Author: PJC Law

KBR Settles False Claims Act Case for Alleged Kickback Scheme in Iraq

The Department of Justice announced that this week that a defense contractor has settled a False Claims Act case involving illegal kickbacks for $13.67 million. The contractor, Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (“KBR”), was accused of steering subcontracts to two Kuwaiti companies in exchange for payments to KBR employees.

In 2001, the U.S. Government awarded KBR the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program III contract, under which KBR was supposed to provide logistical support to the U.S. Army in Iraq. KBR then awarded local companies with subcontracts to carry out work on its behalf. One of these subcontracts involved the leasing of trucks to transport fuel and refrigerated items into Iraq. The Government, however, alleged that a KBR employee steered this subcontract to First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting Co. in exchange for monetary payment and that KBR did so at higher prices than allowed for under the Army’s contract.

The $13.67 million settlement is the latest adverse action against KBR for alleged kickbacks and overpayment. The Government previously litigated a case against KBR for overpaying First Kuwaiti and won a $51 million judgment (which was upheld on appeal in 2021).

Anytime a defense contractor is awarded a contract by the U.S. Government it must certify compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) and the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Both of these laws strictly prohibit a defense contractor from receiving payment from a subcontractor in exchange for awarding a subcontract. The penalties for doing so can be severe. The AKS is a criminal statute which can carry up to five years in prison for each violation. And the False Claims Act can cost an offending company more than $10,000 per violation as well as three times the total amount of fraud (also known as treble damages).

Individuals who blow the whistle on defense contractor fraud can recover significant sums of money. Under the False Claims Act, a whistleblower is entitled to anywhere between 15% to 30% of the total amount of fraud recovered by the Government.

If you are aware of a defense contractor committing fraud, contact our team of experienced False Claims Act attorneys to find out how stop the fraud and an earn an award.

Dark Net

New “Dark Net” Arrests and Prosecutions in Federal Court

The Department Justice recently announced the arrests of 150 people in the United States and Europe as part of the department’s Operation Dark HunTor. The operation—which targeted opioid trafficking on the restricted-access overlay network known as the “darknet” or “dark web”— was a joint endeavor by the DOJ’s Joint Criminal Opioid and Darknet Enforcement (“J-CODE”) team and Europol. In addition to making arrests, Dark HunTor also allowed the agencies to seize 234 kilograms of contraband drugs and over $31.6 million in both virtual and traditional currency.

Law enforcement has been cracking down harder in recent years on illegal dark web activities. The formation of J-CODE itself in January of 2018, was an explicit move by the DOJ to prioritize this kind of investigation, and the team quickly grew to become a partnership with not only the FBI, but also the DEA, the ATF, the US Postal Service, the IRS, NCIS, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Department of Homeland Security. J-CODE also works with law enforcement agencies outside of the United States. Dark HunTor is the fourth of J-CODE’s coordinated global actions, following 2018’s Operation Disarray, 2019’s Operation SaboTor, and 2020’s Operation DisrupTor. Agencies in both the United States and abroad have also successfully taken down specific large-scale contraband marketplaces like DarkMarket, Wall Street Market, AlphaBay, and Silk Road.

Individuals who are arrested as part of operations like these will generally face serious federal criminal charges. In addition to drug conspiracy or pornography charges, the Government may also accuse them of money laundering, wire fraud, or other computer crimes. Bank accounts, large sums of money or other property, and even real estate can also be taken and subject to forfeiture proceedings as a result.

Our firm has over twenty-five years of experience with cases like these, and a long track-record of successful outcomes. We work with trusted forensic experts to analyze the evidence and dismantle the allegations. If you or someone you know is facing charges for computer crimes, contact our team of experienced attorneys to find out more about how we can help.

Bitcoin Seizure

What Happens When the Government Seizes Bitcoin and Other Cryptocurrency?

