(404) 609-1696

ATLANTA,GA

(404) 341-5314

DULUTH, GA

Whistleblower Blog

Part 6: The State False Claims Acts: Qui Tam Whistleblower Laws That Seek to Repeat the Successes of the Federal False Claims Act

This Part 6 is the final installment by whistleblower lawyer blog of an article explaining why the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act, has led to a wave of new state False Claims Acts. It is part of a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and this article is reprinted with the permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 6 describes the new state whistleblower laws and how states have fared to date in recovering taxpayer money wrongfully through fraud and false claims. It also discusses some interesting new approaches that some states have taken in improving on the federal False Claims Act with their own statutes.

V. Other States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

As noted, in 2007 Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma joined the 16 other states that have a False Claims statute, and at least a dozen other states are considering similar laws. [58] The financial incentives of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 have not only prompted states that had lacked False Claims statutes to enact them, but also have caused many states wishing to qualify for the additional funds to amend their existing False Claims statutes.

In essence, while states may enact “tougher” or more comprehensive laws than the federal False Claims Act, states with “weaker” or less effective laws-as judged by the standards of the Deficit Reduction Act-will not qualify for the additional funds. [59]

Seven of the first ten states whose statutes were scrutinized by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) quickly learned this lesson when OIG disapproved their state statutes. [60] These included California (which lacked a minimum penalty), Florida (which omitted “fraudulent” from its definition of claims), Indiana (which did not make defendants liable for “deliberate ignorance” and “reckless disregard”), Louisiana (which did not permit the state to intervene in cases, set too low a percentage for whistleblowers to recover, and set no minimum penalty), Michigan (which omitted penalties and liability for decreasing or avoiding an obligation to pay the government, i.e., a “reverse false claim”), Nevada (which had a statute of limitations too short and a minimum penalty too low), and Texas (which did not permit the whistleblower to litigate the case if the state did not, and which provided for lower percentage shares to whistleblowers and lower penalties). Most of these states have gone back to the drawing board to correct these deficiencies.

In sum, the Deficit Reduction Act has set minimum standards for state False Claims Acts for states wishing to receive these additional funds. In plain English, the state laws must protect at least Medicaid funds, and they must be at least as effective as the federal False Claims Act, especially in rewarding and facilitating qui tam actions for false or fraudulent claims, with damages and penalties no less than those under the federal Act. [61]

A. How Other States’ False Claims Acts Compare to the New Georgia Statute

Many state False Claims laws have been in transition in 2007. States whose laws have been “disapproved” by OIG have begun to amend their statutes to meet the requirements for obtaining the additional funds under the Deficit Reduction Act, as Florida and Texas already have done in 2007. While these laws are in flux, some significant differences from Georgia’s new State False Medicaid Claims Act are likely to remain.

First, the majority of state False Claims statutes protect the state’s funds generally, rather than protecting only state Medicaid funds, as Georgia’s new State False Medicaid Claims Act is limited. Just as the federal False Claims Act is not limited to health care fraud, but encompasses fraud against the government generally (except for Internal Revenue violations, which are now covered by the new IRS Whistleblower program), [62] many states have used these statutes to protect public funds in general from fraud. Those states include California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Tennessee.

In addition, several states-including Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada and Tennessee- have expanded on the federal Act’s four commonly-used theories of liability listed above. These state laws create a new legal theory for holding liable a person or entity who is the “beneficiary” of the “inadvertent submission” of a false or fraudulent claim, if that person or entity fails to disclose (and presumably correct) the false claim after discovering it. [63]

Moreover, Tennessee’s False Claims Act reaches beyond false or fraudulent “claims” and imposes liability for false or fraudulent “conduct” that apparently does not necessarily involve “claims” submitted to the state. This state law adds a new category of liability for “any false or fraudulent conduct, representation, or practice in order to procure anything of value directly or indirectly from the state or any political subdivision.” [64]

Because states have this leeway under the Deficit Reduction Act to pass laws that may be “tougher” or more “effective” than the federal Act, some states have set the statutory penalties higher than the federal level of $5,500 to $11,000 per claim. For instance, under the New York law enacted in 2007, penalties range from $6,000 to $12,000 for each false or fraudulent claim. [65]

