Between the corrupted and the corrupter

Imagine this scenario.

I am a corrupt businessman.  A particular Minister is on my take.  My ass is covered by the 10-year prescription period but the Minister's ass is not.  After 10 years I call on the politician to tell him; pay up or I will reveal everything.  He pays.

Imagine a second scenario.

I am a government employee. Incidentally I step on a sensitive piece of information, which clearly shows that corruption is taking place in the Ministry where I work. I have a family, which depends on me.  I am scared. Without the protection of a whistle blower's act I will never pass this information to the police. I have no choice but to pretend that I have never seen anything.

Now imagine a third scenario.

I am a corrupt businessman.  A particular Minister was on my take.  He is now giving me trouble.  I threaten him that I would avail myself of the whistleblower's act if he does not keep his part of the deal.  He remains on my take.

Reflecting on these three different scenarios I have come to the following conclusion.

1)    The removal of prescription should apply to both the corrupted politician and the corrupter because both are equally guilty.

2)    The aim of a whistleblower's act should be that of protecting civil servants and employees in both public and private companies who report cases of corruption and not to protect people involved in acts of corruption.

3)    One has to acknowledge that to unravel cases of corruption it is sometimes necessary to grant qualified 'pardons' to people who were themselves involved in acts of corruption.  But this has nothing to do with the scope of a whistle blower's act.  Ideally the judiciary should regulate the issue of such pardons.

4)    Removing the prescription on corruption for both corrupted politicians and those who corrupt them ensures that the untimely death of a particular politician will not prevent the police from investigating his business associates who build their wealth by plundering the public purse.