Patricia Davis, former Assistant Director, Fraud Section, Civil Division, joins GeyerGorey LLP

Posted on October 15, 2013 by Brad Geyer

Patricia Davis, a twenty-year veteran of the Department of Justice, has joined GeyerGorey LLP as of counsel. She previously served as Assistant Director, Fraud Section, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, where she was responsible for investigating and prosecuting hundreds of cases involving fraud on government healthcare, procurement and grant/loan programs. Prior to joining the Department, Ms. Davis was Deputy Counsel to the Inspector General at the General Services Administration. She is the eleventh former DOJ prosecutor to join the boutique law firm in less than a year.

(See the firm’s Representative Matters by clicking here [this is not a comprehensive list and does not yet incorporate any of Ms. Davis’s experience])

“The scope and breadth of Pat’s experience is unparalleled. Much of the Civil Division’s enforcement program focusing on Defense Department contracts and pharmaceuticals rested squarely on her shoulders,” said Brad Geyer, one of the firm’s founding partners. “We are delighted that Pat has decided to join us.”

Robert Zastrow, who was Verizon’s Assistant General Counsel for 15 years before co-founding the firm in October 2012, added,“ Pat Davis is an excellent addition to our corporate compliance and white collar practice.”

“I believe that Pat brings our firm to a new level in terms of our ability to get cases placed appropriately and to enhance the chances that our qui tam (False Claims Act) cases will be adopted by the government,” said Hays Gorey, a firm co-founder. “With Pat’s terrific background and deep legal knowledge, we are uniquely positioned to develop cases so that they are ready, when filed, to be transitioned immediately to the appropriate U.S. Attorney’s Office or the Civil Division of the Department of Justice.”

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., with offices in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Dallas, GeyerGorey LLP specializes in white collar criminal defense, particularly investigations and cases involving allegations of economic crimes, including violations of the federal antitrust laws (price fixing, bid rigging, territorial and customer allocation agreements), the procurement and grant fraud statutes, the securities laws, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the False Claims Act and other whistleblower actions. The firm also conducts internal investigations of possible criminal conduct and provides advice regarding compliance with antitrust, anti-bribery and other laws and regulations, in addition to advising on voluntary and mandatory disclosure issues. For further information, please call Patricia Davis at (202) 559-1456 or email [email protected].

United States and Switzerland Issue Joint Statement Regarding Tax Evasion Investigations Switzerland Encourages Its Banks to Cooperate with New Program Which Will Require Significant Financial Penalties and Information Sharing from Banks That Aided Secret Account Holders

Posted on August 29, 2013 by Brad Geyer

The Department of Justice today announced a program that will encourage Swiss banks to cooperate in the department’s ongoing investigations of the use of foreign bank accounts to commit tax evasion. The department also released a joint statement with the Swiss Federal Department of Finance, stating that Switzerland will encourage its banks to participate in the program.

“This program will significantly enhance the Justice Department’s ongoing efforts to aggressively pursue those who attempt to evade the law by hiding their assets outside of the United States,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “In addition to strengthening our partnership with the Swiss government, the program’s requirement that Swiss banks provide detailed account information will improve our ability to bring tax dollars back to the U.S. treasury from across the globe.”

“This program will provide us with additional information to prosecute those who used secret offshore bank accounts and those here and abroad who established and facilitated the use of such accounts,” said Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole. “Now is the time for all U.S. taxpayers who hid behind Swiss bank secrecy laws or have undeclared offshore accounts in other foreign countries to come forward and resolve their outstanding tax issues with the United States.”

Under the program, which is available only to banks that are not currently under criminal investigation by the department for their offshore activities, participating Swiss banks will be required to:

Agree to pay substantial penalties
Make a complete disclosure of their cross-border activities
Provide detailed information on an account-by-account basis for accounts in which U.S. taxpayers have a direct or indirect interest
Cooperate in treaty requests for account information
Provide detailed information as to other banks that transferred funds into secret accounts or that accepted funds when secret accounts were closed
Agree to close accounts of account holders who fail to come into compliance with U.S. reporting obligations

Banks meeting all of the above requirements will be eligible for non-prosecution agreements. Banks currently under criminal investigation related to their Swiss banking activities, and all individuals, are expressly excluded from the program.

