00:00:00
Two missed calls from Germany, saying
00:00:02
"Hello, is this Pav Gill? We understand
00:00:03
you're being told to go to Jakarta.
00:00:05
Don't go, you won't come back." And I
00:00:07
was anonymous until a year after the
00:00:09
company crashed. If you look at
00:00:12
leadership, then it's part of
00:00:13
leadership's responsibility to take
00:00:15
responsibility for this kind of
00:00:18
whistleblowing process and approach.
00:00:20
>> don't [music] deal with this, things are
00:00:22
going to get messy.
00:00:25
Welcome to Grit in the Boardroom, the
00:00:27
podcast that takes you behind closed
00:00:29
doors to unpack the pivotal decisions
00:00:31
that shaped organizations for better or
00:00:34
worse.
00:00:35
I'm Erica Elias and Norris, and each
00:00:37
week I sit down with a senior leader who
00:00:40
stood at the edge of a defining moment,
00:00:43
a crisis, a turning point, a challenge
00:00:46
where the stakes were high and the
00:00:47
outcomes uncertain.
00:00:49
These are the conversations you won't
00:00:51
find in annual reports. Honest,
00:00:54
strategic, and grounded in lived
00:00:57
experience.
00:00:58
Because governance isn't about theory.
00:01:01
It's about pressure, people, and making
00:01:03
the call.
00:01:04
My guest today is Pav Gill, former
00:01:07
fintech general counsel and the
00:01:09
whistleblower behind Wirecard's 24
00:01:11
billion euro fraud.
00:01:13
Pav's decision to speak up sparked
00:01:15
global investigations, regulatory
00:01:18
reform, and a spotlight on the blind
00:01:21
spots in corporate oversight.
00:01:23
Before all that, he trained as a magic
00:01:26
circle lawyer, tried his hand at food
00:01:28
criticism, and once thought about
00:01:30
becoming a rapper.
00:01:31
These days, he's a coffee obsessive, a
00:01:34
keynote speaker on ethics and
00:01:36
leadership, and the founder of Confide,
00:01:38
a platform created to fix compliance
00:01:40
failures he witnessed first-hand.
00:01:43
Welcome to Grit in the Boardroom, Pav.
00:01:45
It's great to have you from Singapore
00:01:47
today. Let's get into it.
00:01:48
>> Thank you. It's great to be here. So, to
00:01:51
get into the questions, what key moment
00:01:53
from your experience best demonstrates
00:01:56
the critical need for transparency and
00:01:59
accountability.
00:02:01
That's a that's a tough start, I think.
00:02:05
You know, as general counsel in Wirecard
00:02:07
at least in the Wirecard case where I
00:02:08
was head of legal for APAC, the critical
00:02:10
moment would probably be seeing how
00:02:13
everyone reacted to a whistleblowing
00:02:15
case or you know, what they were doing
00:02:18
which was mostly containment strategies
00:02:20
versus wanting to deal with the issue
00:02:23
and fix it, right? To get to the bottom
00:02:25
of it. So, I think that's that was the
00:02:27
turning point for the company and I
00:02:29
would say most companies in these kinds
00:02:31
of situations. It's always you know,
00:02:34
what I what I like to say it's not
00:02:35
always about receiving reports, but it's
00:02:38
what happens after you receive the
00:02:39
reports that really determines the fate
00:02:42
of the company and also of the person
00:02:44
who raises those reports. Yeah, so it's
00:02:47
very much based on culture I guess of
00:02:48
the organization and how that all plays
00:02:50
out. Yeah, but there's also a tendency
00:02:52
to blame tone from the top. That's
00:02:54
always a very convenient excuse that
00:02:57
managers like to use. Oh, the tone from
00:02:59
the top sucks and what can we do? But my
00:03:02
response is like you can do a lot of
00:03:03
things. You know, just because something
00:03:05
is bad upwards, that doesn't mean you do
00:03:07
the same thing. You could always create
00:03:09
a subculture, your own culture that's
00:03:11
positive with your peers or with your
00:03:13
subordinates and then it's up to you to
00:03:14
manage upwards, right? So, we can't
00:03:17
always be relying on
00:03:18
cultural issues per se while they exist
00:03:21
obviously. We shouldn't hide behind them
00:03:24
as a way to not act in the appropriate
00:03:26
way. Yes, do you think that
00:03:29
when it comes to
00:03:31
the Wirecard whistleblowing that you
00:03:34
did, do you think that
00:03:36
it made a difference you being based
00:03:40
outside of Germany
00:03:42
with regards to how
00:03:44
like your experience of what happened in
00:03:47
terms of
00:03:48
actually physically what happened, but
00:03:49
also what conversations took place and
00:03:52
the the level of
00:03:54
I don't know impact it had on the
00:03:56
organization.
00:03:57
I think from a personal safety
00:03:59
standpoint, yes, that's being in
00:04:01
Singapore is always probably one of the
00:04:03
safest places you can be cuz nothing
00:04:06
exciting really happens here from a
00:04:08
crime perspective in terms of physical
00:04:10
danger. Um but if I was in neighboring
00:04:12
countries, uh if I was in anywhere else,
00:04:15
you know, even the US or um Europe, I
00:04:18
think that would be a very different
00:04:20
consideration.
00:04:21
Um but from a whistleblowing standpoint,
00:04:24
I think it's also important to remember
00:04:25
that Wirecard was a case of two kinds of
00:04:27
whistleblowing.
00:04:28
There was an internal whistleblower that
00:04:30
came to me. So, in my role, I managed
00:04:32
that. I did the investigation. And then
00:04:34
how I became the whistleblower
00:04:37
uh when I left the company. So, it was
00:04:38
internal whistleblowing that I managed
00:04:40
and then I, the manager, becoming the
00:04:43
external whistleblower. Um and it's also
00:04:46
key to remember that I was anonymous all
00:04:48
the way until a year after the company
00:04:51
crashed.
00:04:52
So, that's where I think that was also
00:04:54
added protection because most
00:04:56
whistleblowing cases, most people who
00:04:57
speak up and they get exposed in the
00:04:59
process, that's where things go downhill
00:05:01
for them um as individuals.
00:05:03
Hm. Do you think that being being
00:05:06
anonymized, obviously, that has
00:05:09
some benefits, of course, in the
00:05:10
process. Do you think that it can lead
00:05:13
maybe to people blowing the whistle on
00:05:15
things if they know they're going to be
00:05:16
protected because no one's going to ever
00:05:17
know it was them, that that leads people
00:05:19
to uh questions or raise concerns that
00:05:23
otherwise they they wouldn't feel bold
00:05:25
enough to do? Or do you think that
00:05:26
that's what you need as a whistleblower
00:05:28
to be able to feel that protection in
00:05:29
order to be able to have those type of
00:05:31
open conversations and know that there
00:05:33
is no comeback?
00:05:36
Yeah, anonymity is key because the
00:05:38
biggest fear is always being exposed and
00:05:40
retaliated against. And it doesn't need
00:05:43
to be serious issues, right? It could be
00:05:45
if you're a engineer in a data team, I
00:05:47
mean doing dealing with data stuff. Um,
00:05:50
you're being forced to release code. You
00:05:51
know the code's going to have a negative
00:05:53
impact on customers, but then your boss
00:05:55
is telling you you're overreacting and
00:05:57
then you got KPIs and OKRs and all these
00:05:59
things over your head. But, you know,
00:06:01
internal audit may want to know what's
00:06:02
going on because that's a business risk.
00:06:04
It's operational risk as well. So, how
00:06:06
do you even just flag those kinds of
00:06:07
things without being targeted? Um,
00:06:10
I think that's where people would like
00:06:12
some form of anonymity and protection.
00:06:15
Uh, because to them it's like, "Look,
00:06:16
this is an issue. Can we just have
00:06:18
someone deal with it, right? Without us
00:06:20
getting in trouble." And it sounds so
00:06:22
simple and trivial, but, you know, when
00:06:25
it comes to bonuses, when it comes to
00:06:26
performance reviews,
00:06:28
uh, people trying to look good upwards
00:06:30
and sideways, whatever, uh, that's where
00:06:32
these things actually suddenly become an
00:06:34
issue. And as a whistleblower myself,
00:06:36
you know, I have people coming to me
00:06:37
every every 2 weeks, I would say, on
00:06:39
average,
00:06:41
um, as whistleblowers. And what I've
00:06:42
noticed is in the last 3 years, ever
00:06:44
since I came out publicly, not a single
00:06:47
one of these
00:06:48
individuals is a junior member of staff.
