In this episode, Jason Crawford, Olivia Lynch, and Agustin Orozco discuss government investigations and enforcement trends regarding pandemic relief fraud. “Let’s Talk FCA” is Crowell & Moring’s podcast covering the latest developments with the False Claims Act.
Listen: Crowell.com | PodBean | SoundCloud | Apple Podcasts
In this episode, Jason Crawford, Agustin Orozco, and Lyndsay Gorton discuss the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States ex rel. Polansky, which held in an 8-1 decision that the Department of Justice maintains broad authority to dismiss qui tam cases over a relator’s objection. The hosts also discuss Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion which could
On May 12, 2023, the Department of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Notice 2023-38 (Notice), stating that they intend to propose regulations to address the requirements taxpayers must satisfy when claiming domestic content bonus credit amounts provided by the Inflation Reduction Act under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 45, 45Y, 48, and
On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court issued two opinions limiting the reach of the federal fraud statutes and eliminating often-used theories from the government’s arsenal.
In Ciminelli v. US, 598 U. S. __ (2023), the Supreme Court decided that the “right to control” theory—long used by prosecutors in the Second Circuit—can no longer be used to support wire fraud convictions. The Court overturned the conviction of Louis Ciminelli, a participant in a scheme to rig bids for New York state-funded projects, known as the “Buffalo Billion” initiative. As part of the scheme, requests for proposals were strategically drafted to give preferential treatment to Ciminelli’s company. At trial, the government argued that Ciminelli and his co-defendants were guilty of wire fraud under the right-to-control theory because they deprived the entity responsible for awarding the state-funded projects of certain information necessary to make an informed decision about the bid awards. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and the government’s use of the right-to-control theory.
Writing on behalf of a unanimous court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the wire fraud statue only reaches traditional property interests and the right to valuable economic information needed to make discretionary economic decisions—known as the “right to control”—is not a traditional property interest. The right-to-control theory, therefore, “cannot form the basis for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes.”
Continue Reading In Control: Supreme Court Reigns-In Second Circuit Fraud Theories
In this episode, Jason Crawford, Brian Tully McLaughlin, and Agustin Orozco explore the issues before the Supreme Court in two consolidated cases involving the False Claims Act. The hosts discuss the April 18 oral argument in Schutte/Proctor where the question before the Justices is whether a defendant’s subjective knowledge about whether its conduct was legal
On April 3, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey announced a settlement with a public relations firm to resolve allegations that the New Jersey company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by receiving a $2 million second-draw loan from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to which the company was not
On February 22, 2023, United States Attorneys for the Southern and Eastern District of New York announced a new, nationwide United States Attorneys’ Offices Voluntary Self-Disclosure (“VSD”) Policy. The policy applies to all United States Attorney’s Offices and is effective immediately. The implementation of the policy follows Deputy Attorney General Monaco’s September 15, 2022 memorandum instructing each component of the Department of Justice that prosecutes corporate crime to review, or draft and publicly share its policies on corporate voluntary self-disclosure and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr’s remarks on revisions to the Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement Policy. The VSD policy incentivizes companies to voluntarily disclose misconduct and offers significant benefits for timely disclosure.
Continue Reading New Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy for All United States Attorney’s Offices
On June 23, 2022, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against Army contractor Envistacom LLC and two of its executives alleging participation in a fraudulent scheme that deprived the federal government of competition and making false representations to the government in furtherance of the conspiracy. The indictment also charged the executive as a co-conspirator, and asserts the conspirators coordinated in the preparation of so-called “competitive quotes” submitted in connection with 8(a) set aside contracts. The quotes were allegedly fraudulently inflated in order to all but guarantee the government customer would sole source the award to the conspirators’ pre-determined bidder. This indictment represents the fruits of yet another investigation by the Department of Justice’s Procurement Collusion Strike Force (“PCSF”).
According to the indictment, the defendants conspired to prepare and secure “sham” pricing quotes from third-party companies that were intentionally higher than Envistacom’s proposals to ensure that the government issued sole source awards to Envistacom. Further, the defendants allegedly coordinated with an unnamed government employee who acted as a co-conspirator and assisted in preparing and submitting Independent Government Cost Estimates (“IGCE”) for certain set aside contracts to ensure that the pre-determined bidder’s proposal would be lower than the IGCEs. Finally, the indictment alleges that the defendants made “false statements, representations, and material omissions to federal government contracting officials” about the IGCEs being “legitimate” and the sham quotes being “competitive.”
On November 2, 2016, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) issued a final rule amending the regulations that set forth the elements and procedures of the executive branch ethics program by defining and describing the executive branch ethics program, delineating the responsibilities of various stakeholders, and enumerating key executive branch ethics procedures. The final rule
In this year’s set of legislative proposals forwarded to Capitol Hill, DoD and NASA have again requested changes to the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (“PFCRA”) to create, in the government’s view, a more viable administrative remedy for fraud and false claims totaling less than $500,000. The administrative process would proceed similarly to the suspension and debarment process with a fixed administrative record and an administrative decision official within each agency. See proposed Section 805 in the Fifth Package of Legislative Proposals Sent to Congress for Inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
PFCRA (Chapter 38 of Title 31, United States Code) was enacted in 1986 as a government wide administrative mechanism for combating small-dollar fraud. As it stands, PFCRA allows federal executive branch agencies, with Department of Justice (“DoJ”) approval, to address false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims and statements where the alleged liability is less than $150,000. At the time of its enactment, Congress considered PFCRA to be a remedy to DoJ’s declination to pursue criminal or civil penalties where the alleged fraudulent activity resulted in little to no financial loss to the government. Since then, however, PFCRA has been viewed by some government agencies, including the DoD, as being cumbersome to the point of making it impractical for government agencies to pursue a remedy under the Act. Indeed the purpose for the proposed amendments is to create an “effective” administrative remedy.
Continue Reading DoD And NASA Again Seek Changes to the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act