Some other states authorize a higher percentage of the state’s recovery that a relator (whistleblower) may receive, instead of the percentages that the federal False Claims Act authorizes (which the Georgia statute also uses): 15-25% of the recovery in cases in which the government intervenes, and 25-30% in cases in which the government does not intervene. For example, Nevada’s percentages are 15-33% in intervened cases, and 25-50% in non-intervened cases; Tennessee’s are 25-33% in intervened cases and 35-50% in non-intervened cases; and Montana’s range from 15-50%. [66]

B. Notable Results Obtained by States Under Their False Claim Statutes

Most qui tam cases filed under the state False Claims statutes have related to health care. Many are “global” Medicaid cases that were first developed in federal courts as Medicare and Medicaid fraud cases and that concerned a nationwide fraud which had been investigated by multiple federal and state jurisdictions. [67] Each state that enacts a False Claims Act that meets the minimum requirements is in a position to join the process.

Most of the state settlements have come from “piggy backing” on federal law enforcement efforts and from joining in global settlements. [68] Experience with some of the newer state statutes is too recent to evaluate, but many states have reported the desire for more resources to develop such cases. [69]

Texas’s experience is worth special mention because the Texas Attorney General’s Office has been especially effective in pursuing cases involving false claims in health care. Texas’s statute has allowed it to recover more than $216 million in health care fraud cases since 1999.

Because the Texas Attorney General’s Office has been a leader in recovering damages for health care fraud by using the Texas statute, it was perhaps ironic that OIG initially “disapproved” the highly successful Texas law before it was amended in 2007 to comply with the Deficit Reduction Act standards. [70]

California, whose statute is not limited to health care, recovered $43.1 million in 2005 in a state False Claims action alleging fraud in the installation and monitoring of heating and cooling equipment in San Francisco schools. [71] In 2001, California recovered $31.9 million in an action alleging fraudulent billing during construction of the Los Angeles subway system. [72] Similarly, California recovered $30 million in 2000 in a matter alleging the knowing sale of defective computers to the state and political subdivisions. In 1998, California recovered $187 million in an action alleging the improper retention of unclaimed municipal bonds. [73]

We do not know with any precision the dollar amount of fraud that affects any particular state’s government spending, or how much of that fraud can be prevented through effective use of a state False Claims Act. For now, New York, Oklahoma, and Georgia have joined the list of states that will see how much of at least their Medicaid fraud losses can be recovered through the new state False Claims Acts.

Conclusion

We hope that our article on the False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts has been useful. If you would like, please feel free to call us to discuss any questions you may have at 800-228-9159, or email us through our website link here (or directly to msullivan@finchmccranie.com.)
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 5: The False Claims Act’s Successes–and How They Have Prompted a Wave of State False Claims Acts With Qui Tam Whistleblower Provisions

This is Part 5 of 6 by whistleblower lawyer blog of a detailed article for those wishing to know more about the principal qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. It is part of a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and this article is reprinted with the permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 5 discusses the dramatic successes of the federal False Claims Act since its 1986 Amendments in recovering taxpayers’ money wrongfully obtained by fraud and false claims.

IV. The Trend of Recent Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

Over the past two decades since the modern False Claims Act was established through the 1986 Amendments, the federal government’s recoveries of dollars have grown astronomically, especially in health care cases. The Department of Justice statistics [52] tell the story:

In 1987, the government’s recoveries in qui tam cases totaled zero, presumably because the 1986 Amendments had just taken effect; and total recoveries under the False Claims Act were just $86 million. The following year, qui tam and other False Claims Act settlements and judgments began a steady climb upward, exceeding $200 million by 1989, and $300 million by 1991. By 1994, the government’s recoveries broke the $1 billion mark for the first time, with $380 million of that amount attributable to qui tam case recoveries alone.

In 2000, the government recovered more than $1.5 billion, of which $1.2 billion was derived from qui tam actions. In 2001, the government recovered more than $1.7 billion, with almost $1.2 billion of that amount from qui tam cases. With the exception of 2004, in each year since 2000 the government has recovered more than a billion dollars per year under the False Claims Act, and qui tam actions were responsible for the lion’s share of those recoveries. For example, in 2003, government recoveries exceeded $2.2 billion, of which $1.4 billion came from qui tam cases. Similarly, in 2005, of the government’s total recovery of $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion of that amount came from qui tam cases.

