(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

With Treasury Reporting TARP Funds to More Than 200 Financial Institutions, Who–Besides Whistleblowers–Can Guard Against Fraud and Abuse?

The Treasury Department last week issued its December 2008 report to Congress on what it has done with the “bailout” funds through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and Capital Purchase Program (CPP). With more than 200 institutions receiving taxpayer money, an overriding question is how to prevent and redress the inevitable fraud and abuse of TARP and other taxpayer funds, through whistleblowers and other means.

Treasury reported that, as of December 31, 2008, it had invested $177.5 billion in more than 200 U.S. financial institutions. As discussed previously on the whistleblower lawyer blog, Treasury recounted its announced assistance to General Motors and GMAC, as part of the Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP).

Treasury also described its New Year’s Eve investment in Citigroup of $20 billion in preferred stock and warrants, as part of a new Targeted Investment Program (TIP). It also discussed reporting to Congress on the “Asset Guarantee Program,” an insurance program.

Treasury’s list of institutions receiving funds is reprinted below.

With abuses already being reported by TARP whistleblowers, we urge the government to act decisively to plan for and redress the inevitable abuses that will occur. Sen. Grassley has emphasized that the qui tam whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act be used to deal with TARP bailout fraud and abuse, as we have discussed previously. The IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program should also serve an essential role in protecting taxpayer funds, as well as rewarding whistleblowers.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Treasury Department Announces TARP Investment in GMAC

The TARP bailout funding continues, as the Treasury Department announced today that it will buy $5 billion in senior preferred equity with an 8% dividend from GMAC LLC.

Senator Charles Grassley has emphasized that TARP and other “bailout” funds must be protected through whistleblower protections and whistleblower laws such as the False Claims Act. The GMAC announcement today will present ample opportunities to test those premises on which Congress approved the bailout funding.

The Treasury announcement is reprinted below:
(more…)

Continue Reading

KPMG Tax Shelter Fraud Trial Ends With Three Tax Evasion Convictions for Accountants and Lawyer

Fraudulent tax shelters continue to be a target not only of IRS Whistleblower claims, but also of enforcement actions.

We have followed closely the KPMG tax shelter fraud case in this whistleblower lawyer blog. The trial of four defendants ended this week, with two former KPMG partners and one attorney convicted of multiple counts of tax evasion for their roles in the bogus tax shelters. Another lawyer defendant was acquitted.

Prosecutors alleged that KPMG officials offered wealthy clients illegal offshore tax shelters, and paid outside attorneys to give the bogus shelters the appearance of legitimacy. According to the government, the investments had no real risk, and generated “paper losses that allowed the accounting firm’s clients to offset income.

Through tax shelters with names such as BLIPS, FLIP and OPUS, the clients were able to claim falsely that they had taken sizeable loans to buy stock, according to the government. Clients allegedly paid fees equal to 7 percent of the amount of losses sought.

After a two month trial, former KPMG tax partner Robert Pfaff, former KPMG senior tax manager John Larson, and attorney Raymond J. Ruble were found guilty on multiple counts of tax evasion. Another former KPMG tax partner was acquitted on the five counts of tax evasion.

The accounting firm agreed two years ago to pay $456 million to resolve the allegations against the firm itself. Guilty pleas previously were entered by the government’s chief witness, David Amir Makov, former KPMG partner David Rivkin, and former HVB Group accountant Domenick DeGiorgio.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Qui Tam Whistleblower Recoveries under False Claims Acts (Federal and State) in 2008

Some recent significant recoveries under the False Claims Act–the nation’s primary tool for fighting fraud and false claims–are summarized below. This summary is part of a paper I submitted in connection with serving on the faculty (with some excellent attorneys) of the “Southeastern Health Care Fraud Institute” on December 18, 2008.

Health care attorneys will gather at the Institute to discuss developments under the qui tam provisions of the nation’s major whistleblower statute, the False Claims Act, as well as other issues relating to fraud in the health care industry.

Recent Significant False Claims Act Recoveries
(as reported by www.taf.org)

Merck ($650 million settlement in February 2008, arising from allegations of nominal pricing fraud, and kickback and best price violations for the arthritis drug Vioxx, the cholesterol drug Zocor, the acid-reflux drug Pepcid, the hypertensive medication Cozaar, the bone loss drug Fosamax, the migraine medication Maxalt, and the asthma medication Singulair.)

Cephalon ($375 million settlement in November 2007 arising from alleged off-label marketing of narcotic lollipop Actiq (Afentanyl citrate@) as well as Gabitril (an epilepsy medication) and Provigil (a narcolepsy medication.)

Amerigroup ($225 million settlement in July 2008, which was the final settlement after jury trial over allegations that the defendant was Acherry-picking@ the healthiest patients to reduce Medicaid HMO liability/spending.)

Staten Island University Hospital ($88 million settlement in September 2008, based on allegations that the hospital fraudulently billed Medicaid and Medicare for inpatient alcohol and substance abuse detoxification treatment beds for which it did not have verification, fraudulently inflated its patient count, and fraudulently billed Medicare for stereotactic body radiosurgery treatment that was provided on an out-patient basis to cancer patients.)
(more…)

Continue Reading

Pharmaceutical Industry Hit by Layoffs

The country’s ongoing economic distress has produced layoffs in many industries, and pharma appears to be feeling the pain as well.

Recent layoffs reported in the drug industry include Sanofi (650 sales reps);Novartis (550 U.S. salespersons);Merck (8,000); Wyeth (2,440); GSK (1,000); Schering-Plough (5,500);and Boehringer Ingelheim (200).

Continue Reading

Whistleblowers, TARP, and Other Wall Street “Bailout” Measures–Why the False Claims Act and IRS Whistleblower Program Are More Essential Than Ever

On the same grey November day when President Bush visited Wall Street’s Federal Hall to address the ever-morphing “bailout,” I was in lower Manhattan meeting with IRS officials about an IRS Whistleblower matter. The tax evasion scheme we discussed was yet another that has cost taxpayers dearly.

As NYPD officers scurried about to help protect the President that day, I wondered who and what would protect our taxpayer funds–the hundreds of billions the government was now about to dole out–from fraud and abuse.

Fraud is rampant, as proven by the evidence brought to light by so many of our whistleblower clients under the qui tam statute, the False Claims Act, and now under the new IRS Whistleblower Program.

A few days later, Sen. Chuck Grassley hammered the same point in a November 17, 2008 letter to Treasury Secretary Paulson and Attorney General Mukasey. Grassley has insisted on effective oversight of the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) and the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), as well as on encouraging “whistleblowers” to come forward:

In the meantime, taxpayer dollars are at risk and I believe it is important to discuss alternative procedures and measures that can be taken to ensure taxpayers aren’t taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous individuals. One proven and effective method of overseeing taxpayer funds has been to support courageous whistleblowers who risk their jobs and livelihoods to bring forth allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer monies. As a longtime supporter of whistleblowers, I can attest to the fact that whistleblowers are often the key to uncovering schemes to defraud the government. With their inside knowledge of how businesses, corporations, or government agencies operate they are often privy to information that is often the necessary component to piece together how a fraud is perpetrated. As such, I believe you should both work to ensure that all entities participating in the TARP and CPP are made aware that any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse will be treated seriously and properly referred to the Treasury Inspector General or the Attorney General for review until a Special Inspector General for the TARP is appointed.

Grassley also emphasized the importance of the False Claims Act, the nation’s primary civil weapon for combating fraud against taxpayer funds, in preventing and penalizing fraud in the bailout:

[E]ntities who receive federal funds under the TARP and CPP are subject to the provisions of the FCA should they use false or fraudulent submissions in order to obtain federal funds. For instance, any entity that submits false or fraudulent information in an application to Treasury in order to obtain federal funds available through the CPP would be liable to the Government under the FCA. Further, while it has been reported that the Treasury does not currently plan to utilize authority under the Act to use the TARP to purchase distressed assets either directly or indirectly, should Treasury exercise its authority to do so, any fraudulent statements or submissions made to induce the Government to purchase those assets would also subject the fraudfeasors to liability. As a result, these individuals and corporations could be subject to civil penalties and treble damages for committing fraud against the Government.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Offshore Tax Evasion Investigations by IRS and Justice Department Expand, As IRS Whistleblowers Continue to Come Forward

The Justice Department has announced that its investigation of offshore tax evasion will expand to include Europe’s largest bank, HSBC in London, and Credit Suisse in Zurich. The increasing scrutiny of illegal offshore tax schemes comes as the Wall Street bailout and turmoil in the banking and financial services industries generate more interest in IRS Whistleblower Program claims.

DOJ and IRS continue to investigate UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank. Last month saw the unsealing of the an indictment of Raoul Weil, a UBS senior
(more…)

Continue Reading

Justice Department Announces 2008 Fraud & “Qui Tam” False Claims Act Recoveries, with Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Health Care Fraud Alone Topping $1 Billion in Recoveries of Taxpayer Funds

Will Wall Street Bailout Produce the Next Round of Whistleblowers Reporting Fraud?

The U.S. Department of Justice this week announced its FY 2008 recoveries in fraud and False Claims Act cases, with more than $1 billion in health care fraud recoveries alone, and a total of more than $1.3 billion. (As explained below, we believe the $1.3 billion figure is low and understates the actual fraud recoveries this year.)

Cases brought by “relators” or whistleblowers under the nation’s primary whistleblower statute, the False Claims Act, accounted for 78% of the money recovered. Since the False Claims Act took its current form in 1986, this law has recovered more than $21 billion of taxpayer funds from those who defraud the government.

As health care costs have grown as a percentage of the federal budget, so have recoveries for health care fraud. Recoveries of federal dollars were made because of fraud not only in Medicare and Medicaid, but also other federal programs such as Tricare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

The largest recoveries were from pharmaceutical companies–Cephalon Inc., Merck & Co. and CVS Caremark Corp. paid more than $640 million. Pharmaceutical fraud cases also repaid $430 million to state Medicaid programs.

DOJ also cited recoveries in cases of fraud affecting defense procurement contracts, disaster assistance loans and agricultural subsidies.

The actual recoveries were greater if you compare DOJ’s announcements of its settlements, as well as include dollars recovered under the various State False Claims Acts. (We have written extensively about why states are enacting their own State False Claims Acts to mirror the federal False Claims Act, given the federal law’s successes.)

With whistleblowers reporting fraud infecting in the Wall Street bailout funds (because no federal program is immune), it will be interesting to see how these billions of federal dollars show up in future statistics of fraud recoveries.

We have reprinted below DOJ’s “fact sheet” about its FY 2008 significant recoveries. We congratulate Justice on another very successful year in fighting fraud and false claims.
(more…)

Continue Reading

Tax Court Prepares for IRS Whistleblower Cases by Adopting New Proposed Amendments to Rules of Practice and Procedure

One of the hallmarks of the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program is that whistleblowers have an enforceable right to rewards, and can appeal the IRS Whistleblower Office’s rewards decisions to the U.S. Tax Court.

The Tax Court has taken a step forward in issuing new proposed amendments to its Rules of Practice and Procedure to prepare for IRS whistleblower cases. The amendments are reprinted below.

A critical improvement is that the Tax Court has listened to concerns expressed by whistleblower attorneys about the need to allow whistleblowers to proceed “anonymously” and not reveal their identity publicly. The explanation of New Rule 340 would allow anonymous filings to endeavor to preserve confidentiality:

“Pursuant to section 7461(b)(1), the Court may issue protective orders, upon motion by a party or any other person and for good cause shown, to prevent or restrict the disclosure of trade secrets and other information. See Tax Court Rule 103(a). As result of this authority, in appropriate cases, the Court may permit a petitioner to proceed anonymously and seal the record in that case. See, e.g., Anonymous v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 89 (2006). The Court contemplates that these generally applicable statutory provisions, Rule 103, and related case law, while they do not require the Court’s records in all whistleblower actions to be sealed or require the Court to permit all petitioners in those cases to proceed anonymously, do provide authority for the Court to allow a petitioner to proceed anonymously and to seal the record when appropriate in whistleblower actions.”

The full text is as follows:
(more…)

Continue Reading

IRS Addresses Deductibility of Payments by Defendants to Settle False Claims Act Cases

In our former life as lawyers defending False Claims Act cases, our defendant clients had to consider whether the payments made to settle qui tam cases under the False Claims Act were deductible for tax purposes, and to what extent.

The IRS recently issued a paper on the subject: whether a defendant’s payment to the Department of Justice to resolve False Claims Act allegations is “deductible in its entirety as a section 162(a) ordinary and necessary business expense, or includes non-deductible penalty amounts under section 162(f).”

This paper, LMSB-4-0908-045, is reproduced below:
(more…)

Continue Reading