The program holds banks to a higher degree of responsibility for opening secret accounts after it became publicly known that the department was actively investigating offshore tax evasion in Switzerland. Under the penalty provisions of the program, banks seeking a non-prosecution agreement must agree to a penalty in an amount equal to 20 percent of the maximum aggregate dollar value of all non-disclosed U.S. accounts that were held by the bank on Aug.1, 2008. The penalty amount will increase to 30 percent for secret accounts that were opened after that date but before the end of February 2009 and to 50 percent for secret accounts opened later than that.

The program will significantly assist the department’s efforts to investigate and prosecute U.S. taxpayers who, when faced with the risk of detection, chose to move funds away from banks under investigation to banks that they believed might be better havens for tax secrecy. A key component of the program requires cooperating banks to provide information that will enable the United States to follow the money to other Swiss banks and to banks located in other countries.

The program also provides a path to resolution for Swiss banks that were not engaged in wrongful acts with U.S. taxpayers but nonetheless want a resolution of their status. Most banks in this category will be asked to provide an internal investigation report prepared by an independent examiner, as well as any additional information requested by the department. A smaller group of banks will be allowed to show that they met certain criteria for deemed-compliance under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). Banks in these two groups will be eligible to receive non-target letters.

The program is intended to enable every Swiss bank that is not already under criminal investigation to find a path to resolution. It also creates significant risks for individuals and banks that continue to fail to cooperate, including for those Swiss banks that facilitated U.S. tax evasion but fail to cooperate now, for all U.S. taxpayers who think that they can continue to hide income and assets in offshore banks, and for those advisors and others who facilitated these crimes.

Since 2009, the department has charged more than 30 banking professionals and 68 U.S. accountholders with violations arising from their offshore banking activities. Fifty-four U.S. taxpayers and four bankers and financial advisors have pled guilty, and five taxpayers have been convicted at trial. One Swiss bank entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, and a second Swiss bank was indicted and pleaded guilty. Currently, the department is actively investigating the Swiss-based activities of 14 financial institutions. The department’s enforcement activities are global and have also included public actions concerning activities in India, Luxembourg, Israel and the Caribbean.

The program does not address current or future investigations and pending cases concerning bank employees, financial advisors and other individuals. The department will address each of these cases only with the individual’s counsel, in a manner that gives consideration to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. In those cases in which indictments are pending, any resolution will also require addressing outstanding issues with the court. Counsel for banks currently under investigation, individuals who have been indicted, or bank employees who are concerned about whether they have potential criminal liability should contact the department’s Tax Division or the prosecutors handling their case if they wish to seek resolution.

The department notes that the joint statement with the Swiss Federal Department of Finance provides that if personal data are provided, they should only be used for purposes of law enforcement, which may include regulatory action, in the United States or as otherwise permitted by U.S. law. Additionally, the department has assured its Swiss counterparts that it understands that simply because the names of individuals are included in the information that it receives from a bank does not necessarily mean that any particular individual is or is not culpable of wrongdoing. The support that Switzerland has shown for this program may also help those banks already under investigation take some of the steps necessary to reach a resolution.

“Banks that come forward under the program that we have announced today have the opportunity to reach a resolution with the United States,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division Kathryn Keneally. “The program will give us yet more information to pursue U.S. taxpayers who are continuing to hide their assets in offshore accounts, and creates significant risks for those Swiss banks that fail to come forward. We recognize and express our appreciation for Switzerland’s support of the program.”

“The program the Department of Justice announced today is another positive step forward in the U.S. government’s continuing efforts to combat offshore tax evasion,” said Danny Werfel, Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. “On behalf of the IRS, I extend my appreciation to both the Justice Department and the Swiss government for developing a way forward that provides the United States with information that will be critical to the enforcement of our tax laws and will bring closure for Swiss banks that meet the requirements of the program.”

Phillip Zane’s Game Theory: Ten Years On

Posted on August 5, 2013 by Brad Geyer

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published his definitive work on game theory which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, when, and how corporations and executive management teams should disclose white collar criminal conduct.

Phillip Zane be the only attorney whose colleagues and clients might expect to see an open book on games and strategy on his desk.

