How much can you get paid under the AML whistleblower law?

Under US law, an eligible whistleblower may receive an award of 10 to 30 per cent of certain monetary sanctions collected by the government in a successful enforcement action. The award is not a fixed payment, and reporting suspected wrongdoing does not guarantee that one will be made.

The rules come from the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) whistleblower programme, significantly overhauled by Congress in 2022. The programme can cover information about violations involving anti-money laundering (AML) requirements, including failures connected with Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). But eligibility depends on the information provided, the action taken by regulators and, crucially, whether sanctions are actually collected.

This is a US federal programme. Anyone weighing a report should get advice from a solicitor or US attorney familiar with whistleblower law, especially where they work for the organisation concerned or have handled confidential compliance material.

The short answer: 10 to 30 per cent of collected sanctions

For a qualifying whistleblower, the award range is generally 10 to 30 per cent of the monetary sanctions collected in the relevant action or actions. The award is calculated from money collected, not simply the headline penalty announced in a settlement or court judgment.

For example, if a covered enforcement action results in $10 million in sanctions and the government collects that full amount, the statutory range would equate to $1 million to $3 million. That is an illustration, not a prediction. The amount actually awarded depends on the facts, the programme’s rules and the government’s collections.

The ABA ethics guidance law makes awards mandatory when the statutory requirements are met. “Mandatory” does not mean original information requirement explained that every person who reports a concern gets paid. It means that, where an eligible whistleblower’s information leads to a qualifying action and the other conditions are satisfied, the award is not merely a discretionary gratuity. The amount within the 10 to 30 per cent range still has to be determined.

What changed in the 2022 overhaul?

The BSA whistleblower provisions were introduced by the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. Congress then made significant changes through the Anti-Money Laundering Whistleblower Improvement Act of 2022, enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.

The overhaul addressed practical weaknesses in the original scheme, including how awards would be funded. It also established a clearer award structure and strengthened protections for people who report covered violations. The result is a programme that can offer substantial financial incentives, while still requiring a person to meet defined legal tests.

The programme is administered by the US Department of the Treasury, with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) playing a central role. The BSA is the federal framework that requires covered financial institutions and other regulated businesses to maintain controls and report specified financial activity.

The $1 million sanctions trigger

A key threshold is that the relevant successful enforcement action must result in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. This is a threshold for the action, not a promise that the whistleblower will receive $1 million, and it is not the amount the government must collect before the person can make a submission.

In broad terms, a whistleblower may qualify where they voluntarily provide original information that leads to a successful enforcement action involving more than $1 million in monetary sanctions. The precise assessment can be technical: what counts as original information, whether it was provided voluntarily, and whether it led to the action are matters to examine against the statute and programme rules.

There is also an important distinction between a sanction being imposed and one being collected. A regulator may announce a large penalty, but a company might pay only part of it, pay over time, or be unable to pay. Since the award is tied to collected sanctions, the practical value of a case may be lower than the headline figure suggests.

What does a 10 to 30 per cent award mean in practice?

The 10 to 30 per cent award range is a share of qualifying collected sanctions, not a percentage of the whistleblower’s salary, the company’s revenue or the amount of suspicious activity identified. The award can therefore vary widely from one matter to another.

Illustrative collected sanctions 10% example 30% example $2 million $200,000 $600,000 $10 million $1 million $3 million $50 million $5 million $15 million

These figures are arithmetic illustrations only. They assume the entire stated amount is qualifying money collected and do not account for any legal or programme-specific adjustments. They should not be treated as estimates of what a particular whistleblower will receive.

In setting an award within the range, the programme may consider matters such as the significance of the information, the assistance the whistleblower provides, and the government’s interest in encouraging reporting and cooperation. A person who provides detailed, credible evidence and assists investigators may be better placed than someone whose information is vague or already known. The outcome remains case-specific.

Internal compliance channels or a report to regulators?

Financial institutions have obligations to identify and report suspicious activity. SARs are reports filed with the relevant authorities under the BSA when the legal reporting criteria are met. A SAR is not a public document, and rules restrict disclosing its existence or contents to people who are not authorised to receive them.

Those obligations are not the same as the whistleblower award process. An employee may raise a concern through an employer’s internal compliance channel, provide information to a regulator, or in some circumstances do both. Internal reporting can give an organisation a chance to investigate and correct a problem, but it is not a substitute for a submission to the government if the person wants the regulator to receive their information directly.

