Outside, the word is whistleblower. It even became a technical-legal term. However, when someone reports corruption in Brazil, it is said that the person put their mouth on the trombone. The whistle sounds loud and shallow. The trombone, on the other hand, is deep and takes on the environment with its resonance.

Does this metaphor tell us something about the nature of corruption schemes in the country? Whistling suggests a small matter or at least isolated from normality. Blowing trombone is more resounding. Could you suggest that corruption in Brazil permeates more of the country's culture? Would the complaint have a more resounding effect like this?

This is a topic that goes beyond linguistics and deserves attention from those who are concerned about the direction of the country. But first, I want to correct a common confusion in Brazil. Whistleblowing - and I use it as a technical term - is different from a winning plea. The now famous complaint takes place in a criminal case where the defendant receives a “prize” in the form of immunity or a smaller sentence in exchange for becoming a witness for the prosecution against his accomplices. In this situation, the whistleblower is not innocent. We can say that he is doubly “guilty”. In the legal sphere, your guilt in the criminal group is assumed. In the moral sphere, he betrays and seduces fellow offenders to save his own skin.

Whistleblower Act

The situation of the whistleblower - a person who reports misconduct in a company or public body - could not be more diverse, both in legal and moral areas. In principle, the whistleblower is innocent. It's someone who sees something wrong and decides to speak up. It could be an employee or someone from outside — a supplier or customer.

The whistleblower reporting channel is the most effective at revealing misconduct. The Anti-Corruption Law itself emphasizes the importance of having internal mechanisms and processes to encourage the manifestation of irregularities. It turns out that there's no use for a company to have these channels if no one feels comfortable reporting - for fear of the effects.

In England, in addition to reporting channels, there is legal protection against reprisals. A person cannot be fired, for example, for pointing out improper conduct. In the USA, the law goes one step further. Those who report to the SEC can be rewarded: if the disclosure results in the imposition of penalties, the whistleblower may receive a prize of up to 30% of the amount of the fine.

This is because there is a perception - based on reality - that reporting on the one hand is unlikely to lead to the investigation and punishment of the guilty and, on the other, that it will certainly result in reprisals against the whistleblower. He will lose his job, be pointed as a hard finger and will have his name burned in the market, making it difficult to get a new job.

Why is there such a stark difference in the treatment of whistleblowers in Brazil and in other countries? I think that this phenomenon is the result of the combination of three Brazilian cultural factors:

1. Command those who can, obey those who have judgment. This “principle” is still present in many financial institutions, companies, and public bodies. In some places this is said expressly to new hires, and said with pride.

2. “Gerson's law”. Everyone must take advantage of the situations that come their way and, whenever possible, take advantage - even harming someone. Anyone who gives a chance is a sucker.

3. The corollary of Gerson's law. The smart guy who takes advantage of what he doesn't protect himself deserves admiration. The honest, who refuses stewardship, doesn't do justice to it.

How do these factors combine in practice? Imagine a young man - recently graduated, idealistic, well-intentioned and intelligent - in his first job in an organization where he believes, in innocent naivety, that the principle of meritocracy applies.

Soon he sees that the dishonest and cunning person is being promoted - Gerson's law proves to be in force. Worse, the young man notices that that other guy, incorruptible, doesn't go ahead, is criticized, loses his position - and learns that honest people are suckers and scoundrels, admirable. What does he do? Put a halter on your face and play your service seeing but “without seeing” what is happening. And, of course, he doesn't say anything to anyone, because then he understood that he obeys those who have judgment. Your options are between accepting professional stagnation or thinking that if “everyone” has an advantage, that is the rule and, thus, you should also do it.

Will a compliance program imported from the USA - with codes of ethics, reporting channels, and training - change this situation? Never. The employees will sign the codes, attend training sessions, say yes, yes, yes, and then return to halter work knowing that those who are wise are quiet.

The problem is more acute for the top executive. For example, the director who sees other directors - or the CEO himself - doing things wrong, stealing, giving bribes and receiving them. He faces a dilemma: if he reports, he loses his position. If you are silent and then the crime is discovered, you will be blamed for the silence.

As long as Brazilian law does not provide protection to whistleblowers and real incentives for reporting, whistleblowers will only work in companies where there is a true commitment of owners and managers to ethics - where there is a flow of information, respect, and cooperation, with employees wearing corporate jerseys.

Although there is a perception that most companies are made up of honest people and ethical managers, not all of them are like that. In addition, competition itself sometimes pushes companies to extreme situations in which either ethics are relativised or business is lost. The law exists to make these temptations uninteresting. Having real, concrete and comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation in Brazil today is a matter that should be in the minds and notebooks of legislators. It's the right time to take a big step and confirm, once and for all, that corruption will no longer be part of Brazilian culture.

*Postgraduate lawyer in Economic Law from Yale Law School and Master in International Law from Cambridge, Barry Wolfe is director of Wolfe Associates (www.wolfe.com.br), a consultancy in preventive compliance, risk assessment and corporate fraud investigation.

‍