Whistleblower Blog

News in Government Procurement Fraud and False Claims

We found a very interesting article from last week’s Legal Times, with an excerpt of interest to whistleblower lawyers as follows:

“Last fall, the Justice Department launched a National Procurement Fraud Task Force to focus “resources at all levels of government to increase criminal enforcement” in areas of procurement fraud. The stepped-up attention to this area throughout the government may signal that the $3.1 billion record in federal fraud recoveries in 2006 could soon be broken. More than 50 inspectors general from across all
(more…)

IRS Names New Head of IRS Criminal Investigative Division

The IRS agents we have been meeting with since January to pursue whistleblower claims under the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program have a new boss, the IRS announced today.

The Criminal Investigative Division of the IRS will be led by Eileen Mayer, who was most recently head of the IRS’s Office of Fraud/Bank Secrecy Act.

We are encouraged by IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson’s comments that “she will play a key role in IRS efforts to halt tax fraud.” Agents of the Criminal Investigative Division work tax fraud cases, some of which are now originating under the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards program.

As a result of the IRS’s efforts, the Department of Justice has brought many successful prosecutions.
The IRS’s press release is reprinted below:
(more…)

New Medicaid False Claims Act Proposed in Georgia

We were encouraged to see that Georgia has just joined the states that are considering a State “False Claims Act” with whistleblower provisions.

As we have discussed before on the Whistleblower Lawyer Blog, Congress has created great financial incentives for states that pass their own versions of the federal False Claims Act, with qui tam provisions that encourage whistleblowers. States can increase by 10% their share of Medicare fraud recoveries by passing their own False Claims Acts, but the state laws must pass muster with OIG and be at least as effective as the federal False Claims Act. Otherwise, as approximately seven other states were disappointed to find, the state does not receive an increase in its share of Medicare fraud recoveries.

Rep. Ed Lindsey is the sponsor of Georgia’s proposed “State False Medicaid Claims Act.” The new law would apply to Medicaid fraud and false claims, but not other fraud and false claims that cost the state taxpayers money.

The challenge will be to make sure that the new law is tough enough and broad enough to meet OIG’s criteria. As we reported before, OIG has disapproved the False Claims statutes of California, Florida, Louisiana, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, and Texas, as not as effective as the federal False Claims Act. No approval by OIG, no extra money for the state.

We will be discussing this new whistleblower statute, as well as others. Those who wish to read it can do so here:
(more…)

Has Iraq Fraud Cost Taxpayers Even More Than Previously Believed?

Congressional Committee Explores Contractor Overcharges

Of great interest to whistleblower lawyers is how much suspected fraud and abuse has occurred in Iraq reconstruction contracts. Goverment auditors recently announced that they now believe that Iraq contractor fraud and abuse may be three times greater than the previous estimates–and may affect one out of every six dollars spent in the Iraq reconstruction effort.

The estimate has grown from $3.5 billion to more than $10 billion in “questioned and unsupported costs,” according to the Defense Contract Audit
(more…)

Comments–Whistleblower Lawyers, Other Attorneys, and Clients on the Whistleblower Lawyer Blog

Since we began the Whistleblower Lawyer Blog to discuss topics of interest to attorneys, potential whistleblowers and others about developments in the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program, in qui tam litigation under the False Claims Act, and other whistleblower developments that might be of interest to other lawyers or whistleblowers, we have received some very positive feedback.

We have discussed not only how the IRS Whistleblower Program and the False Claims Act work, but we have also tried to highlight specific
(more…)

New Whistleblower Protections Approved by House Committee

Recognizing how important whistleblowers are to stopping fraud, the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today approved the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (H.R. 985).

The new whistleblower protections would apply to federal employees and government contractors. The law would establish whistleblower protections for scientific, intelligence and transportation security employees. It would also apparently mean that officials would investigate whether security clearances are revoked as retribution for a whistleblower’s reporting allegations of waste, fraud or abuse.

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) introduced the bill last week. Additional amendments would strengthen the effectiveness of the whistleblower provisions.

We find it very encouraging that Congress is taking such logical steps to protect the public’s money from waste, fraud and abuse.

The specific sections of the proposed new whistleblower law are as follows:

H.R.985 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
(more…)

Medicare Fraud Indictments in Los Angeles

We find it staggering to read about how blatant Medicare fraud can be, which often provokes a whistleblower to step forward. Today’s L.A. Times reports on a shameless scheme to defraud Medicare:

Elderly and mentally ill patients allegedly were offered doughnuts, candy and other gifts to lure them into more than $12 million worth of unnecessary respiratory treatments that were fraudulently billed to Medicare, according to the Indictment. Doctors and administrators were charged, according to this report.

What can you say about such criminality,
(more…)

State Whistleblower Act Is a Powerful Tool in Texas–But Could Produce Even More Medicaid Fraud Recoveries

Whistleblower suits that reveal Medicaid fraud in Texas have grabbed the attention of the Texas Legislature–which apparently recognizes how powerful state False Claims Acts can be.

Today’s Houston Chronicle reports that Texas is working through a “backlog” of Medicaid fraud cases, the top 20 of which could bring another $700 million to the State (and presumably a significant amount to whistleblowers).

Whistleblower cases have been so effective that the legislators asked what more could be accomplished with more resources provided to pursue these fraud
(more…)

Watching the New IRS Whistleblower Procedures Take Shape

We are excited to see the new IRS Whistleblower Office’s procedures being developed. We obtained a copy of a recent letter from IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson, describing how the new Whistleblower procedures are taking shape, to Senator Charles Grassley.

Senator Grassley has been instrumental in pushing for effective whistleblower laws, both in qui tam litigation under the False Claims Act, and now in the new IRS Whistleblower Program. Here is an excerpt of Commisioner Everson’s January 29, 2007 letter describing the implementation of the new IRS Whistleblower Program:

“The IRS has already taken steps to establish the new Whistleblower Office, which will report directly to the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. This places the new office on par with other Operating divisions at the IRS. It will be headed by an IRS executive who has experience with IRS operations as well as with whistleblower operations in other government agencies. This executive should be assigned to the new position by February 4, 2007 [and our Whistleblower Lawyer Blog readers can learn about the new Director here] and will be available to attend your bipartisan roundtable discussion to obtain first-hand input from key stakeholders.

“The IRS Chief counsel and Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy are responsible for issuing the guidance required by the Tax Relief Act of 2006. Both offices are currently studying the legislation to identify areas and issues to be addressed in the guidance. They will obtain input from all interested parties, including the new executive in charge of the Whistleblower Office, to determine issues needing guidance. We are hopeful that the roundtable discussion will provide an opportunity to receive additional input. Chief Counsel and Tax Policy plan to issue this guidance within the one year timeframe required in the legislation.”
(more…)

Potential Whistleblowers: IRS Offers Program for Employers “Back-Dating” Stock Options

We are encouraged that the IRS is taking action in response to the fraudulent practice of “back-dating” of stock options. Potential whistleblowers may wish to see the IRS’ description of its program to deal with an aspect of this problem.

Here is an excerpt from the IRS’ announcement of how it is permitting employers to “step forward” and pay a penalty, and a related IRS Release can be read here:

(From IRS Release:)

IRS Offers Opportunity for Employers to Satisfy Tax Obligations of Rank-and-File Employees with ‘Backdated’ Stock Options

IR-2007-30, Feb. 8, 2006
WASHINGTON – Internal Revenue Service officials today announced an initiative aimed at providing relief for rank-and-file employees affected by their companies’ issuance of backdated and other mispriced stock options. While the program will be available to help these employees who may be unaware that they held backdated options, the opportunity will not be available for backdated options exercised by most corporate executives or other insiders.

If an employee exercised a ‘backdated’ stock option in 2006, the employee may owe an additional 20-percent tax, plus an interest tax, under the Federal tax laws governing deferred compensation. If the option had been properly priced, the employee normally would only have owed income tax on the difference between the value at the date of grant and exercise.
(more…)

Long-Awaited IRS Whistleblower Rule “Fix” Is Released for Comment

We have written previously about Senator Grassley’s pointed criticisms of aspects of the IRS whistleblower rules proposed in June 2010. The IRS’s delay in finalizing those rules is a principal reason why the IRS has not yet paid whistleblowers who have come forward since the December 2006 creation of the new IRS Whistleblower Program.

Today, the IRS took a large step to correct one major flaw that Grassley urged be corrected: re-writing a bizarre rule that would deny rewards to valuable whistleblowers who prevent improper refunds, or reduce a credit balance by a taxpayer. From what we can tell, that nonsensical rule was not the creation of the IRS Whistleblower Office, but of others within the IRS.

The IRS today announced a new IRS whistleblower rule to correct that anomaly, to be published for comment in the Federal Register.

Specifically, in a June 21, 2010 letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, Grassley challenged the IRS to write a sensible rule to correct this result:


In addition to the IRS posting the new [Internal Revenue Manual] provisions without public comment, there are many substantive concerns within the IRM. For example, the new definition of “collected proceeds” is particularly troubling because it seems to limit the payment of awards to whistleblowers only in those instances where the IRS receives cash payment from a taxpayer. . . . The denial of a whistleblower award where the whistleblower’s information leads to the denial of a claim for refund seems to create a perverse incentive for the whistleblower to wait until the IRS has paid an improper refund. In addition, the IRM says that satisfaction of a taxpayer’s liabilities by reducing a credit balance is not within the scope of collected proceeds so the whistleblower would receive no award.

