How retaliation risk complicates fraud investigations

Sponsored by Thomson Reuters

Retaliation — actual or perceived — can make fraud investigations more complex and less effective.

In this episode of the Journal of Accountancy podcast, Fred Kohm, CPA/CFF, a partner at Grant Thornton, summarizes insights from the latest FVS Eye on Fraud report and explains how nuanced workplace dynamics can affect whistleblower cases. Kohm shares examples of subtle retaliation and explains how forensic accountants, auditors, and other professionals can recognize retaliation risks and strengthen investigative practices.

“Whether you are a forensic accountant, an auditor, or perhaps a CPA in another role …, be aware that retaliation is real,” Kohm said.

Editor’s note: The spring 2026 FVS Eye on Fraud report is available for download at the link above. It becomes exclusive to FVS Section members after July 10.

What you’ll learn from this episode:

• Defining “retaliation” in the context of a whistleblower complaint and investigation.
• Why fear of retaliation can limit the information whistleblowers share.
• How retaliation can show up in subtle ways, from exclusion to heightened scrutiny.
• What makes retaliation a complex challenge for forensic accountants gathering evidence.
• The strategies that Kohm recommends to help organizations reduce retaliation risk.
• Why awareness and objectivity are critical when evaluating fraud allegations.

Play the episode below or read the edited transcript:

— To comment on this episode or to suggest an idea for another episode, contact Neil Amato at Neil.Amato@aicpa-cima.com.

Transcript

Neil Amato: Welcome back to the Journal of Accountancy podcast. This is Neil Amato with the JofA. We’re glad to have you the listener back for another episode. Today, our topic is fraud and specifically the next edition of the FVS Eye on Fraud report. You’ll hear more on that topic right after this word from our sponsor.

[Sponsor message]

Amato: Welcome back to the show. Our guest today is Fred Kohm. Fred is a CPA and partner at Grant Thornton. He’s also a coauthor of the spring edition of the FVS Eye on Fraud report. The title of that report, “Retaliation and Whistleblower Complaints in White-Collar Investigations.” Fred, first, welcome to the podcast. We are glad to have you on.

Fred Kohm: Thanks, Neil. Pleasure being here today.

Amato: To start, let’s set the stage for the topic a bit. I said that the headline, the title of the report is “Retaliation and Whistleblower Complaints in White-Collar Investigations.” What is retaliation in this context?

Kohm: Thanks, Neil. Retaliation, I think when most people think of retaliation, they might think of, say, Webster’s Dictionary version: an eye for an eye, something along that realm. In the context of a whistleblower complaint and an investigation and workplace behavior, retaliation is something that may occur if someone feels like they’ve been wronged, that someone has made an allegation, say, through a whistleblower hotline, and it’s untrue.

In some cases, the individual who the allegation is against might put undue pressure on an individual or make them feel like they’re not part of the team or, in other ways, make them feel like they’re being punished or making that allegation through a hotline or perhaps through their manager or through HR.

Amato: Now this report will be linked in the show notes for this episode. The listeners can get more details on it, and we’re glad to summarize it today. One sentence in that report caught my eye: “Evidence of retaliation can present unique challenges for forensic accountants.” Tell me a little more about that.

Kohm: Retaliation in the context of conducting an investigation for a forensic accountant can create a unique challenge because it can make it difficult to receive the information you’ve requested in order to properly investigate an allegation.

As an example or maybe stated simply, someone might be hesitant to provide you with information directly or perhaps even uncover their identity because they’re afraid of reprisal. They’re afraid that because they’re part of a team and maybe the culture within their workplace wouldn’t allow for someone to speak up, it doesn’t allow for that person to freely share information.

And as a forensic accountant, the data and the information is of extreme value to us as we investigate a wrongdoing. If there is, for instance, an anonymous whistleblower complaint about, say, an employee setting up a fake vendor in order to embezzle money from their employer, if the person making the allegation, calling in the whistleblower complaint, the person who’s speaking up doesn’t provide say enough information, it’s difficult to track that down. The scope of our work might be quite large, and the population of vendors that we look at might be quite large.

The individual that’s speaking up may hesitate providing specific information because they may understand, because they’re close to it, that someone will know that they were the person that spoke up because perhaps they’re within a smaller circle of individuals who know about that information or would have access to it. Retaliation presents that unique challenge to us because when people are afraid for their job, for how people are going to respond to them, they might not share the information that they would otherwise.

Amato: It’s not just retaliation; it’s fear of retaliation. Are there any other subtle ways that retaliation can manifest itself? You’ve mentioned a couple.

Kohm: Yeah. Listen, it can be as subtle as not being invited to meetings that that individual was once invited to, not being part of a group lunch, perhaps being scrutinized more than they would have otherwise in a performance evaluation.

It can change relationships. It can change friendships. It can change opportunities for growth within an organization as well. There are subtle circumstances, and then there are the more obvious, depending on the organization and the culture within a particular organization.

Amato: Right. For organizations, what would you say are three to four strategies to fend off such retaliation against a whistleblower?

Kohm: I think the most important way to fend off retaliation is to have open conversation about it. Most training around avenues to speak up, say, your whistleblower hotline or open channels, open doors to talking to your manager or HR, it might mention retaliation in some of the text and to talk about it and say, “Hey, listen, this is not OK within our organization.”

