When Congress passes a law with various provisions which apply generically to any securities law violations without thinking through, on a micro level, the intersection of such provisions, odd dynamics can result.
That was my observation in this  2012 post concerning Khaled Asadi v. GE Energy, a whistleblower case brought under Dodd-Frank’s Anti-Retaliation Provision alleging underlying conduct that could implicate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The trial court held (subsequently affirmed on appeal – see 720 F.3d 620) that a foreign national could not avail themselves of protection under the Anti-Retaliation Provision because the provision does not apply extraterritorially. I noted it was an odd result, because that same foreign national could be awarded a whistleblower bounty under Dodd-Frank.
As highlighted in this  previous post, a similar case was brought in early 2013 by Meng-Lin Liu, a former compliance officer for Siemens AG in China.
Yesterday, Judge William Pauley (S.D.N.Y.) dimissed the complaint  brought under the Anti-Retaliation Provision of Dodd-Frank. Adopting the reasoning in the Asadi case, Judge Pauley concluded that “there is simply no indication that Congress intended the Anti-Retaliation Provision to apply extraterritorially.” Judge Pauley noted that Liu’s complaint (brought by a Taiwanese resident against a German corporation for acts concerning its Chinese subsidiary relating to alleged corruption in China and North Korea), “must be dismissed” “because the Anti-Retaliation Provision does not apply overseas.”
As to the odd dynamic framed above, Judge Pauley stated:
“The issue is not whether persons located abroad can be ‘whistleblowers’ and thus eligible for whistleblower awards, but whether the Anti-Retailiation Provision’s protections extend to overseas whistleblowers. The fact that a person outside the United States may be a “whistleblower” under Dodd-Frank does not compel the conclusion that he is protected by the Anti-Retaliation Provision.”
In short, the odd dynamic persists.
Assuming the truth of Liu’s factual allegations, the DOJ and/or SEC could bring an FCPA action (at least books and records and internal controls charges) against Siemens regardless of whether the payment scheme had a U.S. neuxs, Liu could qualify for a Dodd-Frank whistleblower bounty if an SEC enforcement action was brought, but Liu can not qualify for protection under the Anti-Retaliation Provision for blowing the whistle on the allegations.