First Office Agents

At the FBI Academy, there was a class called F-O-A-C which stands Field Office Administrative Codes (at least I think that what it stands for).   It is like learning a foreign language.  And when most new agents hear BuSpeak, they are confronted with hundreds of acronyms and combined words that they must learn to be able to function in their jobs. 

In every FOAC class, there are two distinct levels of comprehension.  The former FBI support personnel who are now newly minted New Agents and everyone else.  The former FBI support personnel were all fluent in BuSpeak and everyone else was really lost and confused. 

It was the most daunting class in the FBI Academy – at least it was for me, and I have had an enduring fascination with FBI acronyms ever since.  

It is fair to say that whistleblowing across Latin America has caught on.  In fact, according to NAVEX’s 2025 Regional Whistleblowing & Incident Management Benchmark Report, a median of 2.97 out of each 100 employees submitted whistleblower reports last year. While that may not seem high, it is the highest region by far in NAVEX’s study when compared to the global median of 1.57 or the lowest of the four regions studied, Europe at .67.  Does a higher volume of reports suggest a willingness to come forward without fear of retaliation or is it something else?  

The NAVEX report breaks down whistleblower allegations into risk categories.  Workplace Conduct, Accounting and Financial Reporting, Business Integrity, Environment, Health and Safety, Misuse or Misappropriation of Assets and Other. 

In Latin America, 2/3 of all reports fell into the category of Workplace Conduct. Underneath these 6 categories, there are a total of 24 risk types including Harassment, Discrimination, Substance Abuse, Compensation and Benefits, Workplace Civility (or incivility, I suppose), Other Human Resources and Retaliation.  Given that 2/3 of what’s been reported on falls within these categories, that seems like a good place to start our exploration of whistleblowing in Latin America.

A baby agent is a playful, yet derisive term often used to describe a Special Agent Trainee at the FBI Academy. A blue flamer is a reference to the blue flame that comes out the back of a fighter jet. Upon leaving the Academy, newly minted FBI Agents are said to have a 3 foot blue flame of enthusiasm coming out of their butts.  And rightly so.  Shortly after arriving at the FBI Academy, I remember being told: “Congratulations. You just passed the most stringent career screening process that there is. Out of 50,000 applicants a year, we onboard between 400 and 800 new agents a year." I don’t know about you Kevin, but had I known that on the front end, I may not have submitted an application in the first place.  And during the course of the lengthy recruiting process that for me lasted 16 months from beginning to end, you are periodically told that the odds are against you for various reasons.  I’m not sure those seemingly casual remarks that were directed at both Kevin and me as it turns out, weren’t a part of the weeding out process.  Or it could be paranoia.   Before planning this episode, Kevin and I hadn’t really talked about our recruitment and academy experiences much.   And it was funny to learn that we both went through a similar psychological process.

So as we approach year end, many organizations are conducting performance evaluations and are allocating the bonus pool accordingly. And during the performance review process, low performers garner a lot of negative attention as you might expect. Indeed, one of the more widely recognized red flags in efforts to identify fraud risk is that of a disenfranchised employee, often a subset of the low performer pool.

But what if I told you that the opposite may be true and it's high performers who pose a disproportionate amount of organizational risk?

As we approach year end, many organizations are conducting performance evaluations and are allocating the bonus pool accordingly. And during the performance review process, low performers garner a lot of negative attention as you might expect. Indeed, one of the more widely recognized red flags in efforts to identify fraud risk is that of a disenfranchised employee, often a subset of the low performer pool. But what if I told you that the opposite may be true and it's high performers who pose a disproportionate amount of organizational risk?

This episode was inspired by an article published by Richard Bistrong, Dina Denham Smith and @Ron Carucci: https://lnkd.in/eaK4sAji

I think for a lot of us, when we think about crypto, it still makes us cringe a little bit. And the question and the topic of today's episode is, should it still make us cringe?

