Supreme Court requires Whistleblowers to show there was intent to defraud the government

In a recent Supreme Court decision today, in the qui tam suit, Allison Engine Co. v. US ex. Rel Saunders,  Supreme Court Justice Alito writes in his opinion that  "it is not enough under §3729(a)(3) for a plaintiff to show that the alleged conspirators agreed upon a fraud scheme that had the effect of causing a private entity to make payments using money obtained from the Government. Instead, it must be shown that they intended “to defraud the Government.” Where their alleged conduct involved the making of a false statement, it need not be shown that they intended the statement to be presented directly to the Government, but it must be established that they agreed that the statement would have a material effect on the Government’s decision to pay the false or fraudulent claim. Pp 8 -10." 471 F. 3d 610, was vacated and remanded. This was a unanimous decision for the Court.

According to Stephen M. Kohn, the President of the National Whistleblower Center,  the Court laid the responsibility for fixing the law directly on Congress: 'Had congress intended' the False Claims Act to 'apply to any one who conspired to defraud' the government 'it would have so provided."

Does this give conspirators planning to defraud the government, a  " free pass"?  Let's hope this is not the case. Maybe this uncertainty will light a fire under Congress to pass the False Claims Correction Act. 

Note to Whistleblowers: Do not let this ruling discourage you from bringing qui tam cases. This decision is only a minor set back.  The rules of the game may have changed a little, however,  the strategy to bring those guilty of defrauding the government to justice, has become more interesting.

Click here to read entire Supreme Court Opinion for Allison Engine Co. v. US ex. Rel Saunders


 

 

CPSC Reform Act of 2007 with Whistleblower protections receives positive vote from Senate Committee

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation voted to approve S. 2045, The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Reform Act of 2007. This bill will revamp the  federal standards on consumer products and will incorporate whistleblower language that protects employees who speak out on consumer safety violations against their employers. Once passed, this new law would prohibit manufacturers, distributors, and retailers from retaliating against employees who report violations of consumer safety laws.

Stephen M. Kohn, President of the National Whistleblower Center, states "Whistleblower protections for employees who report violations of consumer product safety standards are absolutely critical. If courageous employees can't report violations without fear of retribution, especially in overseas factories, then the American people may not know about dangerous or defective products until it is too late".

Leaders and supporters of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) are among the group of supporters of  S. 2045, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007. The GAP Legislative Director, Adam Miles, adds that "With the recent import scares and the holiday season approaching, adding consumer product safety protections to this list couldn't be happening at a better time." 

Mr. Miles and Mr. Kohn are absolutely correct in their assessment of the Bill. It is great to know that we have consumer and employee rights champions on such important issues.  There are two key Senators that need to be acknowledged for their efforts in this legislation,  Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR). Their tireless and valiant efforts will help make a difference in the improvement in the CPSC and provide safety measures to protect Whistleblowers. According to Senator McCaskill,  “We may get the lead out of the whistles, but if we don’t protect the people that are blowing the whistles, we’re not going to get the information we need”.

The next step is to get the S. 2045, the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007 passed by the entire Senate.  All eyes are on the Senate.