Nor should a person assume that an internal report automatically counts as a whistleblower submission to FinCEN. The programme’s requirements apply to information provided to the government. A report to an employer may be relevant to the overall facts, but the employee should obtain advice on how and when to make any external submission.

Timing matters. If an organisation learns of a concern internally and reports it to regulators first, questions may arise about whether the whistleblower’s later information was voluntary, original or a cause of the enforcement action. That does not mean internal reporting is always a mistake: workplace policies, legal obligations and personal safety may all matter. It does mean that people should consider the order and timing of their steps before relying on a future award.

Employees must also avoid unauthorised disclosure of SARs or other protected information. The fact that someone suspects a reporting failure does not give them a general licence to copy, circulate or publish confidential records. A lawyer can help assess what may be submitted lawfully and how to describe the concern without breaching restrictions.

Who may qualify, and what information helps?

The programme is intended to reward people who provide useful, original information about covered violations. A general allegation, workplace rumour or unsupported conclusion is unlikely to be as useful as a clear account supported by records or first-hand knowledge.

Information may concern failures involving AML controls, record-keeping or reporting duties under the BSA. It could, for example, relate to how an institution handled suspicious activity, whether it maintained required controls, or whether it failed to make required reports. Whether particular conduct falls within the programme is a legal question, not something a person should decide solely from an internal policy or a news report.

Some people may face restrictions or special rules, including those whose roles involve compliance, audit or investigation, or who were involved in the wrongdoing. The law and programme rules contain eligibility limits and exceptions. A person should not assume that a job title either disqualifies them or guarantees eligibility.

Where a submission is made through a lawyer, there may be ways to protect the whistleblower’s identity during the process, subject to the programme’s requirements. Confidentiality should not be taken as absolute anonymity in every circumstance. The person may eventually need to provide information or testimony, and their identity may become relevant to an investigation or legal proceeding.

Anti-retaliation protections and a federal cause of action

The BSA includes anti-retaliation protections for people who engage in protected whistleblowing activity. Retaliation can include workplace action such as dismissal, demotion or other adverse treatment because the person reported, or was believed to have reported, covered information. The protection is important, but it cannot prevent an employer from acting for a legitimate, unrelated reason, and it does not remove the risk of workplace pressure or conflict.

The law provides a federal cause of action for a whistleblower who believes they have been retaliated against. In broad terms, the person must first file a complaint with the US Department of Labor within 180 days of the alleged retaliation. If the Department has not issued a final decision within 180 days, and the delay is not due to the claimant’s bad faith, the statute may allow the person to bring an action in federal district court.

Potential remedies can include reinstatement, back pay with interest, and compensation for certain losses and legal costs. The precise remedy depends on the case and the governing legal process. Deadlines are strict, so someone facing retaliation should get prompt advice rather than waiting to see whether the situation improves.

Reporting internally can create a record that the employee raised a concern, but it can also alert the employer to the person’s identity or intentions. Before taking action, consider preserving a careful chronology, keeping lawful records of relevant workplace events, and getting independent legal advice. Do not take confidential company data or SAR material without advice on what the law permits.

What a potential whistleblower should do

1. Record the facts. Note what happened, when, who was involved and how you know. Separate direct knowledge from assumptions.
2. Protect confidential material. Do not send SARs, customer data or internal records to personal accounts or publish them. Ask a lawyer how evidence can be handled lawfully.
3. Consider timing and channels. Internal compliance procedures and external regulatory submissions serve different purposes. Get advice before deciding how to sequence them.
4. Use the official process. A potential award requires information to reach the government in the manner required by the programme; an employer’s internal hotline alone is not that submission.
5. Plan for retaliation risk. Keep a contemporaneous record of employment decisions and seek prompt advice if you experience adverse treatment.

The bottom line

The BSA whistleblower programme can provide a 10 to 30 per cent award based on qualifying collected sanctions where an eligible person’s voluntary, original information leads to a successful enforcement action exceeding the $1 million threshold. The 2022 overhaul made the programme more substantial, but it did not turn every AML concern into a paid claim.

The size and timing of any whistleblower reward depend on the government’s action, the sanctions it actually collects, the value of the information and the person’s eligibility. Internal compliance reporting may be appropriate, but it is distinct from an external submission to regulators. Anyone considering a report should also weigh SAR confidentiality, submission timing and the real risk of retaliation, and should obtain US legal advice before acting.