But I don’t think that’s enough. I think you need to have specific examples within your training. I’ve seen best-in-class organizations when it comes to compliance and ethics have role play around “this is not OK.” Then also celebrating people that speak up and share what may be happening in an organization isn’t right if they see it.

There’s the obvious. To have it included in your training decks and have it talked about. But really, best in class is making sure that it’s talked about and that people that speak up are celebrated because it is for the betterment of the organization when people want an ethical workplace.

Amato: Is that the type of question that a forensic accountant in an investigation might ask? Meaning, hey, let’s talk some about your company’s emphasis on having anonymity ensured; for example. I don’t know what you think about that question. That’s me being new to this topic and you being the one who has the expertise. Go ahead.

Kohm: In the context of an investigation, conversation around retaliation would not be part of, say, an initial interview script for me. If I’m talking to someone to try and understand, speaking with someone who I think is the whistleblower or who isn’t anonymous and has come forward and spoken up and is the whistleblower, that isn’t normally where the conversation resides.

It’s a narrow scope. What are you investigating? What are you looking into and trying to uncover whether what is being alleged has occurred? Where retaliation typically comes to light is during those conversations, though, you can read it on someone’s face. How uncomfortable they are talking about something or that they might share, I’m not being included in this anymore, or I’m no longer part of these particular meetings.

I had a matter a number of years ago, and I felt awful for the individual. A CFO had just started in a role, was there for about nine months, and you saw some things that he did not like. Being from the outside and joining the organization he wasn’t part of, say, the team as of yet. He was obviously in a leadership role, part of the executive group. But it was a very collegial atmosphere. I could tell as I started the engagement in the investigation, you can just see how uncomfortable it was for him after making the allegations that he did. The things that I mentioned earlier were what were occurring with him.

He was no longer part of meetings that he was when he first started. Being scrutinized around just about every call that he was making by the CEO and those on the board just really made it a difficult situation for him. It was more subtle, but it was obvious retaliation in that instance.

In the context of an investigation, we may talk a little bit about tone at the top. We want to get a feel for the culture within an organization. But it’s not a specific question around has retaliation occurred. That’s not something we typically ask, say, out of the gates within an interview.

Amato: Got it. Thank you. Going back to that one sentence from earlier, we’ve talked about some of the obstacles that a whistleblower faces. What are some of the challenges specifically for forensic accountants in the middle of such an investigation?

Kohm: Typically the greatest challenge is laying your hands on the data that you need to prove or disprove the allegation. In that particular culture within an organization, that perhaps you’re on the team, you’re not on the team type mindset, sometimes someone who makes an allegation, who speaks up because they see something that they don’t think is right, is considered a disgruntled employee.

That in and of itself calls into question whether the allegation that was made is true or not. What came first? Was the employee disgruntled first, and then they made an allegation to go after someone, or were they honestly raising an issue and then painted as a disgruntled employee? Coming in and performing an objective, independent investigation, you sometimes don’t, out of the gates, have all of the facts.

You’re, again, hearing both sides of an issue, and when someone’s been retaliated against and painted as a disgruntled employee, it can make things difficult. For instance, getting data, making sure that you have your hands around the information, who’s being honest, who’s coloring things from their perspective.

Particularly around issues that aren’t specifically laid out, say, in policies and procedures or, say, a contract. Retaliation can create all sorts of difficult issues to overcome in the context of an investigation.

Amato: For forensic accountants, for auditors, other compliance professionals, what are some of the practical lessons that you would say are the key takeaways from this spring edition of the FVS Eye on Fraud report?

Kohm: I think the key takeaway is awareness. If you’re a forensic accountant and you’re performing an investigation, keep your eyes open. Be aware that this could be something that’s occurring within an organization. Make sure that your investigation is objective, independent, considering both sides of the story. I would say that from the context of being a forensic accountant performing an investigation.

From an auditor perspective, particularly if you are an auditor and you have to consider the facts and circumstances around a fraud that occurred at your client and someone has performed an investigation and is reporting to you as the auditor or reporting to you on the board, you have to make sure that that investigation is independent and objective.

When you go and talk to the forensic accountant and you ask, what were the steps that were taken to perform the investigation? Did you interview the proper individuals? Did you perform an email review? Did you collect all the information that you should have?

You want to make sure that through that process, you are still making sure that it is an objective, independent forensic investigation that’s taken place. Otherwise, you can be second-guessed on the back end if someone comes in and questions the work that was performed.

Amato: There’s obviously so many wrinkles to this, and many of those are addressed in the report, but as a closing thought on this topic, Fred, what would you leave the listeners with?

Kohm: I would just say that as a final point, whether you are a forensic accountant, an auditor, or perhaps a CPA in another role, internal audit or a compliance professional, be aware that retaliation is real, it’s occurring in the workplace. Make sure you have your guard up and that you’re aware of it.

And that when performing an investigation, that’s one of the considerations that you have in mind when you put together your work plan, when you start to talk to people, when interviews take place. And always anchor your work and being objective and independent. Again, always trying to prove and disprove the allegations that were being made while being aware of all these other circumstances within the workplace.

Amato: That’s well said. Fred Kohm, thank you very much for being on the podcast.

Kohm: Thank you, Neil.