Whether you're a fan or you're shying away from it, the crypto ecosystem is expanding rapidly. Part of what is causing many to spurn crypto is due to reputational issues. These include the prevalence of crypto-themed fraud, and vulnerability to hacking, which make many retail investors uncomfortable and are keeping some people away. And at the same time, crypto adoption is expanding and the regulatory and enforcement environment has become more favorable to business.

This confluence is opening increased opportunities for innovation, but it's also creating opportunities for a wide range of fraud schemes ranging from meme coin scans to sophisticated market manipulation. And some of the most egregious examples of crypto fraud, they continue to be addressed by law enforcement, and rightly so. But civil enforcement by victims and other private parties is equally important in addressing crypto fraud and holding crypto criminals accountable to their victims.

It's also important to remember that criminal investigations primary objective is to punish those responsible, whereas making victims whole is secondary and certainly not a foregone conclusion. Civil litigation can really fill that void by seeking recovery for victims of things like pig butchering scams, crypto project, rug pulls, and institutional investment schemes such as those involving crypto startups that failed to execute.

Mexico is a critically important trading partner with the U.S.  Together with China and Canada, the three account for 36.5% of all U.S. imports and 32.1% of all U.S. exports amounting to over $1 trillion of trade each year. And yet, Mexico is always a challenging country in which to do business. The gap became the wealthiest and the poorest is enormous.  Violent crime and gun violence is extremely prevalent. Government and police corruption is widespread, and Mexico is amongst the largest global producers of cocaine, heroin and Fentanyl.  In addition to being a narcotics source country, because it borders the U.S., it is a major narcotics transshipment country.  And all of the money generated by narcotics trafficking has to be laundered.  In fact, Mexican money launderers are amongst the world’s most innovative who make use of a combination of trade-based money laundering, traditional money laundering through cash intensive businesses, bulk smuggling of U.S. currency, the black market peso exchange and other proven and widely used techniques.

On a more positive note, Mexico is also a huge trading and manufacturing partner for a wide range of goods including automobiles and car parts, clothing, housewares, precious metals, oil and gas and a huge volume of agricultural products. Mexico is fraught with risk, tensions between Mexico and the U.S. are at an all time high. And yet, our two economies and national security are inextricably linked.  So how do U.S. companies with significant operations in Mexico continue to operate there?  And what should companies who are considering investing in the Mexican market do to mitigate all of this uncertainty?

Good informants are a critically important part of the law enforcement universe. They are double-edged swords though and sources can end a promising law enforcement career very quickly. Given their importance, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies evaluate their investigators in part on how many sources they have developed and how productive they have been. The steps that precede someone becoming an informant are often one or a series of bad choices coupled with an extra helping of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. One could argue that the decision to become an informant is just the latest in a series of bad decisions. I say that now because my performance evaluation is no longer dependent on source development. Otherwise, I would probably place more emphasis on the many positive aspects of playing for Team USA.

In this special crossover episode, Scott Moritz, President of White Collar Forensic LLC and host of the Fraud Eats Strategy, and Scott Maberry, host of the Nota Bene, discuss important considerations in internal investigations and how integrating each into your process can improve efficiency and lead to better and more consistent results.

In March of 2025, Former Inspector General of the Department of the Interior Mark Lee Greenblatt and I discussed the firing of the Inspectors General and its far-reaching implications for the country.

With the blizzard of Executive Orders, high profile government firings and other maneuvers that appear to continue to tear down government agencies, it would be easy to forget about firing of the IGs and the long term consequences. Mark Lee Greenblatt is making it his mission so that the American people don’t lost sight of that fact. At the time of the firing of the IGs, we could only engage in conjecture as to what the long-term implications would be.

On January 24, 2025, President Trump fired 16 inspectors general of the 16 largest, most complex U.S. government agencies and a 17th, the IG for USAID Paul Martin, 2 weeks later. The number has since risen to 20.