00:06:51
They are all very senior people. And the
00:06:53
question is, why? And from what I've
00:06:56
seen is because when you're in a senior
00:06:58
position, you have more access to
00:06:59
information, you're more experienced.
00:07:01
And then when suddenly you start raising
00:07:03
these things, you didn't expect your
00:07:05
peers or whoever's above you to react in
00:07:08
that way. And then you suddenly feel
00:07:11
like a deer in the headlights. And then
00:07:12
it's like, what do you do? Now
00:07:14
everyone's looking at me thinking I'm
00:07:15
not a I'm not a team player. He knows
00:07:17
this thing. How do we manage him and
00:07:20
stuff like that, right? So, I think
00:07:21
that's
00:07:22
that's what I've seen happening so far.
00:07:24
Yeah, do you think that then, if you
00:07:26
look at leadership, then it's part of
00:07:28
leadership's responsibility to take
00:07:30
responsibility for this kind of
00:07:33
whistleblowing process and approach
00:07:35
because if you're saying that they are
00:07:38
essentially
00:07:39
the the senior people in the
00:07:41
organization, they're the people with
00:07:42
maybe some more power, some more
00:07:44
control. They're the people that can
00:07:45
actually make a difference, can make a
00:07:46
change. They need to own this, right?
00:07:50
And they need to look at it from a
00:07:51
standpoint of
00:07:53
um
00:07:54
as far as they can, stepping back and
00:07:57
actually just saying, "Is it possible
00:07:59
that this could actually be the case?"
00:08:00
rather than dismissing things very
00:08:02
quickly. We kind of hear quite a bit of
00:08:04
that with regards to scandals that then
00:08:05
come out afterwards of well, there were
00:08:07
lots of people saying things, but nobody
00:08:09
actually listened or nobody understood.
00:08:12
Is that something that you've
00:08:13
experienced? Yeah, so I think the main
00:08:15
issue is that the the knee-jerk
00:08:17
response, the initial response,
00:08:20
um
00:08:20
is to ask who is this person and why are
00:08:22
they raising this issue? Why they
00:08:24
reporting it, right? So when motive is
00:08:26
the at the forefront of your question,
00:08:29
your Q&A, then question number one, then
00:08:31
you know, things
00:08:33
I That's That's just the wrong start.
00:08:35
The real start should be okay, person
00:08:37
someone has reported, um let's look at
00:08:40
the report and see that if we don't act
00:08:42
based on this report, would that be a
00:08:44
material adverse impact on the business?
00:08:46
So I think that's where the focus should
00:08:48
be, not on trying to identify who's
00:08:49
reporting and why they're reporting. We
00:08:51
could always assess these motives later
00:08:53
on.
00:08:54
Um
00:08:55
you know, at the end of the day, if
00:08:55
you're a business leader, do you really
00:08:57
care what why this person is telling you
00:08:59
something bad's happening in the company
00:09:01
if the bad things are really happening,
00:09:04
right? Like um
00:09:05
you know, don't look at who's lighting
00:09:06
the match, right? But look at and ignore
00:09:09
the fire.
00:09:10
That's what I always try to say.
00:09:12
Um
00:09:13
so So I think if we change that mindset
00:09:15
from a leadership perspective, then
00:09:16
things will be much better. And then you
00:09:18
go to the second part of the problem,
00:09:19
which is containment. So a lot of
00:09:21
business leaders, based on functions,
00:09:23
you have HR
00:09:24
uh trying to manage these issues and
00:09:26
people
00:09:27
which means trying to make the problem
00:09:29
go away, trying to get them not to deal
00:09:31
with it. And then you have legal who's
00:09:33
looking at like, is this a legal risk?
00:09:35
And then you have com saying we should
00:09:36
get ahead of this issue before anyone
00:09:38
else. So, I think it all becomes a
00:09:40
containment strategy versus what is this
00:09:42
issue? Let's get to the root cause of
00:09:44
it. Let's fix it and make sure it
00:09:45
doesn't happen again.
00:09:47
Yeah, which comes down to integrity,
00:09:49
right? Integrity of the organization
00:09:51
externally and also the integrity of
00:09:53
those leaders that are within it.
00:09:55
Yeah, exactly.
00:09:56
Um
00:09:58
it's it's a very process-driven problem,
00:10:00
I would say. Uh you know, there's a lot
00:10:02
of focus on process. There's a lot of
00:10:03
illusion uh in in terms of structures
00:10:06
and tick boxes. But, no one actually I
00:10:09
don't know how many companies really
00:10:10
deep dive and go into lessons learned
00:10:13
and how we can prevent these issues
00:10:15
um other than just say, "Okay, this
00:10:16
thing is dealt with. Great. Let's move
00:10:18
forward on to the next one."
00:10:20
So, one of the things I always like to
00:10:21
ask
00:10:23
business leaders who deal with
00:10:24
whistleblowing cases
00:10:26
and I'm like, "Okay, you've been told
00:10:28
that Oh Oh, even boards, right? Let's
00:10:29
talk about boards in that sense. So,
00:10:31
boards are told like we have three
00:10:32
whistleblowing cases. They were dealt
00:10:34
with." And then every month there's
00:10:35
three whistleblowing cases that were
00:10:36
dealt with. But then, what's the meaning
00:10:38
of dealt with? It was resolved? Okay,
00:10:40
sure. But I think one useful exercise
00:10:42
board members can do or anyone could do
00:10:44
is actually go find out who which I
00:10:47
mean, who reported it if that person has
00:10:49
been disclosed.
00:10:50
Sit with that person. Ask them how their
00:10:52
experience was. Like, how did you find
00:10:53
the whole reporting experience? Are you
00:10:55
satisfied with the outcome? Are you
00:10:56
satisfied with how things were? I think
00:10:58
that's where you get some real insights
00:11:01
as to the the process and what it really
00:11:03
means instead of just relying on
00:11:05
outcomes, right? Like, yeah, dealt with
00:11:07
and and so on.
00:11:09
Mm. And I've experienced situations
00:11:11
where whistleblowing reports have been
00:11:14
put to the board and the board have been
00:11:17
super happy that there's been nothing on
00:11:19
them. But the reality of that isn't
00:11:21
necessary that everybody should just
00:11:23
kick back and you know, take a holiday.
00:11:25
The reality is that people perhaps are
00:11:28
fearful of raising concerns or
00:11:30
complaints. And actually, it isn't a
00:11:32
fact that there aren't any, it's the
00:11:33
fact that they're not being heard. And
00:11:36
Yeah. you are one of those people that
00:11:38
the kind of had that kind of courage to
00:11:41
kind of speak up in that moment. So, can
00:11:43
you go into a little bit of detail of
00:11:45
what the situation was and when you
00:11:47
realized something wasn't right?
00:11:49
I think it's when I found out that the
00:11:51
general counsel didn't know what was
00:11:53
going on. And I was always told that she
00:11:56
was aware.
00:11:57
And then, so one fine day when I called
00:11:59
her because the whistleblower was going
00:12:01
It was getting increasingly irrational.
00:12:03
And you know, she wanted to go to the
00:12:05
police, the the law enforcement
00:12:06
agencies, the regulators, and all these
00:12:08
things. And that's where I had to pick
00:12:10
up the phone and call the GC and say,
00:12:11
"Look, if we don't deal with this,
00:12:13
things are going to get messy."
00:12:15
And she had no idea what I was talking
00:12:16
about. But she said, "It's okay, just
00:12:18
send me everything you have and we'll
00:12:19
deal with it." So, [snorts] I did. I
00:12:21
sent her whatever I had and she which
00:12:23
was a law firm report, a preliminary
00:12:25
report with like 20 offenses in there
00:12:27
um potentially being committed by
00:12:29
certain individuals. She ran to the
00:12:31
board and she said, "Do you know what's
00:12:32
happening?"