In 2006, the Justice Department recovered a record of more than $3.1 billion in settlements and judgments for fraud and false claims. Of this record $3.1 billion in recoveries, 72% came from the health care field; 20% from defense; and 8% from other sources. Health care alone accounted for $2.2 billion in settlements and judgments, which included a $920 million settlement with Tenet Healthcare Corporation, the country’s second-largest hospital chain. Defense procurement fraud amounted to $609 million in recoveries, which included a $565 million settlement with the Boeing Company.

It is interesting that, while defense procurement fraud both inspired the Act and was the largest source of recoveries at the time of the 1986 Amendments, health care cases now lead in recoveries, as health care costs have grown as a percentage of the federal budget. By industry, in 1987 the defense industry was the largest source of cases under the False Claims Act. [53] The health care industry accounted for only 12% of cases under the False Claims Act in 1987; that percentage grew to 54% by 1997. [54]

Many health care fraud cases have addressed over-billing or up-coding, fraudulent cost reporting, billing for services not provided, and failure to furnish the required “quality of care.” [55] The breakdown of the Department of Justice statistics shows that government recoveries in the health care field have grown from less than $2 million in 1988 to more than $1.8 billion in 2003. Although the amounts recovered rise and fall each year, from 2001–2006 government recoveries from the health care field exceeded $1 billion in five out of six years.

The trend has continued in 2007, as the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services recently announced that it expects $2.9 billion in recoveries for Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health and human services programs for the first half of fiscal year 2007. [56]

In short, the health care industry now consistently accounts for the vast majority of settlements and judgments obtained by the federal government for fraud and false claims.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 4: The Modern False Claims Act–How It Works

This Part 4 by whistleblower lawyer blog is a continuation of a detailed article for those wishing to know the specifics of the principal qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. It is taken from a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and it is reprinted with the permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 4 focuses on the “modern” False Claims Act–since the 1986 Amendments. Before considering it, please note that, in September 2007, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the “False Claims Act Correction Act,” a bill to further “modernize” the False Claims Act with substantial improvements intended to restore the Act to Congress’ original intentions. We at whistleblower lawyer blog will provide regular updates as that bill is considered by Congress.

III. Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works (with Comparisons to State False Claims Acts, With the New Georgia State False Medicaid Claims Act as a Primary Example)

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories, only four of which are generally used:

First, the Act makes liable any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a “false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal government. [30] “Claim” is broadly defined to include not only submissions made directly to the federal government, but also “any request or demand . . . for money or property” made to a “contractor, grantee, or other recipient” if the federal government provides any portion of the money or property in question. [31]

Second, the Act creates liability for using a “false record or statement” to obtain payment of a false claim. It imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the government.” [32]

Third, the False Claims Act imposes liability under a “conspiracy” provision. Any person who “conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false or fraudulent claim allowed or paid” is also liable under the Act. [33]

Fourth, since the government also can be defrauded when a private entity underpays or avoids paying an obligation to the government, the modern Act contains what is known as a “reverse false claim” provision. It creates liability for any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.” [34] For example, a company that is obligated to pay royalties to the government under an oil lease can be held liable if it uses false records or statements to pay less than what it owes.

Georgia Act compared: The same bases of liability are set forth in new section 49-4-168.1(a), with regard to the Georgia Medicaid program. “Claim” is also broadly defined in the Georgia statute in section 49-4-168(1). In fact, the Georgia statute’s definition of “claim” was intended by the legislature to eliminate a point of dispute about the federal statute [35] by making clear that it applies to “claims” submitted not only to the government, but also to other persons or entities, as long as the Georgia Medicaid program provides any portion of the money or property at issue.

The federal False Claims Act also creates a cause of action for damages for retaliation against employees who assist in the investigation and prosecution of False Claims Act cases. [36] This cause of action belongs to the employee alone, and the government does not share in any recovery for retaliation.

