Did the questioning of Suspicious Transactions cost the Olympus CEO his job?

Image via Wikipedia

The Camera Never Lies?

This story will continue to develop but, IMHO, is a useful example of the price (risks?) that effective senior managers, including MLRO's and Nominated Officers, when questioning unusual or suspicious payments.

At first blush, it does appear that the UK's ex-CEO of Olympus Cameras (Mr Michael Woodford), who has been campaigning since being sacked (on October 14) to force the Japanese firm to come clean on $1.3 billion in questionable payments was right.


See details here: Today's story from Reuters

If you are not directly involved, this story has all the classic problems:

1. An outsider (in this case a Brit) questions the logic and reasoning behind an established practice
2. The outsider is right
3. It is a senior management issue that does not want to be resolved
4. Doing the right thing rather than the culturally acceptable thing costs you your job. 

Fair comment?

You be the judge.

Related articles

• Olympus used takeover fees to hide losses (cnn.com)
• Olympus used takeover fees to hide losses (ft.com)
• Olympus admits hiding losses in widening scandal (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Former Olympus chief Michael Woodford 'not safe in Japan' (telegraph.co.uk)
• Olympus chairman says ousted British boss tried to damage the company (guardian.co.uk)
• Olympus Says Used Gyrus Deal to Hide Investment Losses (nytimes.com)
• Clash of corporate cultures costs British chief of Olympus his job (guardian.co.uk)