Time to blow the whistle?
FCA cases are usually brought by a whistle blower who must prove federal money was obtained through a false claim.
We have represented many whistleblowers and concentrate on this area of the law. Unfortunately we turn down more FCA cases than we take usually because of lack of proof. FCA cases need to be proved without discovery. Qui Tam cases are not discovery fishing expeditions. The whistleblower needs to have the evidence to prove the case. One of the easiest FCA cases to prove can be bribery of foreign government officials. All we need is the cancelled check.
Tollefsen Law uniquely offers a Certified Fraud Examiner and Certified Controls Specialist to review your case
The traditional name for cases which attempt to recover money defrauded from the king is “Qui Tam” litigation. Qui Tam is pronounced “kee tam” or “kway tam”) and is an abbreviation from the Latin “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro sic ipso in hoc parte sequitur” meaning “who as well for the king as for himself sues in this matter.”
History of Qui Tam Laws in the United States
Qui tam legal actions can be traced back as far as 13th Century England where they were used by private citizens to gain access to the king’s court. The U.S. legal system, derived from the British system, allowed qui tam actions since the nation’s founding in 1776. They were rare. More
Do not confuse the False Claims Act (Qui Tam) with whistleblower protections statutes or the SEC’s whistleblower bounty program. More
Examples of specific types of whistleblowers such as public employees and environmental whistleblowers MORE
Tax Payers Against Fraud – FCA resources
Some of the more common theories used to prosecute False Claims Act cases are:
1.) Violations of Contract Provisions: “[P]arties that contract with the government are held to the letter of the contract – irrespective of whether the contract terms appear onerous from an ex post perspective, or whether the contract’s purpose could be effectuated in some other way – – under the maxim that ‘men must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.’” “[T]he mere fact that the item supplied under the contract is as good as the one contracted for does not relieve the defendants of liability” if the item does not in fact conform to the express contract terms. Failure to comply with: Military Specifications (MIL-SPECS): Specific Military Standards for processes and designs usually incorporated into military contracts for equipment. Failure to Test: Many government contracts call for items to be tested in a specific manner. Often items are tested in a less strenuous manner, the tests are manipulated so the item passes, or the item is not tested at all. Failure to Inspect: Contracts with the government often require specific inspections to be performed at certain intervals in the manufacturing process. More