Georgia Act compared: New section 49-4-168.4 establishes a similar right to pursue a claim for retaliation in employment.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 3: False Claims Act–Background and History

This is Part 3 by whistleblower lawyer blog of a detailed explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. It is taken from a recently published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and is reprinted with the permisssion of the Georgia Bar Journal.

The Part 3 explains the history of the False Claims Act and why effective qui tam whistleblower laws are important.

II. Background of the False Claims Act

Although the False Claims Act may be the best known qui tam statute, it is far from being the first. Qui tam actions date back to English law in the 13th and 14th Centuries. This tradition took root in the American colonies and, by 1789, states and the new federal government had authorized qui tam actions in various contexts. [12]

According to one writer:

In the early years of the Nation, the qui tam mechanism served a need at a time when federal and state governments were fairly small and unable to devote significant resources to law enforcement. As the role of the Government expanded, the utility of private assistance in law enforcement did not diminish. If anything, changes in the role and size of Government created a greater role for this method of law enforcement. [13]

Birth of the False Claims Act: The Civil War prompted Congress to enact the original False Claims Act in 1863. As government spending on war materials increased, dishonest government contractors took advantage of opportunities to defraud the United States government. “Through haste, carelessness, or criminal collusion, the state and federal officers accepted almost every offer and paid almost any price for the commodities, regardless of character, quality, or quantity.” [14]

One senator explained how the qui tam provisions of the Act were intended to work:

The effect of the [qui tam provisions] is simply to hold out to a confederate a strong temptation to betray his co-conspirator, and bring him to justice. The bill offers, in short, a reward to the informer who comes into court and betrays his co-conspirator, if he be such; but it is not confined to that class. . . . In short, sir, I have based the [qui tam provision] upon the old fashioned idea of holding out a temptation and setting a rogue to catch a rogue, which is the safest and most expeditious way I have ever discovered of bringing rogues to justice. [15]

The original Act provided for double damages, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted. [16] If a private citizen or “relator” used the qui tam provision to file suit, the government had no right to intervene or control the litigation. A successful “relator” was entitled to one-half of the government’s recovery. [17]

The Act survived in substantially its original form until World War II. [18] In a classic and oft-quoted 1885 passage, one court rejected the argument that courts should limit the statute’s reach on the grounds that qui tam actions were poor public policy:

The statute is a remedial one. It is intended to protect the treasury against the hungry and unscrupulous host that encompasses it on every side, and should be construed accordingly. It was passed upon the theory, based on experience as old as modern civilization, that one of the least expensive and most effective means of preventing frauds on the treasury is to make the perpetrators of them liable to actions by private persons acting, if you please, under the strong stimulus of personal ill will or the hope of gain. Prosecutions conducted by such means compare with the ordinary methods as the enterprising privateer does to the slow-going public vessel. [19]
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Growing Number of State False Claims Acts With Qui Tam Whistleblower Provisions–the Basics

This is Part 2 by whistleblower lawyer blog of a detailed overview of the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts with qui tam whistleblower provisions. It is based on an article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan, and is reprinted with permission of the Georgia Bar Journal.

This Part 2 discusses the sound policy reasons underlying the False Claims Act.

I. Why A “False Claims Act”?

Fraud is perhaps so pervasive and, therefore, costly to the Government due to a lack of deterrence. GAO concluded in its 1981 study that most fraud goes undetected due to the failure of Governmental agencies to effectively ensure accountability on the part of program recipients and Government contractors. The study states:

For those who are caught committing fraud, the chances of being prosecuted and eventually going to jail are slim. . . . The sad truth is that crime against the Government often does pay. [5]

Fraud-and allegations of fraud-plague government spending at every level. Today, as the federal and state governments struggle to fund the billions of dollars spent annually on health care through Medicare and Medicaid; national security and local security efforts; Hurricane Katrina and other disaster relief; and government grants and programs of every description, there is no shortage of opportunities for fraud against the public fisc.