00:12:34
Um
00:12:34
and they said, "No, but let's now take
00:12:37
over the investigation." The problem
00:12:38
with that is that some of them were
00:12:40
mentioned within the whistleblowing
00:12:42
reports and the information we came came
00:12:45
across. And that's where you get into a
00:12:47
situation which is also pretty typical,
00:12:50
which is you have persons of interest
00:12:51
trying to
00:12:53
um
00:12:53
deal with these issues, right? You can't
00:12:55
investigate yourself.
00:12:57
And that's also a practical problem
00:12:59
because what happens, for example, if
00:13:01
the very person that you are uh
00:13:03
reporting about is one of the
00:13:05
whistleblowing case managers? Or it's
00:13:07
the person's department, right? What if
00:13:09
HR's in charge of whistleblowing, but
00:13:11
the complaint is about the CHRO? Like
00:13:14
that's a clear conflict. How do you
00:13:16
get out of that situation? Um
00:13:19
So, these are things I think if not
00:13:20
managed properly, like in the Wirecard
00:13:22
case,
00:13:23
uh that's where things just go downhill.
00:13:26
There's often
00:13:28
you know, often a tendency to want to
00:13:29
protect the company from external
00:13:33
knowledge of events.
00:13:35
But,
00:13:37
in the desire to do so, you tend to not
00:13:40
deal with the real problem again, and
00:13:42
you try to just like make it go away and
00:13:45
hope that it doesn't go outside. But,
00:13:47
then not dealing with the problem is
00:13:48
when you create angry, isolated,
00:13:50
disgruntled people
00:13:51
who then realize the only option is now
00:13:54
to go outside to take the company
00:13:56
to make sure something's done,
00:13:58
basically. And and so, it's kind of like
00:14:00
a ironic, paradoxical situation, and I
00:14:03
don't understand why people are still
00:14:05
behaving that way. I would think that if
00:14:08
you're a business leader, you want more
00:14:10
reports because even if the reports are
00:14:12
trivial, that's fine. At least you know
00:14:14
that people trust the system enough to
00:14:15
raise
00:14:16
things which they find which might be
00:14:18
trivial in the first place. So, don't
00:14:20
hide behind like zero reports and be
00:14:22
proud of it. You know, I always like to
00:14:24
say
00:14:25
there's a difference between having a
00:14:27
culture of silence, which is people just
00:14:29
are quiet like in Asia. They just like
00:14:31
to do their work, go back. And then the
00:14:34
other culture of silence, which is the
00:14:35
real disease, which is people are
00:14:37
fearful of speaking up because they know
00:14:39
what's going to happen to them if they
00:14:41
do so.
00:14:43
And where where do you think people get
00:14:44
that thought process of what's going to
00:14:47
happen to them,
00:14:48
you know, if they do so, as you said.
00:14:50
So, where where do people get
00:14:53
where do they get their ideas from of
00:14:54
what the consequences might be of
00:14:56
something that maybe has never happened
00:14:57
in an organization?
00:14:59
Well, it's definitely
00:15:01
I would say precedent driven. So, they
00:15:04
would have seen or heard like, "Oh, do
00:15:07
you know last time when this guy tried
00:15:08
to raise this issue, he suffered some
00:15:10
horrible consequences, whether he was
00:15:12
fired or he was let go or something
00:15:14
else, right?"
00:15:15
So, I think that kind of that's where
00:15:18
fear comes in because of the horror
00:15:20
stories of what happened to those that
00:15:22
tried to speak. Um
00:15:24
And and that goes straight to culture as
00:15:26
well. So, if truth tellers, if people
00:15:29
trying to raise concerns are punished
00:15:32
instead of being rewarded, then that's
00:15:34
where you've got a very negative culture
00:15:37
in the company.
00:15:39
Mhm. Absolutely. And if people
00:15:42
fear, not necessarily even fear the
00:15:44
consequences, but fear speaking up
00:15:46
because they don't know if it's worth
00:15:48
saying something, um they think that
00:15:51
there might be something that's going to
00:15:53
happen as a result of it or something
00:15:55
that isn't happening as a result of
00:15:56
something, but they don't want to be
00:15:59
that person. I think particularly in
00:16:01
British culture, it's very much of the
00:16:04
view that, you know, stiff upper lip.
00:16:06
Everybody just carries on as they are.
00:16:07
Obviously, that that's broad brush
00:16:09
terms, but you know, kind of go, "Well,
00:16:12
it's kind of okay. I'm not that worried
00:16:14
about it. It's not going to affect me."
00:16:16
What is it that made you feel that you
00:16:19
couldn't just stand by and just let this
00:16:21
happen?
00:16:23
Because when I was in the company, they
00:16:25
had the way they came after me because
00:16:27
of what I knew, uh that was bad in
00:16:30
itself. Like, they really went all the
00:16:31
way. So, they did it in staged in a
00:16:34
staged fashion. So, the first way is
00:16:36
obviously the board got involved. And
00:16:38
they told me to stand down. I was then
00:16:40
isolated out of the investigation. Um
00:16:43
I they [clears throat] they then
00:16:44
coordinated with the local director in
00:16:46
Singapore telling him to make my life um
00:16:50
Make sure like I know who's the boss,
00:16:52
right? Basically. So, he would come, he
00:16:54
would shout, he would say, "Don't think
00:16:56
I don't know what you've been doing the
00:16:57
last few months. If you know what's good
00:16:58
for you, you'll play ball." And this is
00:17:00
also weird because like if you're a
00:17:02
director,
00:17:03
and I was telling him this. I was like,
00:17:04
"I don't understand what's wrong with
00:17:06
you because I'm really trying to protect
00:17:08
you. You're director of seven companies
00:17:10
in in this region. If anything goes
00:17:12
wrong, you're in trouble, too. Right?
00:17:14
You're you're you're not just an
00:17:15
employee, but you're also a director the
00:17:17
same time.
00:17:18
So, I didn't understand why he didn't
00:17:20
understand. Uh by the end of the day, he
00:17:22
didn't care. So, he would shout, scream,
00:17:24
um
00:17:26
and then when that didn't work, they
00:17:27
created a HR case against me.
00:17:30
Uh so, that was like 3 months long of an
00:17:32
investigation. So, now I'm being
00:17:34
investigated for something I clearly
00:17:36
didn't do. And then when that failed,
00:17:38
they tried to send me on a one-way
00:17:40
business trip to Jakarta, uh where one
00:17:43
of the key suspects was from. And he
00:17:45
That key suspect was very fond of
00:17:47
boasting that he's married into a
00:17:48
drug-dealing family. And now the same
00:17:50
guy wants to send me to Jakarta on a
00:17:52
business trip. And the way he phrased it
00:17:54
was also very dodgy. He's like, uh
00:17:57
whether you go in 2 weeks, 2 days, or 2
00:17:59
months, you have to go. But you've
00:18:01
nothing to worry about because you know
00:18:02
who my father-in-law is, right? And then
00:18:04
during that same week, I had um
00:18:07
two missed calls from Germany saying,
00:18:09
"Hello, is this Pav Gill? We understand
00:18:11
you're being told to go to Jakarta.
00:18:13
Don't go, you won't come back." And they
00:18:14
put the phone down. So, clearly they
00:18:16
were they had then accelerated it to uh
00:18:18
trying to take me out. And that's when I
00:18:20
resigned because
00:18:22
I actually I was forced to resign
00:18:23
because I didn't want to go on that
00:18:24
business trip. So, the company was like
00:18:26
super happy because after 4 months,
00:18:28
they've got a legitimate business reason
00:18:29
to get rid of me. And I did. So, I left,
00:18:32
right? I left the company, and they
00:18:33
still didn't stop. You know, they were
00:18:35
sending people to follow me and my mom.
00:18:37
They were creating fake interviews where
00:18:39
the interviewer uh in that friendly
00:18:41
company would only ask me why I left
00:18:43
Wirecard. And what they were again
00:18:45
trying to make me do is breach an NDA or
00:18:47
leave a confidentiality aspect. So, they
00:18:50
could sue me and stuff. So, that's where
00:18:51
I had, you know, we had enough of this
00:18:53
whole nonsense, and we said, "Let's um
00:18:56
do something about it instead of just
00:18:58
being a sitting duck, right?" So, that's
00:19:00
what actually caused Wirecard's
00:19:02
downfall. And at the end of the day, if
00:19:04
you look back, it could it was
00:19:06
completely avoidable.
