Credibility refers to the level of quality and reliability of a whistleblower’s evidence. Credible evidence must be compelling enough to get the government agency or investigative body to act on claims that hold corrupt entities responsible. Financial records, emails, text messages, contracts, reports, or witness testimony are common forms of credible evidence.

Credible evidence is not solely restricted to first-hand information. Credible evidence can be anything that gives authorities reasonable belief of wrongdoing. It is suggested that sometimes second-hand reports may be more credible than first-hand reports, considering they are more likely to address critical issues and are less biased. Credibile evidence that sticks to the facts, and not biases, is the best type of evidence in a whistleblower case.

Whistleblowers are not required to disclose their identities in order for their evidence to be credible. The more credible a whistleblower’s evidence is, the more likely the government agency is to open an investigation. This increases the whistleblower’s chances at receiving a reward. Different whistleblower programs require different levels of credible evidence.

They include:

SEC Whistleblower Program
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) emphasizes that the more specific, credible, and timely a whistleblower’s tip is, the more likely it will open an investigation. The SEC also strictly focuses on information within the scope of federal securities laws. To qualify for an award, whistleblower information must be voluntary, which means that the whistleblower must offer the information before it is asked of them. It must also be “original information” defined as non-public information derived from independent knowledge or analysis.

For instance, a financial analyst’s first-hand documents of financial records and communications submitted voluntarily and in a timely manner that prove a company’s federal security violations would be considered “good evidence” for the SEC Whistleblower Program, while publicly available information with no analysis conducted would be considered “bad evidence.”

CFTC Whistleblower Program
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has emphasized that the more credible information is, the more likely it is to pursue it. According to the CFTC, for a whistleblower to have a higher chance of receiving an award, the information must not only be credible but also specific and timely. The CFTC also requires the whistleblower to provide “original information” regarding a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).

An example of “good evidence” for the CFTC whistleblower program could involve a trader from a brokerage firm obtaining first-hand documents, such as internal communications, that are voluntarily submitted in a timely manner and demonstrate a violation of the CEA. Conversely, an example of “bad evidence” would be publicly available information about a brokerage firm without any analysis or evidence of a CEA violation.

FinCEN Whistleblower Program
The FinCEN Whistleblower Program outlines that individuals who come forward with original, timely, and credible information regarding breaches of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or other FinCEN regulations may qualify for a reward. The program evaluates the importance of the information disclosed and the level of assistance provided by the whistleblower during the enforcement process.

An example of “good evidence” for the FinCEN Whistleblower Program could involve a bank employee presenting concrete, original evidence that demonstrates instances of money laundering or BSA violations. An example of “bad evidence” for the program could include public bank statements that do not indicate any infractions of FinCEN regulations.

False Claims Act
The False Claims Act does not necessarily require substantial information. It only requires evidence that could potentially indicate government fraud. While concrete evidence may not be mandatory, a whistleblower must have proof for all the components of a claim.

For instance, “good evidence” could be an employee in a hospital’s billing department with specific allegations and records showing healthcare fraud. On the other hand, “bad evidence” could be an employee making baseless accusations and speculations of healthcare fraud without any supporting proof.