The federal False Claims Act has been the federal government’s “primary” weapon to recover losses from those who defraud it. [6] The Act not only authorizes the government to pursue actions for treble damages and penalties, but also empowers and provides incentives to private citizens to file suit on the government’s behalf as “qui tam relators.” Over the past 20 years, recoveries for the federal government have grown dramatically since Congress amended the Act in 1986 to encourage greater use of the qui tam provisions, as part of a “coordinated effort of both the [g]overnment and the citizenry [to] decrease this wave of defrauding public funds.” [7]

The federal False Claims Act has been successful in recovering billions of dollars, increasingly through qui tam lawsuits brought by private citizens. In light of the federal Act’s successes, Congress in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [8] created a large financial “carrot” for states that adopt state versions of the False Claims Act. Any state that passes its own “False Claims” statute with qui tam or whistleblower provisions that are at least as effective as those of the federal Act becomes eligible for a 10% increase in its share of Medicaid fraud recoveries. [9]

Thus, Georgia’s and other states’ impetus in enacting these new state False Claims Acts in 2007 was this incentive of more dollars. In 2007 to date, Georgia, New York, and Oklahoma have joined the 16 other states that have enacted some version of a “False Claims” statute. [10] At least a dozen other states [11] are considering enacting similar statutes of their own so that they, too, qualify for increased funds under the Deficit Reduction Act.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part 1: The False Claims Act and How It Has Inspired a Wave of State Qui Tam Whistleblower Laws–An Introduction

We at whistleblower lawyer blog hope this detailed article assists those interested in the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts with qui tam whistleblower provisions. A version of this article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan [1] has just been published in the October 2007 Georgia Bar Journal. For ease of reading, we have divided the article in six parts–this is Part 1.

The federal False Claims Act [2] has inspired a
(more…)

Continue Reading

Medicare Fraud Scam Leads to Physician’s Indictment

We read today in the news that a Dr. Michael D. Kim in Houston, Texas had been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in yet another “motorized wheelchair fraud scheme.” According to the government’s indictment, Dr. Kim fraudulently approved thousands of Medicare beneficiaries for motorized wheelchairs in return for cash payments of $200.00 per beneficiary. According to the indictment, thousands of Medicare beneficiaries were brought by paid recruiters to Dr. Kim’s medical clinic in Houston between April of 2002 and October of 2003 for the
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblowers and 75 Billion Dollars?

It is estimated that the annual tax gap between those who owe money to the government as taxes and those who actually pay them (i.e. the annual underpayment of taxes) is $345 billion. Under the new IRS Whistleblower provisions, an insider with information about tax fraud can claim a minimum of 15% up to a maximum of 30% of back taxes collected by the government based on information received from the whistleblower. What this means is that each year if, in fact, the annual tax
(more…)

Continue Reading

Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases Force Bristol-Meyers Squibb to Pay $515 Million to Settle Allegations

Last week, the United States Department of Justice announced that Bristol-Meyers Squibb (BMS) had entered into a settlement agreement to pay more than $515 million to resolve allegations of illegal drug marketing and pricing. This is yet another example where Big Pharma has attempted to gouge the government to increase profits, at the public’s expense. The allegations made by the government, regrettably, are all too familiar and have occurred in many other cases of a similar nature.

The first thing the government alleged was that
(more…)

Continue Reading

Part II: IRS Tax Whistleblower Officials Explain Details of New IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program

This is Part II of this whistleblower lawyer blog’s description of how IRS Tax Whistleblower officials have explained many of the long-awaited details of the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program to whistleblower attorneys at the annual Taxpayers Against Fraud Conference in Washington, a national organization of whistleblower lawyers who represent whistleblowers under the False Claims Act, the state False Claims Acts, and the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program for tax whistleblowers. Both parts summarize information provided by IRS Whistleblower officials at this Conference, at which I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion with the Director of the IRS Whistleblower Office, Stephen Whitlock, and later spending time with other IRS officials from the IRS group responsible for the Financial Services industry (including hedge funds), Large and Mid-Sized Business Division, Stuart Mann and Nicole Cammarota.

The investigation of matters submitted by whistleblowers will be handled not by the Whistleblower Office, but by other IRS officials–in the field. The Whistleblower Office will initially perform a screening function at the beginning of the process, with “classifiers” reviewing the claim submissions and directing them to the appropriate persons within the IRS for investigation, if an investigation is warranted.

If an investigation results, and the government recovers funds (tax liability, interest, penalties, or other amounts), Director Whitlock then will determine the amount of any award to the whistleblower or whistleblowers. The new statute allows the whistleblower to appeal any determinations to the Tax Court to review decisions about rewards.

