Responding to requests and reporting duties

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: distinguish case follow-up from institutional reporting. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Authorities have different powers. Receiving reports, advising reporting persons, investigating breaches and collecting statistics are different functions. This course explains recipient selection and information preparation. Demonstrations use fictional data and send no real reports. The exercise uses fictional data and sends no real report. Check current jurisdiction and the precise official procedure.

Statistical returns, integrity reports and individual case requests can require different recipients and data. Distinguish the Act’s section 38 return from the Decree 50/2013 integrity report due on 15 February. Personal case material requires appropriate authority and safeguards.

Apply the following rule: Use the current NJT consolidation rather than only the original 2023 publication. The 2025 amendment concerns EU restrictive measures; the July 2026 amendment also changes the authority list. Distinguish complaints, public-interest disclosures and work-related abuse reporting. Moral judgments about motivation do not replace sections 45 and 48. The three-year review and 31 January statistical return in sections 37–38 concern designated authorities, not companies generally.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Classify requests by purpose and competence. Confirm authenticity, deadline and necessary data. Record the response and keep evidence. For statistics, define consistent categories with sufficient aggregation. For individual cases, use the designated secure method. Review official contacts and procedure versions periodically. 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

An organisation receives one request for annual figures and another for case clarification. The team separates them. Aggregated figures follow the relevant reporting duty, while authorised staff assess case documents and transmit appropriately after verifying the request. 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: Should annual indicators and individual case documents use the same distribution list? 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. Distribution must match purpose, competence and need to know. Aggregated reporting may have different recipients. Record the sharing basis and prevent statistical procedures from exposing identities.

One mistake to avoid is: turning management reporting into general distribution of whistleblowing cases.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team presents every integrity instrument as mandatory in every country. How should the message be revised?

Distinguish what national law actually requires, the conditions for its application to the entity and the proposed good practices. The specific rule just examined must appear in the corresponding procedure. Each duty needs a source; each management choice needs a purpose, an owner and evidence of implementation.