MAINSYSTEMS 
identify the legal regime and separate allegations from findings
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will work through a concrete decision: identify the legal regime and separate allegations from findings. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. The private company Horizont is entirely fictional. It has 120 employees on 1 January and, in this model, is neither a public contracting authority nor subject to the special AML regime. An identified employee reports changed purchasing criteria and an alleged personal benefit. All people, documents and events are fictional.
In this model, Horizont meets the employer threshold in section 8. The report may have the work connection and possible-crime subject matter in section 2; a breach of an internal purchasing rule alone does not automatically suffice. The full public-procurement regime is not imposed on this private purchase. Assess the actual contents.
Apply the following rule: Section 2 covers conduct with the elements of a crime, administrative offences whose statutory maximum fine is at least CZK 100,000, breaches of the Whistleblower Protection Act itself and breaches in the listed legal fields. The reporting person need not prove the breach. An ordinary disagreement does not automatically meet these tests.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Record receipt, verify the competent person and restrict access. Separate changed evaluation and alleged personal benefit. Prepare neutral written acknowledgement within seven days unless an exception applies. Do not label an allegation proven. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.
3. Case Study & Compliance Action
The employee attaches two spreadsheet versions and says she heard about a personal benefit from a colleague. The competent person distinguishes the document she saw from second-hand information. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.
The exercise is as follows: Do two different tables automatically prove a bribe? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.
No. They establish a difference requiring assessment. Personal benefit is a separate allegation with a different source. This distinction supports impartial and proportionate follow-up.
One mistake to avoid is: turning an allegation into a proven finding.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically classified as protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?
Read the facts and apply the national scope, context and conditions for protection. A form label helps organise information but does not determine the legal framework. If the case falls outside the regime, identify an appropriate route without unnecessarily disclosing information.