The threshold question for persons seeking to submit IRS Whistleblower claims is to demonstrate plainly to the IRS why–with so many potential matters that the IRS already has to investigate, and with limited resources–pursuing an investigation suggested by an informant is the best use of the IRS’ limited resources. Not all potential tax violations can be investigated–or will be investigated–by the IRS. Thus, the challenge is to present a whistleblower claim that the IRS will decide to pursue–and pursue vigorously.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Search

Topics

Our Other Blog

Iraq Whistleblowers Coming Forward, as Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Estimates Billions in Fraud and Waste

Whistleblowers reporting fraud by contractors in Iraq reconstruction are coming forward, reports Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The relatively calmer conditions in Iraq apparently are a factor in more whistleblowers coming forward, he believes.

From the $21 billion Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund, billions have been lost, according to Bowen.

“Thirty-two billion dollars later, we don’t know a whole lot about what’s happened to that money,” Bowen said.

“The actual reconstruction money, I estimate 15 to 20 percent has been wasted. Roughly $3-$4 billion,” he said. Many projects have been plagued by waste and poor design.

“Millions [have been] wasted at the Baghdad police college because of extremely shoddy construction,” Bowen said.

Iraq reconstruction whistleblowers may receive rewards of 15-30% of the fraud or false claims reported by using the False Claims Act, the major whistleblower law that we have written about often. They may also potentially use the IRS Whistleblower Program to obtain rewards, since illegal activity often results in tax violations.

In this age when fraud and abuse are depleting taxpayer funds, any whistleblower who steps forward to report fraud or other impropriety in the Iraq reconstruction is to be commended.
(more…)

Continue Reading

The AIG Whistleblowers Begin to Speak About Its Credit Default Swaps?

The facts about how the AIG Financial Products unit took down AIG begin to emerge more clearly, as AIG whistleblowers begin to speak.

Former AIG auditor Joseph St. Denis described his concerns about AIG’s Financial Products unit–and how AIGFP’s Joseph Cassano refused to let him investigate:

“Mr. Cassano shouted at me for several minutes, and then said, as previously noted: ‘I have deliberately excluded you from the valuation of the Super Seniors because I was concerned that you would pollute the process.”

More to
(more…)

Continue Reading

Appreciating Harry Markopolis, the Madoff “Whistleblower” to the SEC

I had the pleasure of seeing again and speaking last week with Harry Markopolis, the “whistleblower” now renowned for his excellent work in recognizing and reporting to the SEC that Bernie Madoff was running a huge Ponzi scheme. Harry was in Washington attending the “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp” sponsored by Taxpayers Against Fraud.

Harry Markopolis exemplifies the whistleblower who works diligently to “do the right thing.” His appearance on 60 Minutes gave us a taste of his frustration over the years in attempting to
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Whistleblower Attorneys Join IRS Whistleblower Office Director and Other IRS Officials for “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp”

I spent a very productive day today with IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock, former IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson, IRS Special Counsel Tom Kane, and other senior IRS officials working with the IRS Whistleblower Office, in helping stage the most comprehensive legal education program yet about the new IRS Whistleblower Program–the “IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp.” The day-long event was sponsored by Taxpayers Against Fraud.

After sessions on various aspects of how the tax whistleblower program operates, I was honored to lead the panel discussion with Director Whitlock and others on some difficult and complex issues in representing whistleblowers. We discussed in depth claims by whistleblowers such as CPAs, lawyers, and fiduciaries who have had confidential relationships with the taxpayers in question; and claims by whistleblowers who were involved in misconduct. Joining our panel discussion were Special Counsel Tom Kane of the Office of Chief Counsel, and my friend and fellow whistleblower attorney Paul D. Scott of San Francisco.Whistleblower Lawyer Blog Co-Author Michael A. Sullivan (left) moderates the panel discussion with IRS Whistleblower Office Director Steve Whitlock (right).

Director Whitlock explained how the claims submitted to the two year-old IRS Whistleblower Office have grown from approximately 80 in the first year, to approximately 2000 at present.

