who report economic crime to the SFO. The consultation is described by the Government as its most comprehensive assessment of whistleblowing since the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 ("PIDA"). We set out below the key proposals and what they mean for companies. Responses to the consultation are due by 8 January 2027.

WHY REFORM, AND WHY NOW?

The SFO reward proposals follow Jonathan Fisher KC's recommendations in Part Two of his Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences (July 2026).When PIDA came into force in 1999, the UK framework was considered world-leading. Since then, the 2019 EU Whistleblowing Directive and the success of financial incentive schemes in the US¹ have prompted calls for a fundamental review.

A FINANCIAL REWARD SCHEME FOR SFO WHISTLEBLOWERS

Throughout his tenure, then-DSFO Nick Ephgrave called for the introduction of a whistleblower incentivisation scheme in the UK, noting (in a point echoed by Jonathan Fisher KC) that more than 700 UK nationals have reported potential misconduct to US authorities since 2012. The Government has now made clear that it supports the introduction of an SFO whistleblower incentivisation scheme. Under the proposals, information must be "significant and original" and lead to a successful enforcement outcome against a company, such as a conviction or Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA"). Rewards would be funded from a percentage of the resulting financial penalty and paid only once the case has concluded and all appeal rights have been exhausted. The consultation also asks whether, for a DPA, payment should await the company's full payment of its penalty. Eligibility would not depend on making a protected disclosure, so non-workers could qualify. In the consultation, the Government asks many questions that have been considered in the formulation of US whistleblower schemes, including whether rewards should be uncapped, whether rewards may be shared between multiple whistleblowers, and whether those with a legal duty to report, or who were culpable, should be excluded. Views are also sought on Jonathan Fisher KC's proposed criminal offences of knowingly making false reports and of harassing or intimidating SFO whistleblowers, and on an independent arbitration panel for appeals.

This proposed financial reward scheme for SFO whistleblowers follows:

the "Strengthened Reward Scheme" launched last year by HM Revenue and Customs which incentivises informants to report serious tax avoidance or evasion to HMRC; and

the increase in informant reward now offered by the Competition and Markets Authority for information about unlawful cartel activity.

REFORMING THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT FRAMEWORK

Who is protected. Stakeholders have called for whistleblower protection to be extended to charity trustees, non-executive directors, volunteers, job applicants outside the NHS and certain self-employed individuals. The Government's initial view is that volunteers may not merit protection, but that certain self-employed individuals may have a stronger case.

Public interest test and categories of wrongdoing. The Government does not propose to remove the public interest test, but asks whether further government guidance is needed. It also asks whether the existing categories of wrongdoing adequately capture risks arising from AI technologies and corruption-related concerns such as the misuse of public funds.

Disclosure routes. Views are sought on removing the requirement that a worker reasonably believes a disclosure to a regulator or other "prescribed person" is "substantially true", and on creating a new protected route for disclosures to trade unions.

Mandatory policies and procedures. Perhaps the most significant proposal for employers is a possible statutory duty (Option 2) to maintain effective whistleblowing procedures and a policy, and to follow up on disclosures, either alongside or instead of revised non-statutory guidance (Option 1). The duty could be modelled on Ireland's regime (which implements the EU Directive) or the FCA's SYSC 18 rules. If either model were followed, the Government would consider applying the duty to private-sector employers (including charities and not-for-profits) with 50 or more employees and to all public-sector employers regardless of size, potentially phasing it in and possibly excluding firms already subject to equivalent rules. Non-compliance would attract civil rather than criminal penalties, and the Government asks whether enforcement should sit with a designated government body rather than depend on individual workers bringing Employment Tribunal claims.

Interim relief. The consultation asks whether the seven-day deadline to apply for interim relief should be extended to 14 days, as some stakeholders have suggested that the statutory seven-day period makes it difficult in practice for whistleblowing claimants to access interim relief, particularly given the need to obtain legal advice and prepare an application within a very short timeframe. The consultation notes a sharp recent rise in applications (regional offices now receive around 20 a month, mostly in whistleblowing cases, against roughly 20 a year historically), which the consultation suggests may be linked to the growing use of AI in preparing claims.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMPANIES

Taken together, these proposals point towards a more formal, regulated approach to whistleblowing in the UK, and can be expected to lead to an increase in whistleblower-driven investigations by UK authorities who are armed with more "failure to prevent" offences to prosecute than ever before. Organisations may wish to respond to the consultation before it closes on 8 January 2027, but at a minimum, companies should review their internal reporting policies, procedures, and training now with particular attention to employee awareness, confidentiality, acknowledgement, follow-up and feedback, so as to maximise the likelihood that employees will report internally rather than seek the prospect of financial rewards through an external report. The desirability of such internal reporting is immense: it better enables companies to evaluate the reported conduct before law enforcement contact and scrutiny, and it preserves companies' ability to self-report the conduct to authorities should they wish to pursue the benefits that can be associated with doing so. For the same reasons, companies will also want to ensure their monitoring and detection capabilities are optimised to identify potential misconduct as promptly as possible. Once a whistleblower incentivisation scheme is in place in the UK, companies will have a far narrower window for evaluation and response to internal misconduct, and the time to prepare is now.

The Mayer Brown team is closely monitoring these developments and is well placed to advise companies in all sectors on the implications for their business.

---

¹ See Mayer Brown's Insights: FinCEN’s Proposed Whistleblower Program: A Sea Change in AML and Sanctions Enforcement;  US Department of Justice Whistleblower Award Program Goes Live; and DOJ Antitrust Division Launches Whistleblower Rewards Program.