Fraud

Subscribe to Fraud via RSS

On August 22, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Complaint-In-Intervention (the “Complaint”) against the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) and Georgia Tech Research Corp. (GTRC). The 99-page DOJ Complaint alleges the defendants knowingly failed to meet contractual cybersecurity requirements in connection with various Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The suit raises claims under the False Claims Act and federal common law (including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and payment by mistake). This is the latest DOJ activity relating to its Civil Cyber Fraud Initiative (announced in October 2021), which we previously have written about here, here, and here.Continue Reading DOJ Sues Georgia Tech Entities for Cybersecurity Failures in the Latest Civil Cyber Fraud Initiative (CCFI) Activity

In December 2023, President Biden signed the new Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA), closing a gap in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by criminalizing the “demand side” of foreign bribery. While the FCPA prohibits offering or paying bribes to foreign government officials, the FEPA made it illegal for foreign officials to solicit or accept bribes from U.S. entities or individuals. Less than a year after its enactment, Congress has quietly passed significant amendments to the new law, with the stated goal of removing “inconsistencies between the language of the FCPA and the FEPA [b]ecause these statutes are intended to be complementary, with parts of them addressing the same problem.” See 170 Cong. Rec. H4656-02, H4657.Continue Reading Congress’s Recent “Technical” Amendments to the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act Change Key Aspects of the New Law

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, 2024 WL 3187811 (U.S. June 27, 2024), the United Stated Supreme Court (Roberts, C.J.) held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles the defendant to a trial by jury. This decision was based upon the Court’s interpretation that the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud, and thus actions for violations of these provisions implicate the Seventh Amendment right. The Court determined that the “public rights” exception, which allows certain matters to be resolved outside of Article III courts without a jury, does not apply in this context because the action does not fall within the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives traditionally resolved without Article III adjudication. This ruling curtails the SEC’s authority to impose penalties for fraud, and could potentially affect the enforcement capabilities of agencies enforcing federal law.Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits SEC’s Enforcement Power to Penalize Fraud

A recent Ninth Circuit opinion instills the importance of raising an often overlooked defense in federal fraud cases: that the defendant’s misrepresentation did not affect the “nature of the bargain.” In United States v. Milheiser, the panel recently vacated six defendants’ convictions for mail fraud, holding that merely lying to influence a transaction does not rise to the level of fraud. Instead, a “lie must go to the nature of the bargain” to support a conviction.Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Holds That a Lie Must Go to the Nature of the Bargain to Support Fraud Conviction

In 2019, the Department of Justice created the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF or Strike Force), a joint law enforcement effort to combat antitrust crimes and related fraudulent schemes that impact government procurement, grant, and program funding at all levels of government—federal, state and local. The PCSF is a constellation of partnerships among the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, multiple U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Inspectors General for multiple federal agencies working together to crack down on unlawful anticompetitive activities in the public procurement process. As we have previously discussed,[i] the PCSF has been steadily growing its footprint and focus since its inception in November 2019. Now four years in, the Strike Force continues to add new partners at the Federal, State and global level, boasting of more than 30,000 government officials trained in detection and prosecution of procurement offenses. The Strike Force touts its growing ranks of trained eyes and ears on the ground anywhere government funds are spent. The PCSF is sending an increasingly aggressive enforcement message that should put those engaged with government contracts, federal funds, and procurement officials on high alert.Continue Reading Aggressive Procurement Collusion Enforcement Risk Remains High for 2024

After conducting a thorough and privileged internal investigation, it becomes evident that your Company has overcharged the government over $50 million, and that the fraud was directed by a high-level manager. What do you do next? After the recent HealthSun declination, you should self-disclose under the DOJ’s Voluntary Self-Disclosure policy, in conjunction with other acts of remediation! Continue Reading Should my Company Self-Disclose Major Fraud? The Answer is Now Clear

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the aggravated identity theft statute –and its mandatory minimum of two years – is not triggered merely because someone else’s identification facilitates or furthers the offense in some way. See Dubin v. United States. We have seen a growing trend of the government adding aggravated identity theft in healthcare fraud cases. As a result of this decision, we may see that statute far less.Continue Reading Is this “Good-Bye” to the Two Year Mandatory Minimum in Healthcare Fraud Cases?