Ten years ago this spring, Zane published The Price Fixer’s Dilemma: Applying Game Theory to the Decision of Whether to Plead Guilty to Antitrust Crimes, 48 Antitrust Bull. 1 (2003), which changed the way law-and-economics scholars and sophisticated prosecutors and defense counsel analyze whether, and when, to settle high-stakes antitrust cases.

Zane’s article strongly suggested that in a number of common situations, pleading guilty (or even seeking the protections of the corporate leniency program) is not always justified. Zane’s article used a repeated, or iterative, version of the prisoner’s dilemma to demonstrate that pleading guilty was not always the best strategy for antitrust defendants facing criminal prosecution and civil liability in multiple proceedings or jurisdictions.

At the time, a few of the brainier Antitrust Division prosecutors breathed a sigh of relief when the defense bar did not seem to notice and they failed to incorporate Zane’s research into their negotiating strategies.

In 2007, Zane published “An Introduction to Game Theory for Antitrust Lawyers,” which he used in a unit of an antitrust class he taught at George Mason University School of Law. That paper was another milestone on the way to making game theory concepts accessible and useful to the antitrust defense bar.

Zane’s work, which now used game theory to criticize the settlement of the second Microsoft case and the Government’s approach to conscious parallelism, as well as the leniency program, was met with official grumblings within the Antitrust Division.

GeyerGorey LLP was founded on the principle that the chances for achieving the best possible outcome are maximized by having access to multiple, top-notch, cross-disciplinary legal minds that are synced together by an organizational and compensation structure that encourages sharing of ideas and information in client relationships.

As international enforcement agencies sprouted and developed criminal capabilities and as more hybrid matters included prosecutors from US enforcement agency components with sometimes overlapping jurisdictions, such as the Antitrust, Criminal, Civil and Tax Divisions of the Department of Justice, and the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission, it became apparent that Zane’s game-theoretic approach has application in almost every significant decision we could be called upon to make. Since Zane has joined us we have been working to factor in the increased risks associated with what we call hybrid conduct (conduct that violates more than a single statute). Our tools of analysis for identifying risks for violations of competition laws, anti-corruption laws, anti-money-laundering laws, and other prohibitions, include sophisticated game-theoretic techniques, as well as, of course, the noses of former seasoned prosecutors, taking into account, each particular client’s tolerance for risk.

To take one example, an internal investigation might show both possible price fixing and bribery of foreign government officials. How, given the potential for multiple prosecutions, should decisions to defend or cooperate be assessed? And how might such decisions trigger interest by the Tax Division, the SEC, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or other regulators. When should a corporation launch an internal investigation? When should it make a mandatory disclosure? What should it disclose and to which agency, in what order? When should it seek leniency and when should it instead stand silent? These tools are valuable in the civil context as well: When should it abandon a proposed merger or instead oppose an enforcement agency’s challenge to a proposed deal?

These are truly the most difficult questions a lawyer advising large corporations is required to address. We are well positioned to help answer these questions.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Agrees to Pay $490.9 Million for Marketing the Prescription Drug Rapamune for Unapproved Uses

Posted on July 30, 2013 by Brad Geyer

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company acquired by Pfizer, Inc. in 2009, has agreed to pay $490.9 million to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Rapamune for uses not approved as safe and effective by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Justice Department announced today. Rapamune is an “immunosuppressive” drug that prevents the body’s immune system from rejecting a transplanted organ.

“FDA’s drug approval process ensures companies market their products for uses proven safe and effective,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We will hold accountable those who put patients’ health at risk in pursuit of financial gain.”

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) requires a company such as Wyeth to specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to the FDA. Once approved, a drug may not be introduced into interstate commerce for unapproved or “off-label” uses until the company receives FDA approval for the new intended uses. In 1999, Wyeth received approval from the FDA for Rapamune use in renal (kidney) transplant patients. However, the information alleges, Wyeth trained its national Rapamune sales force to promote the use of the drug in non-renal transplant patients. Wyeth provided the sales force with training materials regarding non-renal transplant use and trained them on how to use these materials in presentations to transplant physicians. Then, Wyeth encouraged sales force members, through financial incentives, to target all transplant patient populations to increase Rapamune sales.

