What are the core deficiencies in Barclays whistleblowing policy relating to Whistle-blowing Duty to Employer from below story?

The US Department of Financial Services (DFS) has fined Barclays Bank $15m for violations of Banking Law stemming from a DFS investigation into attempts by the banks CEO to identify the author(s) of two whistleblowing letters in contravention of Barclays established whistleblowing policies and procedures. The DFS investigation found that shortcomings in governance, controls and corporate culture relating to Barclays whistleblowing function permitted a sequence of events that potentially could have had a detrimental impact on the efficacy of Barclays whistleblowing programme. Several members of senior management failed to follow or apply whistleblowing policies and procedures in a manner that protected the CEO and the bank itself. Limited gaps in the banks whistleblowing policies and procedures became apparent during the investigation, and it appears that the cultural transformation that Barclays Group Compliance had been working hard to instil in the more than one hundred thousand Barclays employees worldwide, was not nearly complete. Whistleblowers are vital to uncovering and addressing intentional wrongdoing. DFSs thorough investigation uncovered actions at the top that exposed the bank to risk and created an atmosphere in which employees might doubt that it was safe to escalate issues of concern to the bank, said a DFS Superintendent. The DFS recognises and appreciates the CEOs commendable and constructive steps to accept responsibility for his actions, apologise to employees of the bank, and recommit to DFS that he will oversee an independent and effective whistleblowing function. DFSs investigation found that in June 2016, and again in July 2016, the CEO personally directed the head of Barclays Group Security to attempt to identify the author(s) of two whistleblowing letters. The CEOs primary motivations in seeking to learn the identity of the author(s) were to protect the a new executive (who was a friend and colleague) from a personal attack that the CEO believed was false and malicious; and to defend his own ability as CEO to continue recruiting high-level executives to the Bank. However, the CEO was conflicted, because the letters criticised his own role, and the role of the banks management, in recruiting and employing the recently hired senior executive with whom he had worked at another bank.