Photo of Jason Crawford

Jason Crawford

Subscribe to Jason Crawford's Posts

When facing government investigations or high stakes litigation, clients trust Jason Crawford to evaluate allegations, identify risks, and formulate strategies to achieve the appropriate resolution. Jason advises and advocates for government contractors and companies from regulated industries in matters involving civil, criminal, and administrative enforcement, with a particular focus on the False Claims Act (FCA).

As a litigator, Jason has defended government contractors, drug manufacturers, grant recipients, health care companies, importers, and construction companies sued under the FCA by whistleblowers and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal courts throughout the country. He also helps clients conduct complex internal investigations and respond strategically to Office of Inspectors General inquiries, grand jury investigations, search warrants, and civil investigative demands.

Jason previously served as a DOJ Trial Attorney in the Civil Division, Fraud Section where he investigated and litigated FCA cases involving government contractors, importers, and health care companies. He also previously worked with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia where he prosecuted federal criminal cases.

A recognized thought leader on FCA developments, Jason has written and presented extensively on the fraud statute, and he is a co-host of the Let’s Talk FCA podcast.

Contact:Read more about Jason Crawford

A False Claims Act (FCA) settlement recently announced by the U.S. Department of Justice stands at the intersection of two evolving trends:  DOJ’s increasing focus on cybersecurity lapses by government contractors as part of its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, and DOJ policies incentivizing corporations to voluntarily self-disclose violations of federal law.

On September 5, 2023, DOJ announced a $4 million settlement with Verizon Business Network Services LLC (Verizon) addressing allegations that Verizon violated the FCA because certain telecommunications services it provided to federal agencies under its General Services Administration (GSA) contracts did not comply with applicable cybersecurity requirements, namely the Office of Management and Budget’s Trusted Internet Connections (TIC) initiative.  DOJ specifically alleged that Verizon’s Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Service (MTIPS)—an information technology service that allows federal agencies to securely connect to public internet and external networks—did not comply with three security controls in the Department of Homeland Security’s TIC Reference Architecture Document, including a control that required the use of FIPS 140-2 validated cryptography.  The Verizon settlement represents the latest example of DOJ’s continued focus on cybersecurity cases, a trend that we believe will only continue to escalate going forward.…

Continue Reading Civil Cyber-Fraud Settlement Highlights Potential for Cooperation Credit

Although the COVID-19 public health declaration officially ended in May, government investigations of pandemic relief fraud are from over. As observed in a recent report by the Small Business Administration Office of Inspector General, investigations will likely ensue for years to come in light of Congress’s decision to extend the statute of limitations to ten…

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 June 27, 2023, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported its estimate that SBA disbursed over $200 billion of potentially fraudulent COVID relief, including Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.  These possibly fraudulent loans represent at least 17% of all EIDL and PPP funds—or 21%…

On June 16, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources Inc., held that the Government may seek dismissal of a False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam suit over a relator’s objection so long as it intervenes in the litigation, either during the initial seal period or afterward.  The Court also held that, when handling such a motion, district courts should apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(a), the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits.  And in a dissent that—in the long run—may end up being more impactful than the Court’s holding, Justice Thomas (joined in a concurring opinion by Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett) questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions themselves.  …

Continue Reading See(2)(A) You Later: Supreme Court Holds that DOJ Has Broad Dismissal Authority Even After Unsealing

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…

Next Tuesday, April 18, 2023, the highest court in the land will hear arguments in what is poised to be the most influential False Claims Act (FCA) case since the landmark decision in Universal Health Servs. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016).  On January 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear two consolidated appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 9 F.4th 455 (7th Cir. 2021) and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc., 30 F.4th 649 (7th Cir. 2022).  The Court’s decision will likely have far-reaching ramifications for FCA cases involving ambiguous contractual or regulatory requirements and may also provide benchmarks for assessing the key element of scienter across all FCA cases.  

In Supervalu and Safeway, the Seventh Circuit joined several of its sister circuits in applying the scienter standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47 (2007) to the FCA, finding that a defendant’s conduct is not reckless when (1) acting under an objectively reasonable, albeit erroneous, interpretation of an ambiguous regulation or contract provision; and (2) no authoritative guidance existed to warn the defendant away from that interpretation.

Continue Reading Fair Warning Protection or a “Free Pass to Fleece the Public Fisc”?: SCOTUS Takes Up the Safeco Objective Reasonableness Standard and Subjective Intent Under the FCA

March 2, 2023, marked the 160-year anniversary of the enactment of the False Claims Act (FCA). Signed into law by the sixteenth president, the statute known as “Mr. Lincoln’s Law” was passed in response to the actions of contractors that sold rancid food, faulty rifles, and shoddy uniforms to the Union Army.  Eight score after the law’s passage, the FCA has become the government’s primary enforcement tool in cases involving allegations of fraud, and today the Civil War era statute is applied in cases involving industries and federal programs that would have exceeded Lincoln’s wildest imagination.

Continue Reading Lincoln’s Law Turns 160