“The FDA approves drugs for certain uses after lengthy clinical trials,” said Sanford Coats, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma. “Compliance with these approved uses is important to protect patient safety, and drug companies must only market and promote their drugs for FDA-approved uses. The FDA approved Rapamune for limited use in renal transplants and required the label to include a warning against certain uses. Yet, Wyeth trained its sales force to promote Rapamune for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, including ex-renal uses, and even paid bonuses to incentivize those sales. This was a systemic, corporate effort to seek profit over safety. Companies that ignore compliance with FDA regulations will face criminal prosecution and stiff penalties.”

Wyeth has pleaded guilty to a criminal information charging it with a misbranding violation under the FDCA. The resolution includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling $233.5 million. Under a plea agreement, which has been accepted by the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, Wyeth has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $157.58 million and forfeit assets of $76 million.

The resolution also includes civil settlements with the federal government and the states totaling $257.4 million. Wyeth has agreed to settle its potential civil liability in connection with its off-label marketing of Rapamune. The government alleged that Wyeth violated the False Claims Act, from 1998 through 2009, by promoting Rapamune for unapproved uses, some of which were not medically accepted indications and, therefore, were not covered by Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs. These unapproved uses included non-renal transplants, conversion use (switching a patient from another immunosuppressant to Rapamune) and using Rapamune in combination with other immunosuppressive agents not listed on the label. The government alleged that this conduct resulted in the submission of false claims to government health care programs. Of the amounts to resolve the civil claims, Wyeth will pay $230,112,596 to the federal government and $27,287,404 to the states.

“Wyeth’s conduct put profits ahead of the health and safety of a highly vulnerable patient population dependent on life-sustaining therapy,” said Antoinette V. Henry, Special Agent in Charge, Metro-Washington Field Office, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations. “FDA OCI is committed to working with the Department of Justice and our law enforcement counterparts to protect public health.”

Pfizer is currently subject to a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General that it entered in connection with another matter in 2009, shortly before acquiring Wyeth. The CIA covers former Wyeth employees who now perform sales and marketing functions at Pfizer. Under the CIA, Pfizer is subject to exclusion from federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, for a material breach of the CIA, and the company is subject to monetary penalties for less significant breaches.

“We are committed to enforcing the laws protecting public health, taxpayers and government health programs, and to promoting effective compliance programs,” said Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. “Our integrity agreement with Pfizer, which acquired Wyeth, includes required risk assessments, a confidential disclosure program, and auditing and monitoring to help prospectively identify improper marketing.”

The civil settlement resolves two lawsuits pending in federal court in the Western District of Oklahoma under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. The first action was filed by a former Rapamune sales representative, Marlene Sandler, and a pharmacist, Scott Paris. The second action was filed by a former Rapamune sales representative, Mark Campbell. The whistleblowers’ share of the civil settlement has not been resolved.

“The success obtained in this case is an excellent example of how we address the threats to our nation’s health care system; the importance of the public reporting of fraud, waste, or abuse; and the significant results that can be obtained through multiple agencies cooperating in investigations,” said James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the Oklahoma City Division of the FBI.

The criminal case was handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Oklahoma (USAO) and the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Consumer Protection Branch. The civil settlement was handled by USAO and the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch. The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Counsel to the Inspector General; the HHS Office of General Counsel, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the FDA’s Office of Chief Counsel; and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units. These matters were investigated by the FBI; the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigation; HHS’ Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations and Office of Audit Services; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Office of Personnel Management’s Office of Inspector General and Office of Audit Services; the Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ Office of Inspector General; and TRICARE Program Integrity.

Except for conduct admitted in connection with the criminal plea, the claims settled by the civil agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of civil liability. The civil lawsuits are captioned United States ex rel. Sandler et al v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 05-6609 (E.D. Pa.) and United States ex rel. Campbell v. Wyeth, Inc., Case No. 07-00051 (W.D. Okla.).

