I'd be curious about more details about how this was discovered. It says a lab employee reported discrepancies to corporate management after seeing evidence of altered test results etc. And from there it was relayed to the US Navy, which then fined the company. Which is how it should work.
It's just I'm surprised how the institutional incentives worked out: there are many places where the fraud could have been covered up. If the Navy levied a debilitating fine on the company for good faith reporting of issues, it'd create incentives for the company to lie. And the fine was $10M... is that lower than might have been done if not for the good faith reporting?
It's just I'm surprised how the institutional incentives worked out: there are many places where the fraud could have been covered up. If the Navy levied a debilitating fine on the company for good faith reporting of issues, it'd create incentives for the company to lie. And the fine was $10M... is that lower than might have been done if not for the good faith reporting?