00:19:08
Right? They could have just said, "Look,
00:19:09
it's not working out. Why don't you just
00:19:11
go on gardening leave, we'll pay your
00:19:13
salary until you get another job, and
00:19:16
everyone's happy. But, because they had
00:19:18
that arrogance and that desire,
00:19:21
uh probably fueled by 20 years of
00:19:23
successful fraudulent behavior, you
00:19:25
know, I think that's where that resulted
00:19:27
in their downfall eventually.
00:19:29
Mhm.
00:19:30
You are very balanced with your
00:19:33
responses for the fact that you have had
00:19:37
kind of threats to your own life as a
00:19:40
result of
00:19:41
these issues in the whistleblowing. You
00:19:44
seem to take everything in your stride.
00:19:46
How did you feel at the time? Well, I
00:19:49
was really upset, to say the least,
00:19:51
because, you know, on top of
00:19:53
>> bit of an underestimation, Pav, yes?
00:19:56
>> [laughter]
00:19:56
>> Uh and um as a lawyer, you're kind of
00:19:59
super restrained as to what you can say,
00:20:01
what you can do, what you can reveal,
00:20:03
even about why you're being treated as
00:20:05
that way, right? So, you're like in a
00:20:07
super isolated state even within the
00:20:09
company. Like, everyone knows that the
00:20:11
company's punishing you for for reasons,
00:20:14
but
00:20:15
>> [clears throat]
00:20:15
>> they know also it's maybe because you
00:20:17
came across something, but you can't
00:20:19
share it. So, you've got nobody to
00:20:20
confide in, basically.
00:20:22
>> [snorts]
00:20:23
>> Even when you leave the company, you
00:20:24
can't, because you don't want like, you
00:20:25
know, whatever word goes back to them,
00:20:27
then that gives them ammunition as well.
00:20:29
So, it's a very So, this is something I
00:20:31
think whistleblowers go through as well,
00:20:33
um that isolation [clears throat] and
00:20:35
not knowing who to trust, uh who will
00:20:37
look after them, who will actually deal
00:20:39
with the situation, and not them.
00:20:41
So,
00:20:42
yeah, I mean, I was really upset. And of
00:20:44
course, if a company tries to kill you,
00:20:45
then all
00:20:48
uh legal privilege and all these other
00:20:50
lovely rules get thrown out the window,
00:20:52
right? And then you decide, okay, why
00:20:53
don't I repay the favor, and
00:20:56
just expose them for who they are. It's
00:20:58
very difficult situation, because then
00:21:00
you That is when you start weighing
00:21:01
things like, okay, should I go to law
00:21:03
enforcement? Should I go to regulators?
00:21:05
Should I go to the media? Um
00:21:08
and each one of them have the pros and
00:21:09
cons. Like of course people would say
00:21:10
like look you should have just gone to
00:21:12
the authorities, but the problem is when
00:21:13
you go to authorities you expose who you
00:21:15
are. And then they can just file the
00:21:17
report away and maybe not look at it for
00:21:19
the next several years, but in the
00:21:20
meantime you're still getting hammered.
00:21:22
So and then people think like okay then
00:21:24
go to the media, right? But the media is
00:21:27
the same thing. It's like reporters
00:21:28
probably get hundreds of emails every
00:21:30
week at least of people trying to tell
00:21:33
them to report something. How do you
00:21:35
know that someone's going to take your
00:21:36
report seriously, right?
00:21:39
So again like all these things are very
00:21:41
difficult
00:21:43
external avenues. But the minute you
00:21:45
trigger like a public angle like the FT
00:21:49
for example who we went to, I think then
00:21:51
that's it for the company like it's
00:21:52
unnecessary PR battles, legal battles,
00:21:55
stock price damage and all kinds of
00:21:57
firefighting.
00:21:58
I suppose as soon as you become
00:22:01
known to a certain extent you become
00:22:03
slightly more protected. Um to a certain
00:22:06
extent you become slightly more exposed
00:22:08
because then everybody knows that you
00:22:12
are kind of the person that raised that.
00:22:15
Did you in this process or or anyone in
00:22:17
your family, did you feel scared? No, I
00:22:19
was still anonymous, right? Until a year
00:22:21
after the company crashed.
00:22:23
But of course the company suspected it
00:22:26
was me or maybe two three other people.
00:22:29
Uh they actually engaged a intelligence
00:22:31
agent kind of like corporate
00:22:33
intelligence firm. Uh they paid them two
00:22:35
300 grand
00:22:37
in euros to try to figure out who the
00:22:39
whistleblower was. And out of the two
00:22:41
possibilities that they had which was me
00:22:42
and another guy, they said it was the
00:22:44
other guy which I still find pretty
00:22:45
funny. Um
00:22:47
So you know they they did try to find
00:22:49
out, but I think the strategy is also
00:22:51
like if the company's fighting fires
00:22:53
globally and because of the FT reports
00:22:55
and stuff like that and regulatory
00:22:56
scrutiny now everyone's looking at them,
00:22:58
I think then they have less of
00:23:00
I mean they're more distracted dealing
00:23:02
with those issues and then hopefully
00:23:04
leaving you alone.
00:23:06
Um
00:23:06
Yeah, so that was also one of the
00:23:08
drivers. Like distract the company, have
00:23:10
them fight those fires, have other
00:23:13
people now start looking at them and
00:23:14
investigating, and hopefully exposing
00:23:17
the truth in the process.
00:23:19
Mhm.
00:23:20
And when you had those phone calls to
00:23:23
say don't you go to Jakarta because you
00:23:25
won't come back,
00:23:26
would you say that that's one of the
00:23:27
defining kind of moments of your life?
00:23:32
I mean, the defining moment was probably
00:23:34
the HR case
00:23:35
because that goes to the core of who you
00:23:37
are, especially as a man.
00:23:40
Um
00:23:41
you know, it's such a lazy and I mean,
00:23:44
it's literally a low blow, right? Like
00:23:45
what? Once you falsely get tainted with
00:23:48
these things, then you you you it really
00:23:50
upsets you as a person.
00:23:52
Um
00:23:53
and it sends you into a different kind
00:23:55
of spiral. But, um What sort of things
00:23:58
were you accused of falsely?
00:24:01
They had hired like
00:24:03
a female staff to work under me
00:24:05
for a brief period, and then when I
00:24:07
realized that staff was actually not
00:24:10
doing her work, but trying to figure out
00:24:11
what is my investigation about.
00:24:14
That's when I tried to fire this person,
00:24:16
and that's where this person ran to that
00:24:17
same director in Singapore.
00:24:19
And said that he's firing me because
00:24:23
he I I mean, he's trying to fire me
00:24:25
because I rejected his advances and that
00:24:27
kind of nonsense, right? So, that became
00:24:29
like a 3-month long investigation, which
00:24:31
as you can imagine is just ridiculous.
00:24:34
Um
00:24:34
but, that was one of the strategies that
00:24:37
they used because they I mean, they
00:24:39
couldn't attack the work. That failed.
00:24:41
Shouting and screaming failed as as
00:24:43
well. So, I think they really just tried
00:24:45
everything. They just threw the whole
00:24:47
kitchen sink to see what works. And the
00:24:49
desperation then led them to the whole
00:24:50
Jakarta thing. Um and when that failed,
00:24:53
I think everyone and they said you got
00:24:56
to resign. I think that's where everyone
00:24:58
kind of like thought that's the end of
00:25:00
the whole thing. Wow, they really did,
00:25:03
like you say, pull every every strategy
00:25:06
out to to try and avoid this coming out.
00:25:10
Yeah. Whistleblowers aren't always seen
00:25:14
as heroes, right? And from your
00:25:16
perspective, what differentiates those
00:25:18
genuine whistleblowers, like you, from
00:25:21
those harmful manipulation?
00:25:25
I think it's just motive, right? Cuz
00:25:27
um
00:25:28
genuine whistleblowers don't become
00:25:30
whistleblowers by design,
00:25:32
I would say.