Former Security Contractor Executives Sentenced for Illegally Obtaining More Than $31 Million Intended for Disadvantaged Small Businesses

Posted on June 14, 2013 by Brad Geyer

Two executives at a Virginia-based security contracting firm were sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia for their roles in using a front company to obtain more than $31 million intended for disadvantaged small businesses as part of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Section 8(a) program. This program allows qualified small businesses to receive sole-source and competitive-bid contracts set aside for minority-owned and disadvantaged small businesses.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the Eastern District of Virginia; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Inspector General Paul K. Martin; SBA Inspector General Peggy E. Gustafson; Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) Special Agent in Charge of Mid-Atlantic Field Office Robert E. Craig; General Services Administration (GSA) Inspector General Brian D. Miller; and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Deputy Inspector General Charles K. Edwards made the announcement after sentencing by United States District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

Joseph Richards, 52, of Arlington, Va., and David Lux, 66, of Springfield, Va., were sentenced today to 27 and 15 months in prison, respectively, after pleading guilty in March 2013 to conspiracy to commit major government fraud. Both men were ordered to complete community service as part of their supervised release following their prison terms. Richards was ordered to pay $120,378 in restitution, and Lux was ordered to forfeit $115,556.

According to court documents, Richards and Lux were executives at an Arlington-based security contracting firm referred to as Company A in court records. In approximately 2001, Keith Hedman, 53, of Arlington, formed Company A, which was approved to participate in the 8(a) program based on the 8(a) eligibility of its listed president and CEO, an African-American female. When the listed president and CEO left Company A in 2003, Hedman became its sole owner, and the company was no longer 8(a)-eligible.

In 2003, Hedman created Company B, another Arlington-based security contractor, to ensure that he could continue to gain access to 8(a) contracting preferences for which Company A was no longer qualified. Prior to applying for Company B’s 8(a) status, Hedman selected an employee, Dawn Hamilton, 48, of Brownsville, Md., to serve as a figurehead owner based on her Portuguese heritage and history of social disadvantage. In reality, the new company was managed by Hedman and Company A senior leadership in violation of 8(a) rules and regulations. To deceive the SBA, the co-conspirators falsely claimed that Hamilton formed and founded the company and that she was the only member of the company’s management. Based on those misrepresentations, Company B obtained 8(a) status in 2004. From 2004 through February 2012, Hedman – not Hamilton – impermissibly exercised ultimate decision-making authority and control over Company B by directing its finances, allocation of personnel, and government contracting activities.

Richards and Lux joined the scheme in 2005 and 2008, respectively. Hedman offered Richards and Lux ownership stakes in Company B in exchange for their assistance in misleading the SBA and other U.S. government agencies, and both men accepted. Once they joined the conspiracy, Richards and Lux took a variety of actions to further the fraud against the United States. In 2008, for example, both Richards and Lux helped Company B overcome a protest by another company that accused Company A and Company B of improperly obtaining a $48 million Coast Guard contract.

From 2008 to 2010, Richards moved to Company B’s payroll to help Hedman illegally operate Company B. In 2010, Lux helped Hedman withdraw more than $1 million in cash from Company B’s accounts, which Hedman then disbursed to various conspirators, including $100,000 in cash to both Richards and Lux. Richards and Lux also assisted Hedman, Hamilton, and other co-conspirators prepare false documents, including annual reviews, to submit to SBA and other government agencies.

In total, the scheme netted government contracts valued at more than $153 million, from which Company B obtained more than $31 million in contract payments. The various conspirators netted more than $6.1 million that they were not entitled to receive from those payments.

Six other defendants have pleaded guilty in the scheme:

• Hedman is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on June 21, 2013. • Hamilton is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on June 28, 2013. • David Sanborn, 60, of Lexington, S.C., Company A’s former president, is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S District Judge Claude M. Hilton on July 19, 2013. • John Hertogs, 42, of Winter Springs, Fl., Company B’s former director of operations, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Hilton on July 12, 2013, for submitting a fraudulent 8(a) application for a follow-on company that Hedman and Hamilton intended to use once Company B graduated from the 8(a) program. • Derek Matthews, 47, of Harwood, Md., former Regional Director for the National Capital Region of the Federal Protective Service, is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Brinkema on July 19, 2013, for a related bribery scheme in which Hedman agreed to pay Matthews $50,000 and a percentage of new business in exchange for Matthews helping Company B obtain contracts. • Michael Dunkel, 59, of Merritt Island, Fl., is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Lee on Oct. 4, 2013, for obtaining more than $4.4 million in payments by using Company B as a pass-through company on NASA contracts.

This case is being investigated by NASA Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the SBA -OIG, DCIS-OIG, GSA-OIG, and DHS-OIG, with assistance from the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Chad Golder and Ryan Faulconer, a former Trial Attorney for the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, are prosecuting the case on behalf of the United States.

