The CFTC’s Whistleblower Programme has been in operation for over 15 years and has awarded almost USD $600 million in whistleblower awards since inception. Under the rules, the CFTC pays monetary awards to eligible whistleblowers who voluntarily provide the CFTC with original information about violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) that lead the CFTC to bring a successful enforcement action resulting in monetary sanctions of USD 1 million or more. It also pays awards to whistleblowers whose information leads to the successful enforcement of a Related Action, that is a successful action brought by other entities such as the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other federal departments or agencies, based on the same original information voluntarily provided by a whistleblower to the CFTC. This week the CFTC announced that it had awarded over USD $150 million in whistleblower awards during the period beginning in July 2026 (click here).
The total amount of an award for an eligible enforcement action is between 10% and 30% of the monetary sanction amount collected in the CFTC's enforcement action or a Related Action. Under the scheme, whistleblowers enjoy protections regarding the confidentiality of their identity and employers are not allowed to take any action to impede would-be whistleblowers from communicating directly with the CFTC. Despite many notable changes to the status quo under the current CFTC leadership, the Whistleblower Programme has largely endured and remains an important pillar supporting CFTC enforcement. It recently announced rule changes that would incentivise whistleblowing by speeding up the awards process for smaller awards (click here).
This week’s announcement goes some way to confirming the ongoing role and prominence of the Whistleblower Programme. The USD 150 million in whistleblower awards made since July 2026 are spread across 10 individuals in five separate Orders. As has traditionally been the case with such Orders, a significant amount of detail is redacted to protect the identity of the whistleblower, including any detail that might allow one to connect the award to the underlying enforcement action and companies or individuals involved. These Orders are no exception. They do, however, contain some detail that may be instructive, as outlined below.
In the first Order, the CFTC found in favour of an individual who had helped substantially with the investigation (click here). The claimant’s information was specific, credible, and timely and “very significant” as it involved direct case evidence (details redacted). The claimant participated in multiple interviews with CFTC staff, voluntarily travelled to serve as a witness, and was not involved in the conduct. Also, no negative factors applied.
In the second Order, the CFTC found in favour of one claimant, while rejecting the related claims of three others (click here). Like the first case, the claimant provided direct evidence and did not have any negative factors associated with them and was not involved in the illicit conduct. The claimant’s input helped the CFTC to “demonstrate the breadth of Defendants’ fraud” and allowed it to assert a higher dollar amount in pleadings. Of the three rejected claimants, two never submitted a TCR (Tip, Complaint or Referral) form, and the third submitted one only after the CFTC had already filed its complaint, so the information did not significantly contribute to the action. One also submitted their award application too late.
In the third Order, the CFTC found in favour of four claimants but rejected five others (click here). The first claimant was the first to blow the whistle leading to an investigation and provided significant information with no negative factors. The second and third claimants provided “significant information”, with one of them having no negative factors but the other having unspecified culpability. The fourth provided information that gave the CFTC “leverage in negotiations” but had unspecified culpability as a negative factor. The CFTC also reduced the Claims Review Staff’s (CRS's) proposed award amounts across all four claimants, citing concerns that oversized awards could encourage frivolous claims and drain enforcement resources (see arguments starting on page 5). All five denials were made in the earlier Preliminary Determination (PD) - four went uncontested, and only one claimant subsequently sought reconsideration. The claimant argued that the CFTC’s case team lacked a basic understanding of the matter until he/she provided information, and that he/she was prejudiced in the award determination after being asked to limit his/her written submissions while related trials were ongoing. The CFTC rejected both arguments (see pages 10 - 11).
In the fourth Order, the CFTC found in favour of three claimants but rejected two others (click here). All three provided significant information with no negative factors. Two of the claimants requested reconsideration of the PD, seeking a greater share of the award. Both requests were denied (see arguments on pages 3 - 4). The two rejected claimants did not challenge the denial handed down in the PD.
In the fifth Order, the CFTC found in favour of one claimant and rejected four others (click here). The successful claimant provided significant information that supported all charges brought by the CFTC (details redacted) and was “crucial evidence”. It also helped it to bring a charge that was “first of its kind in CFTC history”. Three of the four denials handed down in the PD were not contested. One claimant was disqualified because of a criminal conviction, and the other two were denied because their information did not lead to the successful enforcement of the action. One of the denied claimants submitted a reconsideration request which was rejected (see the arguments on pages 3 - 5).
Given the ongoing and significant role played by whistleblowers in CFTC enforcement, firms are advised to review their internal whistleblower frameworks to ensure that they are designed to encourage internal reporting, protect whistleblower confidentiality, and guard against any action that could impede employees from communicating directly with the CFTC.
Firms should also confirm that reports are appropriately triaged and escalated promptly. Non-retaliation policies should also be clearly communicated, and confidentiality and separation agreements should be drafted so as not to restrict whistleblowing. The Orders show that whistleblower awards can turn on the specificity, timeliness and originality of the information provided. Firms that act quickly on credible internal reports may be better placed to self-identify and remediate issues before a whistleblower “goes external”.