00:25:33
They often just are raising concerns
00:25:35
hoping someone can deal with those
00:25:36
things,
00:25:37
um funnily in the interest of the
00:25:39
company, because they think like look
00:25:41
this person's trying to do bad stuff. Uh
00:25:43
if the company doesn't deal with it, the
00:25:45
company's going to be in
00:25:46
issues, right? Or someone's trying to
00:25:48
profit off uh some kind of wrongdoing by
00:25:50
maybe pocketing funds and all those
00:25:52
things or bribery bribery and stuff like
00:25:54
that. So they're just really trying to
00:25:56
just like raise an issue, but then they
00:25:57
often find themselves as you know like
00:26:00
what else like me as a subject of
00:26:01
investigation or harassment and all
00:26:03
these other things
00:26:04
uh and intimidation. So I think they
00:26:06
then become this weird
00:26:09
uh in this weird state where they don't
00:26:11
understand why things are working in an
00:26:12
upside down way, which is why like when,
00:26:15
you know, the Sky documentary uh
00:26:17
Wirecard a Billion Euro Lie, which was
00:26:20
the only one I'm in and the day it was
00:26:21
released, um which is a year after
00:26:24
Wirecard crisis, I came publicly. I came
00:26:26
out publicly on the same day. So the
00:26:28
opening lines in that movie uh
00:26:31
is what I said. It reminded me of
00:26:32
Macbeth, which is fair is foul and foul
00:26:35
is fair,
00:26:36
because that's exactly what
00:26:37
whistleblowers find themselves in that
00:26:39
situation, right? Where everything
00:26:40
that's fair is deemed as foul and
00:26:42
whatever is foul, which is what these
00:26:44
people what the company's doing is
00:26:45
deemed as fair. So very upside down
00:26:47
situation. I think blackmail on the
00:26:49
other hand are people that
00:26:51
build leverage against a company.
00:26:54
And these could be like compliance
00:26:56
officers who are senior going in any
00:26:57
company. I mean, no company is perfect,
00:26:59
right? Especially in like gray spaces
00:27:01
like crypto or fintech and stuff like
00:27:03
that. So, you know, you have people that
00:27:05
just build leverage by finding slowly
00:27:08
documenting all these flaws against to
00:27:11
to to get themselves in a position of
00:27:13
not being able to be fired or getting a
00:27:15
payout. Cuz you can be like a compliance
00:27:17
person just building all this leverage
00:27:19
and one day you're you're in a fireable
00:27:20
position
00:27:22
or someone wants for performance reasons
00:27:24
wants to get rid of you and you're like,
00:27:25
"Oh, you really want to get rid of me?
00:27:27
Do you know all the material I have?"
00:27:29
And if you don't pay me out, I'm going
00:27:31
to go to the SEC who will, right? So,
00:27:33
it's I think that's where
00:27:35
it but and it's a real thing. Companies
00:27:37
deal with this all the time. It's not
00:27:40
novel. And you often see it. So, for for
00:27:42
example, in my company like Confide
00:27:43
Platform, we've had clients where
00:27:46
when there's going to be a layoff
00:27:48
situation, suddenly there's a whole
00:27:50
influx of ethics complaints.
00:27:53
And the reason why that's happening is
00:27:54
because in certain jurisdictions, if
00:27:56
that's raised as a complaint, a minimum
00:27:59
of 3 months needs to be given for that
00:28:00
investigation. So, the employees are
00:28:02
actually using that to buy time.
00:28:04
Um so, obviously on one hand, I
00:28:06
empathize because, you know, no one
00:28:09
wants to be fired and sometimes people
00:28:10
are desperate. But then falsely accusing
00:28:15
people for these kinds of HR stuff stuff
00:28:18
I mean stuff
00:28:19
has a very bad consequence and it
00:28:21
doesn't it's not a good look at all. So
00:28:23
again, like how does a company navigate
00:28:25
this thing? How does it document
00:28:27
patterns and and trends
00:28:29
and bulletproof itself in the process is
00:28:32
are some really important questions cuz
00:28:34
no not all whistleblowers are heroes,
00:28:36
right?
00:28:38
But again, that doesn't mean you don't
00:28:39
deal with the report.
00:28:41
Yeah, absolutely. What do you think
00:28:43
board should be doing to assess whether
00:28:45
the the kind of credibility of those
00:28:47
whistleblowers and to be fair to them.
00:28:50
Well, boards should be looking at
00:28:53
reports in terms of what happened,
00:28:57
who dealt with it, how was it dealt
00:28:59
with, and what the outcome was, and also
00:29:00
specifically unresolved cases. I think
00:29:03
those are the real red flags and
00:29:05
questions boards should be asking.
00:29:07
There's a big tendency to just hide
00:29:08
behind stats,
00:29:11
which I think is an issue, and there's
00:29:13
also
00:29:15
For example, from a general Say the
00:29:16
general counsel is a case manager,
00:29:18
and the general counsel is reporting up
00:29:21
to the board saying, you know,
00:29:23
there are X number of issues,
00:29:26
some of these are very controversial,
00:29:28
and then the board is asking the
00:29:29
question, "What happened?" I think this
00:29:31
is where things get messy because
00:29:33
oftentimes if the dotted line actually
00:29:35
gets exercised,
00:29:37
which is very rare, right?
00:29:39
>> [snorts]
00:29:39
>> That's where the person finds themselves
00:29:41
in a very difficult situation because
00:29:44
if the dotted line is exercised and the
00:29:46
GC is now going to tell the board that,
00:29:49
"Look, the CEO is actually the subject
00:29:51
of the report, and I'm having a very
00:29:53
difficult time dealing with this."
00:29:56
Then now 100% you're in the firing line
00:29:59
with the CEO, or he's going to hate you
00:30:01
for life, and he's going to say, "Why
00:30:03
were you insubordinate? How could you do
00:30:04
this to me? How could you have, you
00:30:06
know, overstepped the boundaries and
00:30:08
stuff like that?" So, I think that's
00:30:09
where these issues are. And also from a
00:30:11
general counsel perspective, you know
00:30:13
the dotted line exists, but the question
00:30:14
is, does the board even know that? Or
00:30:16
even if they knew it, are they
00:30:17
exercising that, right? So, there's just
00:30:20
a lot of these things which board can
00:30:21
boards can do. Even from a
00:30:23
whistleblowing perspective, yes, a
00:30:24
whistleblowing process exists. Have you
00:30:26
pen tested it? Have you actually tried
00:30:28
to send in a report?
00:30:30
Have you spoken to any of the, you know,
00:30:33
anonymous or whatever people?
00:30:36
So, yeah, I mean, there's just a lot of
00:30:38
things boards can do, but I don't know
00:30:39
if they do them.
00:30:41
Yeah, but things to think about, I
00:30:42
guess.
00:30:43
Who, when you had those conversations,
00:30:46
was in the room? And how did they react
00:30:49
to what was unfolding? Who Who did you
00:30:52
speak to initially, and then what
00:30:54
happened thereafter? It was always
00:30:56
following protocol. So, when the
00:30:58
whistle internal whistleblower came to
00:31:00
me, my job was to protect that person.
00:31:02
So, I until today never revealed who it
00:31:05
was. You know, I get it was a female
00:31:07
staff on the finance team. I called her
00:31:09
Bobby uh so couldn't be identified. And
00:31:12
my job was to protect this person all
00:31:14
the way, right? Keep her safe, keep her
00:31:15
anonymous, and then deal with the
00:31:16
investigation um and coordinate it. So,
00:31:19
who was involved in the investigation
00:31:21
straight away was the Deputy General
00:31:23
Counsel, eventually the General Counsel,
00:31:25
and then it went to the board level. The
00:31:26
board wanted to do it themselves because
00:31:28
clearly,
00:31:29
you know, one of the person the main guy
00:31:31
that wanted to investigate and take over
00:31:33
everything is Jan Marsalek, who's the
00:31:36
CEO
00:31:37
uh who was the CEO and is now the most
00:31:40
wanted man in Europe, you know, former
00:31:42
Russian spy for the last 20 years. He's
00:31:43
been keeping himself very busy with the
00:31:45
Bulgarian spying uh that was in the in
00:31:48
the press in the UK a couple of months
00:31:50
ago.
00:31:51
Um so, that was a person that actually
00:31:53
wanted to deal with the investigation.