Science Applications International Corporation Pays $11.75 Million to Settle False Claims Allegations

Posted on June 13, 2013 by Brad Geyer

The Justice Department and U.S. Attorney Kenneth J. Gonzales of the District of New Mexico announced today that Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has paid $11.75 million to settle allegations filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico that it violated the False Claims Act by charging inflated prices under grants to train first responder personnel to prevent and respond to terrorism attacks. SAIC provides scientific, engineering, and technical services to commercial and government customers and is headquartered in Northern Virginia.

Between 2002 and 2012, the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (New Mexico Tech) received six federal grants from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to train first responder personnel to prevent and respond to terrorism events involving explosive devices. New Mexico Tech awarded subgrants to SAIC to provide course management, development, and instruction. The United States alleged that SAIC’s cost proposals falsely represented that SAIC would use far more expensive personnel to carry out its efforts than it intended to use and actually did use, resulting in inflated charges to the United States.

“To ensure that federal tax dollars are properly spent, federal grant recipients and contractors must provide cost proposals and estimates that reflect their honest judgment about project costs,” said Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. “We will continue to ensure that funds designated for vital programs such as this one are properly used for their intended purpose.”

The False Claims Act is sometimes referred to as “Lincoln’s Law” because it was enacted at the urging of President Lincoln to combat widespread fraud which was being perpetrated on the Union Army by Civil War defense contractors. While originally enacted to combat defense contractor fraud, the False Claims Act has long been successfully employed to combat false claims against the United States in many other contexts, including healthcare fraud. The Act prohibits the submission of false claims for government money or property and allows the United States to recover up to three times the actual damages and penalties for a violation.

The lawsuit against SAIC was originally filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Richard Priem, SAIC’s former project manager for the first responder training program. Under the Act’s whistleblower provisions, a private party may file suit on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery, and the United States may elect to intervene and take over the case, as it did here. Mr. Priem’s share has not yet been determined.

“The False Claims Act is a critical tool for weeding out fraud and protecting taxpayers,” said U.S. Attorney Kenneth J. Gonzales of the District of New Mexico. “The Act provides an incentive for individuals with knowledge of fraud against the government to disclose that information. When whistleblowers bring fraud allegations to the government’s attention and assist us in this public-private partnership to fight fraud, the public benefits and potential fraudsters are deterred.”

The case was jointly handled by Trial Attorneys Don Williamson and Daniel Hugo Fruchter of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Howard R. Thomas and Auditor Julie A. Ford of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico. The claims resolved by this settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability. The case is United States ex rel. Priem v. SAIC, No-12-cv-148 (D.N.M.).

County Commissioner Sentenced for Attempted Extortion and Bribery

Posted on June 12, 2013 by Brad Geyer

Al J. Hurley, a former county commissioner in Sumter County, Ga., was sentenced today to 36 months in prison stemming from his acceptance of illicit payments in exchange for his official efforts to secure government contracts for a private contractor, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Middle District of Georgia U.S. Attorney Michael J. Moore announced.

Hurley, 55, of Americus, Ga., was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands. On Dec. 3, 2012, a federal jury sitting in the Albany Division of the Middle District of Georgia found Hurley guilty of one count each of attempted extortion and federal program bribery.

Hurley was first elected to the five-member Sumter County board of commissioners in 1999. As the primary governing body for the county, the board presided over a variety of official matters, including the bidding process for and award of various county contracts.

Evidence at trial showed that from September to December 2011, Hurley, in his capacity as a county commissioner, solicited and agreed to accept cash payments – including $5,000 on Oct. 23, 2011, and $15,000 on Dec. 19, 2011 – from a private contractor, in exchange for Hurley’s repeated promises to use official action and influence to help facilitate the award of county contracting work to the contractor.

In particular, Hurley told the contractor that he would help him win a $100,000 depot renovation contract in a city within Hurley’s district. Trial testimony also established that, in order to drive up the bribe amount, Hurley invented two inside contacts that he claimed to have at a new racetrack project in his district, and claimed the contacts could influence the award of related contracting work in favor of the contractor. Hurley, who testified, admitted the contacts did not exist.

This case was investigated by the FBI. This case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Eric G. Olshan of the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney K. Alan Dasher of the Middle District of Georgia.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: