Case of Eileen Foster v. BofA and Countrywide
The story starts March 7, 2007. Eileen Foster was promoted to Executive Vice President, Fraud Risk Management while she was working for the Countrywide Financial Corp. This role requires our whistleblower to supervise and monitor internal bank processes and mortgage fraud investigations, if needed, organize and send conclusion in the form of suspicious activity report to the U.S. Treasury as well as the board of directors. During her time, she learned that Full Spectrum Lending Division (FSL) managers in the Boston area were subject to several fraud allegations, she directed an investigation into the matter, found conclusive evidence of “egregious fraud”, including document and invoice forgery, …show more content…
The case of Eileen Foster with BofA and Countrywide illustrates the harm of pride, or at least unjust control of the higher management, it is more than the idea of people not admitting their mistakes, but advocate their view based on their own mind, without considering advice and friendly warnings. However, this issue is not uncommon at that period of time because the whole nation’s mortgage companies are mad for earnings without formalities, the set of activity that is identical to fraud that was investigated and reported by Eileen Foster. This connection makes the case more than one normal incident that involves retaliation against a whistleblower in a publicly traded company, it should be seen as “whistleblower of the whole housing mortgage industry” to be …show more content…
In a case that all other parts the company, especially the higher managers, have ignored the truth more than once, an intelligent whistleblower should immediately inform the government about the issue. If the brave one is too stubborn and wants to handle the matter internally, then what happens to Eileen Foster will repeat itself, the wise way is to solve the problem as quickly as possible, whether by internal approach or outside enforcement. Without irritating the leaders, an outside intervention can help before the issue explodes on itself, costs BofA and Countrywide at least $915.5 million to settle all cases. If Eileen Foster had handed in the suspicious activity report to the U.S. Treasury secretly instead of accuse ER for not conforming to ethical conduct, she can save her job for obvious reasons, fines from the government can be lower than $915.5 million as well, underlying logic is that the fraud problem is probably not as bad during earlier times, therefore the leaders will have the chance to make a better deal with the
The story starts March 7, 2007. Eileen Foster was promoted to Executive Vice President, Fraud Risk Management while she was working for the Countrywide Financial Corp. This role requires our whistleblower to supervise and monitor internal bank processes and mortgage fraud investigations, if needed, organize and send conclusion in the form of suspicious activity report to the U.S. Treasury as well as the board of directors. During her time, she learned that Full Spectrum Lending Division (FSL) managers in the Boston area were subject to several fraud allegations, she directed an investigation into the matter, found conclusive evidence of “egregious fraud”, including document and invoice forgery, …show more content…
The case of Eileen Foster with BofA and Countrywide illustrates the harm of pride, or at least unjust control of the higher management, it is more than the idea of people not admitting their mistakes, but advocate their view based on their own mind, without considering advice and friendly warnings. However, this issue is not uncommon at that period of time because the whole nation’s mortgage companies are mad for earnings without formalities, the set of activity that is identical to fraud that was investigated and reported by Eileen Foster. This connection makes the case more than one normal incident that involves retaliation against a whistleblower in a publicly traded company, it should be seen as “whistleblower of the whole housing mortgage industry” to be …show more content…
In a case that all other parts the company, especially the higher managers, have ignored the truth more than once, an intelligent whistleblower should immediately inform the government about the issue. If the brave one is too stubborn and wants to handle the matter internally, then what happens to Eileen Foster will repeat itself, the wise way is to solve the problem as quickly as possible, whether by internal approach or outside enforcement. Without irritating the leaders, an outside intervention can help before the issue explodes on itself, costs BofA and Countrywide at least $915.5 million to settle all cases. If Eileen Foster had handed in the suspicious activity report to the U.S. Treasury secretly instead of accuse ER for not conforming to ethical conduct, she can save her job for obvious reasons, fines from the government can be lower than $915.5 million as well, underlying logic is that the fraud problem is probably not as bad during earlier times, therefore the leaders will have the chance to make a better deal with the