The new proposed rule attempts at least a partial fix. It provides that rewards may now be paid on “amounts collected prior to receipt of the information if the information provided results in the denial of a claim for refund that otherwise would have been paid; and a reduction of an overpayment credit balance used to satisfy a tax liability incurred because of the information provided.”

Today’s proposed rule does nothing to address Grassley’s other criticisms of the June 2010 proposed rules.
(more…)

Activities of IRS Large Business and International Division Earn Its Commissioner Recognition As “Tax Person of the Year”

Citing many developments in the IRS Large Business and International Division in 2010, Tax Analysts this week named IRS LB&I Commissioner Heather Maloy as its “Tax Person of the Year.”

Among those developments that we have followed previously are the international focus of the restructured LB&I division (formerly known as the Large and Mid-Size Business Division (LMSB)), and the creation of the new Global High Wealth Industry Group within LB&I. That group within LB&I is already is working some very significant IRS Whistleblower cases.

Also mentioned by Tax Notes was one of my favorite IRS professionals who assisted the new IRS Whistleblower Program in its infancy, Stuart Mann:
(more…)

New SEC Whistleblower Program to Benefit from SEC’s Appointment of New Enforcement Official?

The SEC has just announced that current senior advisor to SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, Stephen L. Cohen, has been named an Associate Director of the Division of Enforcement.

We hope this is good news for the nascent SEC Whistleblower Program. The SEC recently announced that its delaying creation of an SEC Whistleblower Office for budget reasons.

Steve Cohen has advised Chairman Schapiro on a number of issues including the SEC Whistleblower program, which I have discussed with him briefly earlier this year.

Coincidentally, the announcement came on yesterday’s deadline for comments on the SEC’s proposed rules for SEC whistleblowers, which must be substantially revamped so as not to defeat Congress’ purpose by discouraging meaningful whistleblowers from coming forward. We have submitted our own comments to the SEC on its proposed whistleblower rules, and will discuss later others’ comments here. See our comments

The SEC’s press release is reprinted below:
(more…)

IRS Whistleblower Claims Reporting Tax Evasion and “Overlooked” Returns

Tax whistleblowers using the new IRS Whistleblower Program have reported many instances of tax evasion involving domestic and foreign corporations, partnerships, and trusts, in addition to abusive offshore transactions about which we have written previously. These tax whistleblowers will allow the IRS to reduce the more than $300 billion “tax gap”–the difference between what tax cheats owe, but refuse to pay.

Tax evasion generally entails taxpayers understating taxes in the returns they file. In many cases evasion also entails taxpayers failing to file returns, especially information returns (as opposed to tax returns).

For example, partnership returns (Form 1065) are information returns and as such do not report tax payable. Cases of partnership tax evasion sometimes arise where filing Form 1065 is “overlooked.” In many of these cases, the partners continue to file their own income tax returns, which typically understate taxable income and tax payable, as there are no K-1’s to report.

Another partnership information return frequently overlooked is Form 8275. This form should generally be filed where partners have made partnership contributions, and received partnership distributions, within a two year period. Failing to file 8275’s typically results in an underpayment of tax where the disguised sale rules operate to treat the contribution and distribution as a sale.

Cancellation Of Debt (“COD”) is another area where non-filing of information returns (generally Form 1099-C) often results in an underpayment of tax, particularly in relation to non-institutional debt.

The problem of overlooked returns is not limited to income tax. Another return that is frequently overlooked is Form 709. This form should be filed by individuals who gift property that does not qualify for exclusion from gift tax.

On the international side, taxpayer interests in foreign companies should often be information reported on Form 5471. Where taxpayers have interests in foreign companies that hold interests in other foreign companies, multiple 5471’s may need to be filed to reflect second tier or higher tier interests. Failing to file 5471’s typically results in an underpayment of tax where foreign company income is required to be included in US income, for example under the Subpart F rules.
(more…)

Special: Article Explaining the 2010 False Claims Act and State False Claims Acts

Three years ago, our whistleblower lawyer blog presented an in-depth article discussing the nation’s major whistleblower law, the False Claims Act, and the wave of new state False Claims Acts.

Since then in 2009-2010, Congress has amended the False Claims Act three times to remove obstacles created by courts, which had limited the law’s effectiveness. To reflect those important and needed changes in the law, I have updated this article to present at the 2010 Fraud and Compliance Forum sponsored by the American Health Lawyers Association and Health Care Compliance Association.

