What counts as “original information” for a BSA whistleblower tip?

A tip about money laundering can be important without qualifying for a whistleblower award. Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the key question is not simply whether the information is serious. It is whether it meets the statutory test for “original information”, is provided through the required process and leads to a successful enforcement action.

The BSA whistleblower programme was substantially reshaped by legislation passed in December 2022. The changes strengthened the framework created by the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, including by making qualifying awards mandatory and establishing a clearer award range. They also reinforced protections against retaliation.

This article explains the original information definition in practical terms: what may qualify, what can make a tip ineligible, and how internal compliance reporting channels differ from an external submission to regulators. It is general information, not legal advice. The rules and their application depend on the facts, and potential whistleblowers should consider taking independent advice before acting.

What the BSA whistleblower programme does

The BSA requires financial institutions and certain other businesses to maintain anti-money laundering controls and meet reporting and record-keeping obligations. One important obligation is filing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when the legal criteria are met. A SAR is a confidential report to the government about potentially suspicious activity; it is not a finding that a customer has committed a crime.

The whistleblower programme allows eligible individuals to give information to the US Department of the Treasury or the US Department of Justice (DOJ) about BSA violations and related misconduct. In appropriate cases, an individual may receive an award if the information contributes to a successful enforcement action that results in monetary sanctions.

The programme is not a general bonus for raising a concern at work. A tip must meet statutory conditions, and an award depends on the outcome of government action as well as the quality and contribution of the information.

The original information definition

For BSA award purposes, “original information” generally means information that is:

• derived from the whistleblower’s independent knowledge or independent analysis;
• not already known to the Treasury Secretary or Attorney General from another source, unless that source is the whistleblower; and
• not based exclusively on allegations made in specified public proceedings, government reports or investigations, audits, or the news media, unless the whistleblower is the source of those allegations.

These requirements work together. Information can be new to a regulator but still fail the test if it is merely copied from a public report. Conversely, information that relates to a known investigation may still have value if it supplies genuinely independent facts, analysis or evidence that the government did not already have.

Independent knowledge

Independent knowledge means information a person has acquired through their own experiences or observations. It need not come from a dramatic discovery. A compliance analyst might, for example, have personally reviewed transaction records and noticed a pattern suggesting that a business is routing payments through connected entities to conceal the source of funds.

The relevant point is the person’s own access to, or observation of, the facts—not whether they were the first person in the company to raise a concern. A colleague may have spotted part of the pattern, while the prospective whistleblower independently reviewed different records and identified a wider connection. The value of the tip will depend on what the individual actually knows and can explain.

Independent analysis

Independent analysis can qualify even where the underlying documents or data are not secret. It means the whistleblower has examined information and reached a conclusion that is not already apparent from the source material alone. For example, a person might compare payment flows across several entities and identify a relationship that is not described in a public filing.

Analysis should be more than repeating a suspicion or attaching https://www.lawyer-monthly.com/2026/10/bsa-whistleblower-program-policies-for-2027/ a large collection of documents without explanation. A useful submission identifies the relevant transactions, explains how the facts connect to a possible violation, and distinguishes observed facts from assumptions.

Does “original” mean completely new?

No. “Original” does not necessarily mean that nobody has ever heard of the underlying conduct. A regulator may already know that a firm is under review, or a public report may describe a broad problem. The question is whether the whistleblower is providing independent information that meets the statutory conditions and is not already known to the government from another source.

That distinction matters for tip eligibility. A person should not assume that a matter is disqualified merely because it has been reported internally, discussed publicly or investigated in some form. Nor should they assume that additional details automatically qualify. The source, content and timing of the information all matter.

Public information, non-public information and the limits of the test

“Non-public information” is often used as shorthand for information that has not been disclosed outside an organisation. But the statutory test is more specific than a simple public-versus-private distinction. It focuses on independent knowledge or analysis, what the government already knows, and whether the information comes exclusively from certain public sources.

Information drawn from a news article, government report, court filing or public hearing may be insufficient if the tip merely repeats the allegations made there. The statute’s public-source rule is not, however, a blanket exclusion for anyone whose work touches publicly available material. A whistleblower may have independent knowledge or analysis that adds something material.

For example, a public enforcement release might describe a bank’s failure to monitor a customer. An employee who independently identifies previously undisclosed transactions, relevant internal controls or a separate pattern of conduct may have information beyond the release. Whether it qualifies will depend on what the government already knows and how the tip is supported.

Internal channels and external submissions are different

Most financial institutions have internal compliance reporting channels, such as a manager, compliance team, ethics hotline or designated whistleblowing process. These channels may help an organisation investigate and correct a problem. They are not the same thing as submitting information to the Treasury or the DOJ under the federal whistleblower programme.

In general, making an internal report does not by itself turn information into something other than original information. Nor should a person assume that an internal report automatically satisfies the requirements for an external award claim. A potential whistleblower should check the current submission process and make any required external submission in the prescribed way.