00:31:56
So, where the real difficulty lies in
00:31:58
that from a practical standpoint is how
00:32:01
do you tell such a powerful person in
00:32:04
the company that you shouldn't be
00:32:06
investigating yourself because you're
00:32:07
one of the or you shouldn't be
00:32:09
investigating this case because you're
00:32:11
one of the persons of interest. Like,
00:32:13
there's is no way to write an email
00:32:15
that's not going to upset him. And
00:32:17
but you have to, right? Uh so, that's I
00:32:20
think a defining moment, if you want to
00:32:22
call that,
00:32:23
uh where
00:32:25
yeah, I mean, it was really from that
00:32:26
moment that things went downhill. And
00:32:28
had you had
00:32:30
correspondence interactions before
00:32:33
um with the CEO? Were you aware of the
00:32:35
characters that were likely to be
00:32:37
assessing the whistleblowing?
00:32:39
No, because Wirecard didn't even have a
00:32:43
whistleblowing channel. In fact, they
00:32:45
put the whistleblowing channel in place
00:32:47
in the middle of my investigation or
00:32:49
after I was being investigated and they
00:32:52
called it a anonymous whistleblowing
00:32:54
channel, but when I asked who this
00:32:57
channel actually went to, they said it
00:32:59
went straight to Jan Marsalek, the COO.
00:33:01
So,
00:33:03
they were actually trying to create a
00:33:04
whistleblowing channel to fish out
00:33:05
people that knew information and then
00:33:07
punish them. So, that was a crazy way to
00:33:10
abuse a legitimate process, so to speak,
00:33:13
and use it as a fishing tool instead,
00:33:15
which is quite scary if you think about
00:33:16
it.
00:33:17
>> [snorts]
00:33:18
>> Um
00:33:19
So, yeah, I mean
00:33:21
they there's just so many of these crazy
00:33:23
things that happened in those four
00:33:25
months, I would say. Yeah, and do you
00:33:29
do you think that if you were talking to
00:33:32
other whistleblowers, you say that
00:33:33
people come and talk to you every other
00:33:35
week you get someone that's been a
00:33:37
whistleblower or is a whistleblower or
00:33:39
is thinking about whistleblowing and
00:33:41
they're coming to kind of get your
00:33:42
advice and guidance on what you should
00:33:44
do. Do you think that where do those
00:33:46
people kind of come from with regards to
00:33:49
wanting to blow the whistle? Are they
00:33:51
fearful? Are they defensive? Are they
00:33:54
angry? What's what sorts of mindset are
00:33:58
people in when they kind of get to that
00:34:01
sort of stage to contact you? Yeah, you
00:34:03
never know because, you know, sometimes
00:34:06
someone just wants you to listen to them
00:34:08
um or kind of confirm some of the things
00:34:11
that they're saying in terms of which
00:34:13
direction to take. Uh are they
00:34:14
overreacting or, you know,
00:34:17
and I always ask them to work backwards.
00:34:19
So, that's usually my advice. What is it
00:34:21
that you want to achieve or what is it
00:34:23
that you want as an outcome, right? Do
00:34:25
you want to expose the company? Um
00:34:28
do you in external routes? Like, do you
00:34:30
want to go to regulators? Do you want to
00:34:31
go to the police?
00:34:33
Uh I mean the the media like what is it
00:34:35
that you want? Or do you just want to
00:34:37
get a settlement and you want the
00:34:38
company to just listen to you and settle
00:34:39
you and just get out of there? Like what
00:34:41
is it you need to That is the biggest
00:34:43
question because from then you can I
00:34:45
mean once you identify that you can work
00:34:46
backwards.
00:34:47
And you then kind of know what to do.
00:34:50
But if you're just sitting there and
00:34:51
you're just
00:34:52
wondering how to battle these things or
00:34:55
how to navigate now because you don't
00:34:57
want to resign.
00:34:59
You want to stay as you can but yet
00:35:02
protect yourself within the company.
00:35:04
Then those are different discussions.
00:35:05
Then you're talking about how you
00:35:07
documenting everything. You know, it's
00:35:10
so tempting to send stuff to yourself
00:35:13
to your personal email to do it on USB
00:35:15
sticks and stuff. But these are the very
00:35:18
things that will kill you, right?
00:35:20
Because right away you're committing
00:35:21
crimes for example.
00:35:24
>> [snorts]
00:35:24
>> And it's it's easy to feel that you have
00:35:26
truth on your side that oh yeah, I know
00:35:28
my company's doing wrong stuff or so and
00:35:30
so is doing wrong stuff. But then do you
00:35:32
have the resources and capability as an
00:35:35
individual to prove that versus a
00:35:37
company with that kind of resources. And
00:35:40
also if a company's like Wirecard
00:35:43
and like many fraudulent companies,
00:35:44
they're in the business of forging
00:35:46
documents.
00:35:47
Then what makes you think they can't do
00:35:49
the same against you? Saying yeah, this
00:35:51
is our person. He was involved. He was
00:35:53
actually signing off on all these things
00:35:55
and here's the proof, right? And you're
00:35:56
going there going like what in the world
00:35:59
is this? I wasn't part of these
00:36:00
documents. I never signed this thing.
00:36:02
Yeah, sure. Now it's he said she said.
00:36:03
Now
00:36:04
you know, so how are you going to prove
00:36:06
otherwise? So I think these are the real
00:36:08
practical concerns and challenges and I
00:36:10
think it's also why
00:36:13
it's so difficult because you know, you
00:36:17
it's one against one against a
00:36:19
corporation. Some uh
00:36:22
big big topics. Were there ever moments
00:36:24
that you felt
00:36:26
that you before you resigned, that you
00:36:29
shouldn't have started what what you
00:36:31
kind of started, that kind of snowball
00:36:33
effect? No, because, I mean, I was the
00:36:36
head of legal for Asia Pacific. That was
00:36:38
my job. Right. So, it's uh I took real
00:36:42
pride in it in a way. Uh I actually
00:36:44
thought there was just a few
00:36:45
individuals, some bad eggs, and you
00:36:48
know, they were they were kind of duping
00:36:50
the poor Germans
00:36:52
uh from Asia, and you know, my job was
00:36:55
to try to identify these people um
00:36:58
and get rid of them because they're
00:36:59
spoiling Wirecard's good name. So, I
00:37:01
never in my wildest dreams thought that
00:37:03
the fraud extended all the way to board
00:37:05
level to that extent, that it was really
00:37:08
a criminal enterprise.
00:37:10
Um
00:37:11
so, I think that was why I was so driven
00:37:13
to
00:37:15
I mean, I didn't question what I was
00:37:16
doing, so to speak. And also, people uh
00:37:19
people like to tell whistleblowers like,
00:37:20
"Oh, why didn't you just resign and find
00:37:22
another job?" You know, that's a very as
00:37:25
a commonly asked question, I would say.
00:37:27
Um
00:37:29
The problem with that question is
00:37:31
practically, it is not easy to just walk
00:37:33
into another job, especially the more
00:37:35
senior you get. And I think
00:37:37
fundamentally, the why should you do
00:37:39
that if you haven't done anything wrong?
00:37:41
So, and in my case at Wirecard, you
00:37:43
know,
00:37:44
the law firm that I was dealing with was
00:37:46
saying, "Just don't resign because the
00:37:48
more that we are looking into the
00:37:49
evidence, the more it's becoming super
00:37:52
obvious. So, you at some point you'll be
00:37:53
validated. So, therefore, hang in there,
00:37:55
like, you know, fight those fires,
00:37:57
withstand them."
00:37:59
Um
00:38:00
so, it's really it really was a case of
00:38:01
a race against time. And I think at some
00:38:03
point the company after 4 months was
00:38:05
getting more and more
00:38:06
frustrated. Um and that's why they got
00:38:09
increasingly desperate to want to deal
00:38:10
with me in the fastest and most painful
00:38:12
way possible. And reflecting on other
00:38:15
scandals like 1MDB,
00:38:18
what governance practices failed, and
00:38:22
how could they have been prevented in
00:38:25
your view? I think for these kinds of,
00:38:28
you know, scandals which are clearly
00:38:30
powerful in terms of stakeholders that
00:38:33
are involved. Uh I mean 1MDB's case
00:38:35
obviously it was there were government
00:38:37
aspects in there.
00:38:39
Uh in Wirecard's case I wouldn't say
00:38:40
it's too dissimilar. I'm not saying
00:38:42
Germany was involved in the fraud per
00:38:44
se, but clearly the BaFin for example
00:38:48
uh as a regulator was trading Wirecard
00:38:50
stock until the very last day.
00:38:52
So and refusing to investigate the
00:38:54
company, right? And on top of that
00:38:56
instead they were investigating the FT.