That detailed article is excerpted here to explain the False Claims Act, with its 2009-2010 amendments. For ease of reading, it is divided into six parts:

Part 1: Introduction: What You Should Know About the False Claims Act And New State False Claims Acts After the 2009-2010 Amendments

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Increasing Number of State False Claims Acts

Part 3: The False Claims Act: Background & History

Part 4: How the False Claims Act Works After the 2009-2010 Amendments (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

Part 5: The Trend of Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

Part 6: States’ Experiences With Their Own False Claims Acts

If you have any questions about a potential False Claims Act case, please feel free to contact us at 800-228-9159, or send an email through the link here.
(more…)

Part 1: Introduction: What You Should Know About the False Claims Act And New State False Claims Acts After the 2009-2010 Amendments

This is Part 1 of an updated explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This Part 1 provides an introduction to the False Claims Act.

In 2010, more than ever, it is essential for lawyers to understand their clients’ potential liabilities under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). The health care industry increasingly has become the major focus of the federal government’s enforcement efforts, and usually pays at least two-thirds of the money recovered each year under this anti-fraud statute.

Adding to the health care lawyer’s challenges, since 2009 Congress has amended the False Claims Act three times, primarily to overturn judicial decisions that once created obstacles to FCA actions. Those amendments also have created an important new basis of FCA liability – retention of overpayments – which has great significance to health care providers. These 2009-2010 amendments make the FCA a far more effective enforcement tool for the government, and thus a much greater problem for defendants accused of health care fraud.

Further, a wave of new “whistleblower” statutes continues, inspired by the successes of the False Claims Act. These new laws include (1) an increasing number of state versions of the federal False Claims Act; (2) the new IRS Whistleblower Rewards Program; and (3) new “SEC Whistleblower” and “CFTC Whistleblower” programs, authorized in July 2010 as part of the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Act. By encouraging employees, contractors, and others to report allegations of fraud, these new whistleblower provisions create substantial concerns for health care organizations and other defendants alleged to be liable.

This article provides an overview of what health care lawyers should know about the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. As discussed below, the state Acts mirror the federal False Claims Act in important respects, but can differ in some significant ways.
(more…)

Part 2: The False Claims Act and the Increasing Number of State False Claims Acts

This is Part 2 of an explanation the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts with qui tam whistleblower provisions. This Part 2 discusses the sound policy reasons underlying the False Claims Act.

I. Why Have 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.(Quoted from legislative history of 1986 amendments to False Claims Act).

Fraud – and allegations of fraud – plagues government spending at every level. Today, as the federal government struggles to fund the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on health care through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs; the Iraq and Afghanistan wars; the financial “bailout” measures enacted after the 2008 financial collapse; disaster relief efforts; 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. 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 two decades, 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.”

The federal False Claims Act since 1986 has been successful in recovering more than $27 billion, 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 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.
(more…)

Part 3: The False Claims Act: Background & History

This is Part 3 of an updated explanation of the major qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This Part 3 explains the history of the False Claims Act and why effective whistleblower laws are important.

II. Background of the Federal 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.

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.

A. 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.”

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.

The original Act provided for double damages, plus a $2,000 forfeiture for each claim submitted. 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.

The Act survived in substantially its original form until World War II. 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.
(more…)

Part 4: How the False Claims Act Works After the 2009-2010 Amendments (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

This Part 4 of a six part summary explains how the federal False Claims Act works, after Congress amended it three times in 2009-2010. It also discusses similar provisions of some state False Claims Acts.

This is an update from a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sullivan.

III. Overview of How the Modern False Claims Act Works (with Comparisons to Some State False Claims Acts)

A. Conduct Prohibited

The federal False Claims Act imposes civil liability under several different theories, only four of which were generally used before FERA. FERA has added an additional theory of liability for retention of overpayments, which now will likely be used quite often in health care cases:

First, the Act makes liable any person who knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a “false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.”

Second, the Act creates liability for using a “false record or statement.” It imposes liability on any person who “knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim.”

“Claim” is broadly defined, and is not limited to submissions made directly to the federal government:
(more…)

Part 5: The Trend of Recoveries Under the False Claims Act

This is Part 5 of 6 of a recently updated article about the qui tam whistleblower statutes, the federal False Claims Act and the new state False Claims Acts. This is an updated version of a previously published article by whistleblower lawyer blog author Michael A. Sulliva.

This Part 5 discusses the striking success of the False Claims Act since its 1986 Amendments, as it has recovered more than $27 billion in taxpayers’ money wrongfully obtained by fraud and false claims.

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

Over the past twenty-four years 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 (“DOJ”) statistics 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. In that record year, 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.

In 2010, DOJ set a record for health care fraud recoveries of $2.5 billion, out of a total of $3 billion recovered from civil fraud claims. $2.3 billion of that $3 billion resulted from qui tam cases. DOJ also set a two-year record for recoveries of $5.4 billion in 2009-2010, most as a result of qui tam cases.
(more…)