There can be practical reasons to report internally, including giving an institution an opportunity to address a control failure. There can also be risks. Internal investigations may alert people involved, records may change, and a delay could affect the usefulness of a later report. A person should not assume that they must report internally first, or that doing so is always the safest choice. Timing and legal advice matter.

Handle SAR information with particular care

SARs are subject to strict confidentiality rules. A person should not disclose the existence or contents of a SAR to a customer or other unauthorised person, and should not remove or share documents unlawfully in an effort to support a tip. A whistleblower can describe suspected conduct without revealing a SAR, but the boundary can be fact-sensitive.

Do not copy customer data or confidential records to personal devices, email accounts or cloud storage without authority. The fact that information may support a government report does not provide a general licence to take or disclose it. Before sharing internal material, obtain advice about the applicable confidentiality, privacy, employment and data-protection rules.

When an award may be available

The 2022 legislative changes made awards mandatory when the statutory conditions are met. Broadly, the information must be original, the whistleblower must provide it voluntarily through the relevant process, and it must lead to a successful enforcement action resulting in more than $1 million in monetary sanctions.

The $1 million threshold concerns monetary sanctions in the qualifying action, not the whistleblower’s personal loss or the amount of a single suspicious transaction. A large allegation alone is not enough: the government must bring a successful action and monetary sanctions must be imposed. The award is generally calculated by reference to sanctions collected, rather than simply the headline amount announced in a settlement.

Question Why it matters Is the information original? It must meet the independent knowledge or analysis test and the related statutory limits. Was it provided voluntarily and through the required process? Procedural requirements can affect eligibility; check the current rules before submitting. Did the information lead to a successful action? An investigation or allegation alone does not trigger an award. Were more than $1 million in monetary sanctions imposed? This is the statutory threshold for a qualifying award.

What the 10 to 30 per cent award range means

For a qualifying action, the award range is generally 10 to 30 per cent of monetary sanctions collected. The percentage is not automatic, and it is not 10 to 30 per cent of a company’s total revenue or of every penalty announced in a press release. The amount collected and the whistleblower’s contribution are central considerations.

Within the statutory range, the Treasury Secretary determines the award in light of factors including the significance of the information, the assistance provided, the government’s interest in deterring violations and the whistleblower’s participation in internal compliance systems. The rules do not promise a particular percentage in any individual case.

In practical terms, a clear, timely tip that identifies key people, transactions and records—and helps investigators develop a case—may be more useful than a vague allegation or an unstructured document dump. But even strong information cannot guarantee an enforcement action, collections or an award.

Anti-retaliation protections and the federal cause of action

The BSA framework includes protections against retaliation for qualifying whistleblowing. Retaliation can include firing, demotion, suspension, threats, harassment or other adverse employment action connected to protected reporting. The law also provides a federal cause of action, meaning an eligible whistleblower may be able to bring a claim in federal court if an employer retaliates unlawfully.

These protections are important, but they are not a guarantee that retaliation will not happen or that a claim will succeed. The facts, the reporting route, deadlines and available remedies can all matter. Keep a careful record of relevant events, including when concerns were raised, to whom, and any changes in treatment afterwards. Do not take confidential business records as a substitute for preserving a lawful account of events.

Someone considering an external tip should think about retaliation risk before acting, not only after an adverse employment decision. Independent legal advice can help assess how to report, how to protect personal information and what to do if the employer responds negatively.

A practical checklist for assessing tip eligibility

1. Identify what you know first-hand. Separate personal observations and work you performed from information you heard second-hand.
2. Explain your analysis. Set out how the facts connect and what the pattern may indicate, without presenting a suspicion as proven misconduct.
3. Check what is already public. Identify any reports, proceedings or media coverage and explain what, if anything, your information adds.
4. Consider what the government may already know. You may not be able to establish this yourself, but do not assume that an existing investigation either automatically defeats or establishes eligibility.
5. Use authorised channels carefully. Distinguish an internal compliance report from an external submission, and check the current federal process and requirements.
6. Protect confidential information. Do not disclose a SAR or obtain records unlawfully. Get advice before sharing sensitive material.
7. Consider timing and retaliation risk. Delays, internal escalation and employment consequences can have practical and legal implications.

The bottom line

For a BSA whistleblower tip, “original information” is not simply information that feels important or has never been mentioned at work. The core test is whether it comes from the individual’s independent knowledge or analysis, is not already known to the government from another source, and is not exclusively drawn from specified public allegations.

Internal reporting and external submissions serve different purposes. An internal report may be appropriate, but it is not a substitute for checking the federal submission requirements. The 2022 changes provide for mandatory awards within a 10 to 30 per cent range when statutory conditions are met and sanctions exceed $1 million. They also provide anti-retaliation protections and a federal cause of action. None of this removes the need to handle SAR-related information lawfully, assess timing, or take retaliation risk seriously.