In February of this year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the seizure of more than 94,000 bitcoin from an account belonging to a New York couple who was arrested the same day the seizure was announced. The complaint and affidavit authorizing their arrest allege the government’s belief that the bitcoin was part of a cache of cryptocurrency stolen during a 2016 cyber-attack on Bitfinex and that the couple had conspired to “launder” the proceeds.

During the attack, an unknown hacker breached Bitfinex systems security and stole nearly 120,000 bitcoin from its customers. Due to bitcoin’s publicly available blockchain, law enforcement was able to identify the digital wallet to which the bitcoin stolen during the attack were transferred. Beginning in 2017, whoever controlled that wallet began trying to “launder” the stolen bitcoin through a complex series of transactions designed to obfuscate the bitcoins’ trail. By using blockchain analysis, the government identified several accounts through which the bitcoin traveled and traced their ownership to the New York couple. After obtaining a warrant to search a cloud storage account belonging to one of them, the government found an encrypted file containing, among other things, the private key associated with the initial wallet where more than 94,000 of the stolen bitcoin still remained. Valued at over $3.6 billion, the government’s seizure of the remaining bitcoin became the largest financial seizure in DOJ history.

This massive seizure follows the recent news of DOJ’s creation of a cryptocurrency enforcement team (NCET) and, in the days following the seizure, further announcements were made regarding the appointment of NCET’s first director and the FBI’s creation of their own Virtual Asset Exploitation Unit (VAXU). Given these massive investments, we can anticipate the government’s prioritization of the misuse of cryptocurrency and should expect to see seizures like this one happening with increasing frequency. For this reason, it is important to understand how the government can seize cryptocurrency like bitcoin.

Is bitcoin legal?

Absolutely. There are thousands of cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, that are perfectly legal to possess despite not being issued by a centralized government. In fact, in its October 2020 publication of the Cryptocurrency Enforcement Framework, DOJ noted the potential for blockchain technology like that employed by bitcoin “to provide increased effectiveness, efficiency, and security” over fiat concurrency. In a study published by Pew Research Center in November 2021, 16% of Americans reportedly have owned or transacted in cryptocurrency at some point, and a report released in February 2022 by research group Chainalysis illustrates just how fast cryptocurrency usage is growing (total transaction volume grew 567% between 2020 and 2021!).

When can the government seize bitcoin?

 The government can seek to obtain a warrant to seize any property it has probable cause to believe is evidence of a crime or was used in the commission of a crime. In locations throughout the U.S. Code, the government is given the authority to seek forfeiture and seizure not only of property directly involved in a crime, but also property constituting the proceeds of a crime or property directly acquired from the crime’s commission (i.e. property purchased with criminal proceeds). This definition of property includes tangible money in the form of cash and coins, as well as money contained in bank accounts or whose value is represented virtually. In a money laundering case like this one, the government will have to prove to a court that the property sought to be forfeited (here, the bitcoin and/or anything obtained by exchanging the bitcoin) is substantially connected to the criminal act(s) that were committed.

How does the government seize bitcoin?

Logistically speaking, the 2021 edition of DOJ’s Asset Forfeiture Policy Manual instructs a seizing agency to have its own digital wallet or address to which it should transfer the seized currency immediately. Thereafter, the cryptocurrency is stored by the U.S. Marshals Service until the a forfeiture proceeding is formally litigated.

Legally speaking, how cryptocurrency is seized depends largely on where the private key necessary to unlock the currency’s value is stored. When it’s stored physically (e.g. scribbled down on a piece of paper or saved to a computer or external hard drive), the government may attempt seizure of the item as it would any other tangible object, by obtaining a warrant to search for the item where it has probable cause to believe it is located. But when the key is stored digitally (e.g. in a wallet hosted by a third-party institution like Bitfinex, or in a web-based storage account as was the case with the $3.6 billion worth of bitcoin seized here), the government serves a subpoena or seizure warrant directly on the institution hosting it.