00:38:58
And on day one of the FT's article that
00:39:00
came out, they said this is not a
00:39:02
Wirecard problem. This is a short
00:39:03
selling problem with rogue journalists
00:39:05
involved and all that stuff down the
00:39:06
line. And they also were so
00:39:08
protectionist that they even banned
00:39:09
short selling on Wirecard stock for like
00:39:11
3 months.
00:39:13
So clearly the company was being
00:39:15
protected within institutions in
00:39:17
Germany. They also like 1MDB had
00:39:20
auditors
00:39:21
uh from big big four for example
00:39:24
um
00:39:24
that
00:39:26
were very deferential to to these
00:39:29
uh to the client.
00:39:31
Um so I think those are similar
00:39:32
parallels. Um and you know, this this
00:39:35
Wirecard
00:39:36
um
00:39:38
had powerful people on their supervisory
00:39:40
board as well. You had sons of prime
00:39:41
ministers in neighboring countries on
00:39:43
the board. Um
00:39:46
1MDB clearly had, you know,
00:39:48
direct government officials there uh in
00:39:51
that scandal. But what's the most
00:39:53
interesting connection between the two I
00:39:55
would say is that my mom actually went
00:39:58
to Clare Brown who was the journalist
00:40:00
that exposed um
00:40:02
initially started writing about 1MDB. So
00:40:04
Clare Rewcastle Brown was a journalist.
00:40:06
So my mom somehow made friends with her.
00:40:08
Um
00:40:09
and it was Clare that actually said,
00:40:11
"Look,
00:40:12
uh I know the Financial Times has been
00:40:14
working on this case for the last 5
00:40:15
years and getting nowhere. So I'll let
00:40:16
me put you in touch with them. So,
00:40:18
finally there is that
00:40:21
1MDB connection
00:40:23
between
00:40:25
me and and the Wirecard case as well.
00:40:27
What do you think could all those early
00:40:30
warning signs that leaders should be
00:40:33
thinking about but they're often
00:40:34
ignored? I mean, there are just so many.
00:40:37
Uh
00:40:38
>> [sighs and gasps]
00:40:39
>> early warning signs could be ex- hyper
00:40:42
growth that doesn't really make sense.
00:40:45
Um especially if you compare it to
00:40:47
industry peers. For example, why is this
00:40:49
particular company doing so well?
00:40:52
Especially if they don't have like a
00:40:53
super exceptional mind-blowing product.
00:40:55
Right. That was the case in Wirecard,
00:40:57
for example. It always like to pride
00:40:58
itself as a fintech company. I always
00:41:00
used to laugh when they said that
00:41:01
because the tech was horrible. You had
00:41:03
companies like Alipay and and all these
00:41:06
other firms that were doing way better
00:41:07
tech. Um but yet it was getting it was
00:41:11
so powerful. It's like the PayPal of
00:41:12
Europe. Why is that Why is that? So,
00:41:15
similar similar you have hyper growth
00:41:16
companies. Recently we saw it in
00:41:19
Indonesia with a startup called
00:41:21
eFishery.
00:41:22
Um
00:41:24
just blew up was a scandal. So, that's
00:41:26
the biggest red flag. Also, I would say
00:41:28
practically extremely powerful
00:41:30
influential founders
00:41:32
uh could also be a red flag because, you
00:41:35
know, they are able to dominate shout um
00:41:39
kind of coax influence the the
00:41:42
the checks and balances. Like even if
00:41:44
you are if they're dealing with say like
00:41:45
an audit firm, right? Could be like,
00:41:47
"Okay, you don't want to deal with my
00:41:48
company? That's okay. I'll go to another
00:41:50
audit firm that would." So, putting that
00:41:51
kind of pressure, that kind of thing, I
00:41:54
think that's also a red flag in its own
00:41:56
way. Which is ironic because
00:41:59
um I don't want that red flag to be in
00:42:01
my company now, for example.
00:42:03
I don't want what I just said to work
00:42:04
against me. But uh
00:42:07
yeah, and also I think number of
00:42:09
resignations.
00:42:10
If the turnover is so high, the question
00:42:13
is really like what's going on, right?
00:42:15
Why is it that people keep leaving your
00:42:17
company? Um, and is it
00:42:20
is it restricted to a specific
00:42:22
departments? I think that's also
00:42:23
something to look at. Yeah, so I would
00:42:26
say there's just so many, uh,
00:42:28
red flags that one could come up with.
00:42:31
Uh, but at the end of the day it's it
00:42:33
goes back to board level, right? Are
00:42:34
they really looking into this? Are they
00:42:36
really asking the right questions? Um,
00:42:39
are they conducting their own kind of,
00:42:41
uh, Q&A and audits and checks
00:42:44
into these things?
00:42:45
Um, you know, really going be behind the
00:42:48
reporting, asking those tough questions,
00:42:50
which
00:42:52
is easier said than done because, you
00:42:54
know, I also have board members coming
00:42:55
to me like NEDs and stuff, uh,
00:42:57
non-independent direct I mean,
00:42:59
independent directors, non-executive
00:43:01
directors and all that saying, "Look,
00:43:04
>> [sighs]
00:43:04
>> it's, uh, difficult being one. And and
00:43:07
funnily what they say is also a red flag
00:43:10
now based on their experiences is they
00:43:12
don't want to join boards if the
00:43:14
existing board members have been there
00:43:16
for like many years."
00:43:18
Because that is a red flag, uh,
00:43:21
especially if they are coming in trying
00:43:23
to be like this independent, um,
00:43:26
you know, non-executive director. Uh,
00:43:29
how do you then get into that back and
00:43:31
not be seen as the new troublemaker? I
00:43:33
think these are, uh, things that people
00:43:36
should, um,
00:43:37
just look into.
00:43:38
>> Do you think that the role of
00:43:39
non-executive director has its benefit?
00:43:42
You kind of talk about, um, about that
00:43:45
particular role and new new NEDs coming
00:43:49
in.
00:43:50
Obviously,
00:43:52
the whole point of it is to bring
00:43:54
external perspective in, but if if they
00:43:57
are in any way silenced or felt like
00:43:59
they have to be silenced, obviously they
00:44:01
have the exit option of not not staying
00:44:05
in that organization anymore. But how
00:44:07
how do you think that that supports kind
00:44:10
of the whistleblowing process and the
00:44:13
opportunity for some of these things to
00:44:14
maybe be heard by somebody that isn't
00:44:16
conflicted by the ex- the internal
00:44:19
workings because sometimes things that
00:44:21
go wrong can just even if they don't
00:44:23
directly relate to the CEO or the CFO,
00:44:25
they're operational challenges that just
00:44:28
say that something hasn't been managed
00:44:30
right. So, even if it just casts shadow
00:44:33
on their abilities to lead. Um even if
00:44:36
it's nothing they've actually done
00:44:37
wrong. So, non-exec directors, do you
00:44:39
Yeah, do you feel that they have value
00:44:42
and what value do they add and how do
00:44:43
they Well, do what they do? Yeah, I mean
00:44:45
if they're truly independent, then sure,
00:44:47
right?
00:44:49
Um
00:44:49
a lot of times that's also questionable
00:44:52
because
00:44:54
you have NEDs that know the directors
00:44:56
uh that already are there. They're like
00:44:58
kind of like golfing buddies or
00:44:59
whatever, right? Um and then you have
00:45:01
those that are very happy with just
00:45:02
being NEDs because this is just another
00:45:05
income stream.
00:45:06
It's like, "Yeah, great. I'm the NED.
00:45:08
Like you guys just tell me what's going
00:45:09
on. All good. I get my uh salary and
00:45:12
stuff."
00:45:13
Um
00:45:14
Um so, if you are actually a NED that
00:45:17
wants to do what's right, I think yes,
00:45:20
you would definitely have a powerful um
00:45:23
ability to influence processes. For
00:45:25
example, whistleblowing. If you say,
00:45:27
"Look, any whistleblowing cases that the
00:45:29
company is operationally managing, I
00:45:32
want to be able to question those cases
00:45:34
and and resolutions." Right? "I want to
00:45:36
have uh I want to have the ability to
00:45:38
actually question and see what was going
00:45:41
on in those things. I don't want to be
00:45:42
blocked out from the process because my
00:45:44
job, if you really want me to be a check
00:45:46
and balance, is to be a check and
00:45:47
balance."