The IRS officials reviewed offshore tax schemes, tax fraud and tax evasion, and many other types of tax noncompliance as potential bases of IRS Whistleblower claims.The IRS Whistleblower Boot Camp began with “IRS Whistleblower Office 101,” a panel discussion introducing the applicable regulations, providing an overview of the IRS Whistleblower Office, and providing an update on the progress of the program. It was moderated by TAF Member Margaret Finerty, and included as panelists Director Steve Whitlock, and IRS Whistleblower Office Analysts Robert Gardner, Dawn Applebaum, and Al Gibson. (Dawn Applebam had joined me last week in Atlanta to make an excellent presentation on the IRS Whistleblower Program at the annual “Whistleblower Law Symposium” that our firm sponsors.)

The main domestic and international tax fraud schemes, and the types of cases the IRS Whistleblower Office would like to receive, were the subject of a discussion by former IRS Commissioner Margaret Richardson. The panelists were IRS “Subject Matter Experts” Larry Brongel (Large and Mid-sized Business Division (LMSB), Retailers, Food, Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare Industry); Sheila Olander (Sr. Analyst Special Agent with the IRS Criminal Investigative Division, Office of Financial Crimes); Elizabeth Elfrey (Director, Fraud/Bank Secrecy Act in the IRS Small Business/Self Employed (SBSE)); and Al Gibson (Whistleblower Office Analyst).

TAF member Frederick Morgan, and attorney and CPA Ralph Minto, then discussed expanding a False Claims Act practice to include IRS Whistleblower cases.

TAF President Neil Getnick led a panel discussion on issue-spotting and practice pointers when bringing IRS Whistleblower cases. The panelists were Director Steve Whitlock, Special Counsel Tom Kane, and TAF Member and fellow whistleblower attorney Brian Kenney.
(more…)

Continue Reading

False Claims Act Amendments Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee As Part of FERA (Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act) Today

Today, we were excited to hear that the Senate Judiciary Committee has sent long-needed amendments to the False Claims Act to the full Senate, as part of the “bailout” and “stimulus” inspired “Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act” (FERA).

Where there are taxpayer funds being spent, there will be attempts to engage in fraud to cheat the public. As hundreds of billions of dollars are poured into federal and state programs through the “economic stimulus” package, the continuation of the Troubled Assets Relief Program
(more…)

Continue Reading

Whistleblower Attorneys to Discuss Qui Tam Cases Under False Claims Act, IRS Whistleblower Program, and Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Cases at Annual “Whistleblower Law Symposium”

I am very excited about co-chairing the Annual “Whistleblower Law Symposium” once again this week.

From Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, San Antonio, and Washington, D.C., many of the country’s leading attorneys in whistleblower cases under the “qui tam” statute, the False Claims Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley statute, and the IRS Whistleblower Program will gather in Atlanta on March 4 to discuss some of the more challenging aspects of representing whistleblowers (or defending against whistleblower claims) under these laws.

We are honored to have one of the officials of the IRS Whistleblower Office, Dawn Applebaum, join us in person to discuss the progress of the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program. The IRS Whistleblower Office has just celebrated its second anniversary.

We are also privileged to have the top state enforcement officials in health care fraud cases from Texas, Florida, and Georgia, to explain how they coordinate state and federal health care fraud whistleblower cases under the federal and state False Claims Acts.

Also joining us is Rep. Edward Lindsey, the Legislative Sponsor both of the Georgia State False Medicaid Claims Act, and recent legislation to solidify Georgia’s Office of State Inspector General.

Because of the wave of new whistleblower statutes that have been inspired by the successes of the False Claims Act, our firm instituted the Whistleblower Law Symposium. Once again, top-notch speakers will address a broad variety of issues that arise under these whistleblower laws, including:

–Whistleblowers in Health Care: Recent Cases and Strategies for Healthcare Providers and Counsel When a Whistleblower Calls

–Recent Developments in Qui Tam Cases Under the False Claims Act-The Relator’s Perspective
–Current Issues in Defending Qui Tam Claims
–Coordinating State and Federal Whistleblower Cases Under the State and Federal False Claims Acts-Current Priorities and Recent Results
–Federal Priorities and Procedures in Qui Tam Cases
–Plaintiffs’ & Defendants’ Approaches to Sarbanes-Oxley Claims
–Update on the IRS Whistleblower Program

We are fortunate to have such excellent faculty members from around the country join us. Our faculty members and their topics are listed below.
(more…)

Continue Reading

UBS Agrees to Pay $780 Million & Identify Customers in IRS Tax Fraud Case

Off-shore tax evasion and international tax avoidance schemes are priorities of the IRS and the IRS Whistleblower program, which rewards tax whistleblowers. Our whistleblower lawyer blog has followed the ongoing investigation of UBS for its activities, which took a major turn today.