Federal forfeiture statutes have provisions authorizing the government to obtain a warrant to seize property prior to filing any formal action where notifying the property’s owner would jeopardize the government’s ability to forfeit it in the future. Given the ability of cryptocurrency to be accessed and transferred remotely, the government is likely to attempt seizure of this type of asset before someone even knows there’s an ongoing investigation into them or their property.

Do I have any defenses if the government seizes my bitcoin?

Yes. While seizure of the bitcoin gives the government the ability to possess it temporarily, it doesn’t give them title to the property or the authority to dispose of it. That can occur only after a declaration of administrative forfeiture, a judgment of civil forfeiture, or a final order of forfeiture in a criminal case. Forfeiture cases are both time-sensitive and exceedingly complex, even for experienced criminal attorneys. Consequently, you should seek the assistance of an experienced federal defense attorney immediately following the seizure of your property to ensure that your rights are properly preserved. Our firm has over two decades of experience helping individuals navigate this process. Contact us to learn more about how we can help.

Criminal Charges Against Travis Scott

Lawsuit Filed Against Travis Scott and Concert Promoters for Astroworld Tragedy

Attorney Page Pate joined CNN Newsroom to discuss the lawsuit filed against Travis Scott and the concert promoters for the tragic deaths that occurred at the Astroworld festival in Houston.

Page thinks these are the major legal issues:

  1. What is the potential civil liability of the venue, Travis Scott, and the other people associated with the event (third party security, organizers, etc)? Anyone who had responsibility for ensuring security, crowd control, and onsite medical care could be liable to the families of those who died and were injured, likely for many millions of dollars. All the liable parties have insurance and they will be expected to pay. I understand that Travis Scott has been sued before for injuries like this at his events, primarily due to him encouraging the “rage.”
  2. What about criminal charges? Putting aside the question of whether the guard was injected with something (which is clearly a crime), organizers, promoters, and Scott himself could potentially be criminally charged with either manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide under Texas law. The analysis will depend on what they knew, and what they did to address the surge as it was happening. Neither of these charges require an intent to kill or hurt anyone. It’s about being reckless or extremely negligent.

TRANSCRIPT:

Pamela: And Houston Texas Police have launched a criminal investigation to the death of eight people at the AstroWorld Music Festival.

The crushing sea of fans surge toward the stage on Friday night as rapper Travis Scott started to perform. Many fans trapped in the vise-like squeeze and unable to move as the air was squeezed out of their lungs, some collapsed and were trampled. Here you can see some people reaching into the crowd trying to rescue others by pulling them over the barricade to safety. On CNN a short time ago, we spoke to one woman who was grateful to be alive.

Dana: It was just terrifying is the only word I have to describe it. Everyone around us was just trying to take each individual breath and there was just no air left for anyone to breathe. We were too closely compact. Everyone was too pushed up against each other. There was just nowhere to go and no air to breathe. I just started screaming, “Help, help. Please help me I can’t breathe.” And finally, some people around me told me they were going to pick me up and they just started saying crowd surf her to the medics.

Pamela: Joining me now, Criminal and Defense and Constitutional Law Attorney, Page Pate. Page, good to see you. So we are just getting word in the past few minutes that a $1 million lawsuit has been filed against Travis Scott, Live Nation, and concert promoter, ScoreMore, following this tragedy. Surely, more will follow. What is the potential civil liability for these parties?

Page: Well, Pamela, I think potentially these parties are liable for many millions of dollars, not just $1 million. In a case like this, I think it’s going to be somewhat difficult to prove civil liability on behalf of Travis Scott himself, although he was clearly, I think, getting the crowd into this, engaging them even when he should have had noticed that it was a very dangerous situation. The concert promoter, I think, is also being targeted for civil liability, Live Nation, anyone who had any responsibility for either ensuring security, crowd control, or on-site medical treatment and evaluation could potentially be liable and they should expect that. I mean, this was a situation that perhaps you could have expected some sort of crowd interaction like this but once it happens, you need to be able to take control. This is not the first time they’ve had an incident at a Travis Scott event. They should have been ready for it. They should have expected it and if they’re not, they’re going to be liable.

