Ex-whistleblower questions accountability for auditing misconduct

Pav Gill has come into the spotlight as the whistleblower who exposed Germany-headquartered payment processing company Wirecard’s multibillion fraud that ultimately led to the company’s collapse in 2020.

Gill was head of the legal department for Asia-Pacific at Wirecard and is now the founder and chief executive of whistleblowing software The Confide Platform, a tool that streamlines reporting and management of corporate misconduct.

Speaking to Accounting Times in the wake of the KPMG audit scandal and its treatment of the whistleblower who alleged misconduct in the audit department, Gill said the audit profession is riddled with issues “as a whole”.

Specifically, he voiced concerns about the lack of sanctions or repercussions for misconduct or wrongdoing in general, whether it is a failed audit or mishandling of internal whistleblowing.

“I don’t see repercussions that are proportionate to the damage,” he said.

“Even if you look at Wirecard, where EY Germany was the auditor, some auditors surrendered their licenses, and the proceedings against them ended. EY itself and five individual auditors were sanctioned, but were the consequences proportionate to the scale of the failure? If you can prove bad faith or serious misconduct, there must be real accountability.”

This differs from legal and other professions where lawyers who engage in misconduct could face action by the law council or disciplinary tribunals.

Alongside this, in circumstances like Wirecard, where an audit was undertaken by a big four firm like EY Germany and the company collapsed, Gill questioned whether there is any recourse for investors.

“I ask this because auditors can sometimes hide behind qualifications and carve-outs in their reports that push responsibility back onto management,” he said.

“But from a human standpoint, if you are an investor or creditor who relied on that report, you took it as a stamp of assurance and made decisions based on it. So, should there not be some kind of recourse or penalty where the audit has seriously failed? There has to be something, even if it is a moral obligation.”

The role of governments in whistleblower protections

Gill cited the Japanese government as an example, which amended its Whistleblower Protection Act to bolster protections for whistleblowers and issue penalties, effective December 2026.

Amendments include criminal penalties of either a fine or prison time for retaliatory dismissal or discipline, confidentiality obligations and protecting the identity of a whistleblower by banning unjustified attempts to identify them, and prohibiting conduct that would obstruct whistleblowing and discourage whistleblowing reports.

“I think governments should definitely find ways to hold companies accountable where it is clear that they went after whistleblowers, and potentially sanction the individuals responsible as well,” Gill said.

“I think Japan’s upcoming amendments are one powerful example of how legislation can change company behaviour. They go further than simply saying whistleblowers will be protected. What practical protection will companies provide? Will it include legal support? What happens afterwards? Can the whistleblower find another job?

“Legislation can help, but it needs teeth. Sanctions need to be strong if they are to work.”

The ‘big hypocrisy problem’ in firms

Gill slammed large accounting and audit firms and other professional services firms for their “big hypocrisy problem”.

While firms are eager to tell their clients about their speak-up culture and frameworks, he said, they don’t implement it in practice.

“We often see these firms boasting about having their own speak-up channels and how well they work, but the way they treat their own employees who use those channels can be completely at odds with what they preach to clients.”

“That’s what I call hypocrisy. They don’t walk the talk. The bigger question is why. Do they think they are too good to follow the same standards, or that they do not need them?”

Gill also urged companies to embed an effective, safe whistleblowing system and be transparent with employees about who is overseeing the process.

Next, companies should demonstrate the system’s effectiveness so employees feel reassured about their safety if they raise misconduct or operational issues.

“If you are still going to go after people for using a whistleblowing channel to report senior employees, rainmakers or whoever else, then people are going to realise that it is just for show and does not work,” Gill said.

Any code should mandate clear trails

When asked if setting a governance code for large audit firms – as recommended by CA ANZ in their submission on the regulation of accounting, auditing, and consulting firms – could address some of the issues plaguing large accounting firms, Gill said it would depend on what is stipulated.

“If the code mandates a clear audit trail for every whistleblower report, including who handled it, what was done, what was escalated and how the evidence was preserved, I think that would be useful,” Gill said.

With the board’s independence questioned at the recent KPMG hearings, mandating independent board directors and audit risk committees is vital for investigating whistleblower complaints, he said.

Gill encouraged firms to view any scandal as an opportunity to correct course by rebuilding trust and closing any gaps that may have surfaced.

“Show that you’ve taken concrete steps to fix the problems. That’s a good start.”