Today, the government announced that UBS AG, Switzerland’s largest bank, has admitted to helping U.S. taxpayers hide accounts from the IRS. UBS has agreed to identify its customers and to pay $780 million, as part of a “deferred prosecution agreement” on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS.

Based on an order by the Swiss Financial Markets Supervisory Authority (FINMA), UBS agreed “to immediately provide the United States government with the identities of, and account information for, certain United States customers of UBS’s cross-border business.” UBS also agreed to stop providing banking services to U.S. clients with undeclared accounts.

In 2000, after UBS purchased the brokerage firm Paine Webber, UBS entered into an agreement with the IRS to report income and other identifying information for its U.S. clients who held United States securities in a UBS account, according to the government. The government alleged that UBS was required to withhold income taxes from U.S. clients.

To evade those new reporting requirements, the government alleged that employees and managers within the cross-border business, with the knowledge of certain UBS executives, helped U.S. taxpayers open new UBS accounts in the names of nominees and/or sham entities. Assets of the individual’s accounts were then moved to the new accounts, and the U.S. taxpayer would not be identified as a beneficiary, according to the government.

UBS managers and employees also reportedly used encrypted laptops and other counter-surveillance techniques to help prevent the detection of their marketing efforts and the identities and offshore assets of their U.S. clients. Clients of the cross-border business allegedly filed false tax returns omitting the income earned on their Swiss bank accounts, and failed to disclose the existence of those accounts to the IRS.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Pharma Manufacturer in Medicaid Fraud Case Ordered to Pay Millions by Wisconsin Jury

Hidden schemes to defraud Medicare and state Medicaid programs of scarce taxpayer dollars are at the heart of many whistleblower cases under the federal and state False Claims Acts.

This morning, Wisconsin Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen announced that a Dane County, Wisconsin jury has just declared that a pharmaceutical manufacturer defrauded the Wisconsin Medicaid program by reporting grossly inflated and fraudulent prices.

Pfizer was on the receiving end of the health care fraud verdict, which may result in more than $153
(more…)

Continue Reading

Wall Street Financial Industry “Bailout” Whistleblowers Sought by–Michael Moore?

Taking a brief break from “substantive” writing on this whistleblower lawyer blog, I could not help but briefly note this story today:

Filmmaker Michael Moore is seeking whistleblowers in the financial industry for his next film. He concludes “if you work for a bank, a brokerage firm or an insurance company — or if you have seen things or heard things that you believe the American people have a right to know — please contact me” via the email address posted on his blog.

Perhaps those whistleblowers should follow Sen. Grassley’s strong advice to use the qui tam whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act to report fraud and abuse in TARP or other “bailout” measures. Persons in the financial services industry already have contacted us to do just that, and some also have potential claims in the IRS Whistleblower Program.

Both the False Claims Act and the IRS Whistleblower law allow the private citizen whistleblowers to share in the government’s recovery of money wrongfully obtained, as we have written about extensively.

We anticipate that the “stimulus” package in Congress this week also will produce many opportunities for fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds, so that whistleblowers also will be important to deter those abuses through use of the False Claims Act and the IRS Whistleblower Program.
(more…)

Continue Reading

TARP Apparently Overpaid for Bank Assets, According to Congressional Oversight Panel

Those potential whistleblowers watching for TARP waste, fraud and abuse should note today’s report of the Congressional Oversight Panel. According to the report, the Treasury Department has received “far less value in stocks and warrants than the money it injected into financial institutions.”

The report, “Valuing Treasury Acquisitions,” concludes that Treasury paid “substantially more for the assets it purchased under the TARP than the market value of those assets” at the time this deal was announced. The Panel revealed that, in the ten
(more…)

Continue Reading