Pamela: You mentioned Travis Scott’s behavior. He has a history of encouraging chaos at his shows, daring fans to rush past security barriers. Could he be criminally liable for egging fans into dangerous behavior?

Page: I think he can, Pamela. I don’t think this is the first time that someone has suggested that he could be criminally charged. But I think in the past, it’s been more of, “Okay, this is disorderly conduct. This is some sort of a misdemeanor.” But people died in Houston as a result of what happened at that festival, at that concert. And under Texas law where this occurred, if you are reckless and cause someone’s death, you have committed manslaughter. If you are criminally negligent and cause someone’s death, that’s criminally negligent homicide. Those are serious charges that carry serious prison time. Now, the investigation is still early. Who knows what the facts are? But we all know a couple of things, one, it was a very dangerous situation, he should have been aware of it and yet he continued to egg people on. That’s negligent.

Pamela: He posted on his Instagram and his Instagram story talking about this, just saying how horrible he felt, that he’s trying to, you know, help authorities, that had he known the extent of it, he would have stopped everything. And, you know, you’ve heard from performers that say, “Look, it can get rowdy at these concerts. Sometimes they…people pass out because they’re overheated,” and so forth. And they may not understand the extent of it. Could that be a defense for him?

Page: It can certainly be a defense up to a point. Yes, when you go to a Travis Scott concert, I assume you know you’re going to be in a situation where there are crowds of people who get rowdy, who get inspired by the music, and who may take it a step too far. But the issue here is once that starts to happen, you have a responsibility to do something and you don’t wait until someone dies. You don’t wait until people are trampled and then say, “I’m very sorry. The insurance company will pay you off.” No, once this happens, you have a responsibility. This cannot be a surprise to Travis Scott based on the behavior of the crowd and based on his prior shows.

Pamela: All right, Page Pate. Thank you so much. We’ll be right back.

Page: Thank you.

illegal-copays

Is it Illegal for a Drug Co. to Waive Copays or Offer Free Medical Supplies?

It certainly can be. Any type of “remuneration” (or payment) to a Medicare patient can be an illegal kickback when it violates the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Normally, people think of kickbacks as involving money or gifts. But kickbacks can include just about anything of value that induces a Medicare beneficiary to use a company that bills Medicare (such as waiving the beneficiary’s copay).

While the Anti-Kickback Statute is a powerful criminal statute, the Government often uses the False Claims Act to punish healthcare companies who engage in illegal kickbacks. A violation of the False Claims Act occurs when a company submits a claim for payment to Medicare that is false. With every claim sent to Medicare, the company must certify that it complied with the Anti-Kickback Statute. If the company gave illegal kickbacks to Medicare beneficiaries and certifies otherwise, it has committed a false claim.

The False Claims Act is a powerful tool for the Government, because it incentivizes whistleblowers to report illegal kickbacks by filing whistleblower lawsuits which entitles them to substantial awards. Without whistleblowers and the False Claims Act, many illegal kickbacks would go undetected.

In a recent whistleblower case, Arriva Medical LLC, a mail-order diabetic testing supplier, settled allegations that it provided illegal kickbacks to Medicare patients by waiving copays and offering free glucometers. The $160 million settlement is the largest False Claims Act settlement to date in the Middle District of Tennessee.

The Arriva settlement is a reminder that the Department of Justice is vigorously pursuing healthcare companies around the country that routinely waive copays and provide free products to Medicare beneficiaries. The Department of Justice became aware of Arriva’s kickbacks when an employee blew the whistle by filing a False Claims Act lawsuit. For having the courage to come forward, the employee will receive a whistleblower award of nearly $30 million.

How do I know if waived copays are illegal kickbacks?