00:45:49
Uh and if there's nothing to hide, then
00:45:50
what's the issue, right? I think
00:45:53
I think that would be a powerful
00:45:55
strategy.
00:45:57
Um
00:45:58
Yeah, but it's it's again like very
00:46:01
theoretical. It's very difficult to be
00:46:02
in that situation because you get all
00:46:05
kinds of pushback. And also, I think
00:46:07
operationally from from teams within
00:46:09
company within the companies, the
00:46:11
different departments, they don't want
00:46:12
to be There's always that fear that we
00:46:14
don't want to look bad to the board. We
00:46:15
don't want the board to be asking too
00:46:17
many questions. We want to always
00:46:18
present a positive picture upwards
00:46:22
because otherwise we get into all kinds
00:46:23
of issues.
00:46:25
Um and then every There's so many heads
00:46:27
involved that
00:46:28
it would have to also answer those
00:46:30
questions. And And again, funnily, would
00:46:33
it cascade down to whoever made that
00:46:35
negative-sounding report? Uh why did you
00:46:37
do this? Why did you have to phrase it
00:46:39
that way? Um so, I think these are So,
00:46:42
if you're a good NED, I think you could
00:46:43
also sniff those out
00:46:45
um
00:46:46
by actually putting in the effort and
00:46:50
following your gut feel.
00:46:52
I think a lot of these things do come
00:46:53
down to gut feel. And I've heard it said
00:46:55
many times on TV documentaries and
00:46:58
others that it when it just doesn't feel
00:47:01
right, you need to do something.
00:47:03
Is that Is that kind of where you where
00:47:05
you kind of got to of like this cannot
00:47:08
continue?
00:47:09
Yeah. I mean, the biggest question, I
00:47:11
guess, that it comes down to for
00:47:13
directors, for example, is
00:47:17
would you be Would you be able to stand
00:47:19
behind your decision if this blew up in
00:47:21
the papers tomorrow?
00:47:23
Right?
00:47:24
So, I think that's that's a great
00:47:26
guiding factor and question to ask. Um
00:47:29
And I frankly, like every department
00:47:31
head, whether it's legal or compliance,
00:47:34
should be asking themselves in control
00:47:35
functions as well, like that question.
00:47:38
What happens if something blows up? Can
00:47:39
you stand behind in this thing that
00:47:41
you've signed off on? Uh
00:47:44
you know, one of the things I like to
00:47:45
say to people in legal legal and
00:47:47
compliance, especially internal audit as
00:47:49
well,
00:47:50
is that especially if you're in a
00:47:52
startup uh particularly, and And got a
00:47:55
very
00:47:56
um
00:47:58
very you know
00:48:01
what do you call that?
00:48:03
Uh
00:48:03
>> [snorts]
00:48:03
>> very crazy eccentric CEO.
00:48:05
Right?
00:48:06
If anything goes wrong in the business,
00:48:08
which didn't which seemed weird to begin
00:48:11
with and it exploded, uh the CEO can
00:48:14
always leave the company and say that it
00:48:16
was a crazy idea, it didn't work out.
00:48:19
So, what key governance changes would
00:48:23
you recommend to ensure boards are more
00:48:25
resilient and ethical? I think the only
00:48:28
way to force these things through, being
00:48:30
honest, is if the penalties for not
00:48:33
doing the jobs are increased and made
00:48:36
harsher. And currently, I think that's
00:48:38
not happening.
00:48:39
Um even in multi-billion dollar frauds
00:48:42
in several countries, you know,
00:48:43
directors just get away with it uh like
00:48:46
a slap on the wrist. Even when it's
00:48:48
proven that they kind of like were
00:48:49
negligent in not asking the right
00:48:51
questions or whatever it. So, I think if
00:48:53
the penalties, the uh
00:48:55
liabilities are actually increased, I
00:48:57
think that is the most effective way to
00:48:59
force people to do their jobs better.
00:49:01
Yeah, absolutely. And all the all the
00:49:03
tools like uh the software that you have
00:49:06
created, Confide, that you believe
00:49:09
should be standardized? Yeah, I think
00:49:11
every every uh company, obviously I'll
00:49:14
say this, but every company should be
00:49:16
using Confide platform. Uh and the
00:49:18
reason why is because
00:49:20
you know, it's the single source of
00:49:21
truth, which currently doesn't exist in
00:49:23
any company. So, in most companies, if
00:49:25
you ask them did some if something bad
00:49:27
happens, do you have one place to find
00:49:30
out how it started, who dealt with it,
00:49:31
and what happened at the end? The answer
00:49:33
is probably no. You may have different
00:49:35
softwares doing different things,
00:49:36
different meetings, Jira tickets, Slack
00:49:38
conversations. It's not consolidated,
00:49:41
the audit trail is missing, it's messy.
00:49:43
Um and Confide platform solves virtually
00:49:46
all these issues because everything's in
00:49:48
one place and you can't modify try You
00:49:50
can't change the logs, you can't run to
00:49:52
the IT team and delete stuff. So, if
00:49:54
you're a board member and you put this
00:49:55
in place, it's great because you
00:49:56
actually if you do demand access to it
00:50:00
or at least some kind of limited access
00:50:02
to see what's going on, yeah, then it's
00:50:03
great. It's the most powerful check and
00:50:05
balance
00:50:06
from a software perspective that could
00:50:08
exist. And you have one source of the
00:50:10
truth essentially. Yes.
00:50:13
If listeners could adopt one kind of
00:50:16
governance practice to strengthen
00:50:18
ethical decision-making, what would you
00:50:20
suggest? Well, I think before
00:50:23
every
00:50:24
every significant decision, you know,
00:50:26
the question needs to be asked, "What
00:50:27
would someone need to believe for this
00:50:30
to go wrong?"
00:50:31
Because if you can't, you know, you
00:50:33
can't steel man the opposition side of
00:50:35
that argument, then you don't understand
00:50:37
the decision well enough to make it,
00:50:39
right? Cuz as I posted on LinkedIn
00:50:41
today, like most governance disasters
00:50:43
happen when intelligent people convince
00:50:44
themselves that they can't be wrong. So,
00:50:47
you know, asking that question kind of
00:50:49
forces intellectual humility into rooms
00:50:51
full of successful people who aren't
00:50:54
used to being wrong. So, I would say
00:50:56
that's what I would do. So, it's it's
00:50:59
very much I suppose about speaking truth
00:51:01
to power.
00:51:02
Yeah.
00:51:04
Well, thank you very much Pav for
00:51:06
sharing, you know, the truths behind the
00:51:09
headlines and for helping boards to
00:51:13
understand what real accountability
00:51:15
looks like. It's been great speaking to
00:51:16
you today. Thank you. Thank you for
00:51:18
having me.
00:51:20
That's it for this episode of Grit in
00:51:21
the Boardroom. Thanks to Pav for sharing
00:51:24
his story with honesty and insight, and
00:51:26
thank you for listening.
00:51:28
If you found this conversation valuable,
00:51:30
please follow the show and share it with
00:51:32
someone who leads through complexity.
00:51:35
Until next time, stay thoughtful, stay
00:51:38
brave, and stay in the room.
00:51:42
I think
00:51:43
as a result of the conversations I had
00:51:45
with Pav, it's really given me an
00:51:48
opportunity to reflect on what needs to
00:51:52
be better, what needs to change, and
00:51:54
some things need to stay the same.
00:51:57
Particularly in the UK setting of of
00:51:59
governance. I think that with
00:52:01
whistleblowing it's so important to make
00:52:04
sure that whoever is the person that
00:52:06
those reports go to, they are able to
00:52:09
act with objectivity.
00:52:11
Because otherwise those discussions and
00:52:15
conversations and that person's brave
00:52:17
bravery of coming forward [music] is
00:52:19
completely wasted. And I think for those
00:52:21
organizations that find themselves faced
00:52:23
with problems, challenges,
00:52:26
whistleblowing, they need to see this as
00:52:28
an opportunity for change, reflection,
00:52:31
and perhaps improvement. And to adopt
00:52:35
that sort of approach
00:52:36
>> [music]
00:52:36
>> and
00:52:37
the organization will be stronger as a
00:52:39
result of it.
00:53:01
Mhm.
