Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The use of the FCA is part of a larger DOJ strategy to develop multi-faceted solutions for this public health emergency.
The False Claims Act (FCA) (31 U.S.C. §§3729-3733) is often at the forefront of civil fraud cases. The statute serves as the government’s primary civil remedy to redress false claims for healthcare benefits, government funds and property under government programs and contracts relating to such areas as Medicare, defense and national security, food safety and inspection, federally insured loans and mortgages, small business contracts, and disaster assistance. FCA violators can be hammered with staggering monetary damages and penalties. One false claim alone carries a penalty ranging from $10,957 to $21,916 (82 FR 9131), and cases warranting the attention of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) will likely involve thousands, if not millions, of claims. Defendants can also be ordered to pay treble the amount of the government’s damages. Between Oct. 1, 2016, and Sept. 30, 2017, the DOJ obtained more than $3.7 billion in settlements and judgments from civil FCA cases. More than 64% of these recoveries ($2.4 billion) involved the health care industry, including drug companies, hospitals, pharmacies, laboratories and physicians.
*May exclude premium content
By Jacqueline C. Wolff
Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue
this second edition contains some new “hypotheticals” — facts of actual cases the DOJ finds important enough to focus on — and, in keeping true to its name, has included additional resources and links for chief compliance officers looking to design and audit their companies’ anticorruption compliance programs.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
United States v. Napout
The U.S. government’s lead role in the prosecution of corruption within the Zurich-based FIFA may be a paradigmatic example of U.S. law enforcement acting as the world’s policeman. If corruption is based on foreign executives violating their duties of loyalty to foreign private entities, how does that translate into a violation of U.S. criminal law? Does it matter that the conduct in which the foreign executive engaged — commercial bribery — may not be illegal under the law of the executive’s home country?
By Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack
This article discusses cases that have begun to address whether “official act” is an element in a private honest services fraud prosecution.
By Telemachus P. Kasulis
For a moment there, it really looked like it was going to happen. After a long and winding road, insider trading reform had reached the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. The Insider Trading Prohibition Act (ITPA) had support on both sides of the aisle and on Dec. 5, 2019, the House voted to pass the ITPA. Then the bill went to the Senate and vanished. We should take this opportunity to learn what lessons we can from the successes and failures of the ITPA as a bill with an eye toward fashioning the best possible legislation next time — whenever that may be.