The Anti-Kickback Statute generally requires healthcare companies to collect copays from Medicare patients, but as with many laws, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule. For this reason, you should always consult with an experienced False Claims Act attorney if you suspect that a company is violating the law by not collecting copays.

The Arriva case is a good example of red flags when it comes to illegally waiving copays for Medicare beneficiaries. Arriva routinely waived copayments for its meters and diabetic testing supplies. In addition to the routine practice of waiving copays, the company failed to make reasonable efforts to collect payments (i.e., it failed to send invoices, collection letters, or even making phone calls to beneficiaries). In fact, in many cases, Arriva did not even inform the beneficiaries that they had an obligation to pay the copays.

Below is a list of other red flags which may be indicative of healthcare companies illegally waiving copays:

  • Advertisements such as “No Out-of-Pocket Expenses”, “Medicare Accepted as Payment in Full”, or “Insurance Accepted as Payment in Full
  • Using “financial hardship” forms on a routine basis to circumvent collecting copays
  • Advertisements promising discounts for Medicare beneficiaries
  • Failing to collect copays for a specific group of Medicare patient (g., in order to obtain referrals from hospital)
  • Collection of copays only where the beneficiary has Medicare supplemental insurance coverage

One of the bullet points above mentions “financial hardship” forms. Perhaps the most common exceptions to the rule requiring healthcare companies to collect copays from Medicare patients is the “financial hardship” exception. This exception allows companies to waive copays after determining in good faith that the person is in financial need. This exception is designed to protect and help patients who truly need financial assistance. This exception, however, is often abused by unscrupulous businesses seeking to circumvent the Anti-Kickback Statute. If the company fails to make a good faith attempt to determine a beneficiary’s financial state, the waiver may in fact be an illegal kickback.

Is it illegal to provide free medical supplies?

As with waiving copays, providing a Medicare beneficiary with free medical supplies can be an illegal kickback. In the Arriva case, for example, the company advertised that the glucometers would be free, and during intake calls, it offered a “no cost guarantee” whereby the company would pay for the glucometer if Medicare denied payment (which often occurred as many people were not entitled to a new glucometer). Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, the act of providing beneficiaries with free medical supplies is no different than bribing the potential customers with cash.

It is important to remember that it is not just Medicare beneficiaries who receive kickbacks in the form of free medical supplies and that the type of medical supply can come in many forms. In one of the more unusual cases, Millennium Health paid out $256 million to settle allegations that it provided free urine drug test cups to physicians. In exchange for the free urine test cups, the physicians promised to return the specimens for additional testing at Millennium Health labs.

While this was a clear violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the Millennium Health case also involved a violation of the Stark Law which prevents a physician from ordering clinical lab services from a company with which the physician has a financial relationship. Anytime a lab company, or similar entity, provides free medical supplies to a physician, both the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law should be examined to determine whether a violation of the law has occurred.

What should I do if my company is waiving copays or offering free medical supplies?

In many whistleblower cases, the Government is entirely dependent on employees or customers of healthcare companies to report fraud. The best way to do this is often by taking advantage of the False Claims Act. This federal law is designed to incentivize whistleblowers to step forward, because it entitles whistleblower to 15% to 30% of the money that the Government recovers and protects whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers.

As with the Arriva case discussed above, whistleblower cases often involve complex laws and regulations. For this reason, an individual who thinks a company might be committing fraud should contact an experienced False Claims Act attorney to determine if they have a good whistleblower case and to ensure that he or she is not retaliated against for blowing the whistle.

Our firm has successfully handled large, complex whistleblower cases across the country, including a $108 million settlement against a pharmaceutical company for illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute. If you believe you have knowledge of healthcare fraud, call our firm today for a free consultation with one of our experienced whistleblower attorneys.

Awards


Top 40 Under 40
Best Lawyers
Thomas Church
Rated by Super Lawyers


loading ...