Qui Tam Whistleblower Lawsuits 

How the law works 

The False Claims Act allows people to file  “qui tam” or more commonly known as a qui tam Federal whistleblower lawsuit against individuals or companies that have directly or indirectly defrauded the federal government whether   or not. Through qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits,  whistleblowers may recover the government’s losses on the government’s behalf.  Tax fraud cases including tax fraud cases are often handled much differently
. For more information about rewards for Qui Tam whistleblowers
   in cases involving federal tax fraud or tax underpayments, see information about the new IRS whistleblower law .

Many people who file qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits (called the “relators”) are employees or former employees of companies that commit fraud. But anyone who might be aware of any particular instance
 where the US government has paid any number of false claims can file a Qui Tam or otherwise known as a whistleblower lawsuit. That might possibly be, as an example, a competing company, a current or past customer, a contractor or sub contractor, a patient, or as it is in most cases, a worker.

Filing a Qui Tam Federal Whistleblower lawsuit

Qui Tam False Claims Act cases and procedures are unique, and a specialized knowledge of the law can be very helpful in getting a successful outcome for a qui tam lawsuit.

The relator files the Qui Tam lawsuit in a federal court "under seal,” meaning that it is not available to the public, nor can it be discussed with anyone, except of course  the government officials actually investigating the case. Even the defendants in the case -- the individual, company  or organization charged with committing the fraud -- are not told about the lawsuit. This gives the government time to investigate the fraud allegations without alerting the defendant. In most cases this seal usually lasts for 60 days.
 But these seals on Qui-Tam or whistleblower lawsuits often can be routinely extended for one or two years or even longer under circumstances while the government continues to investigate.

At the end of the sealed investigative period, the government decides whether to join, or intervene, in the qui tam lawsuit. If the government joins the case, the litigation is conducted jointly by the government and the whistleblower’s attorney   Federal court, with the government as lead counsel. If the government declines to intervene, the relator   may go forward with the lawsuit and assumes primary responsibility for running the case.

The timing of a qui tam lawsuit  can be critical. The first person to file a case  under the False Claims Act for a particular fraud  preempts all other cases. So if you plan to bring a case, it is important to do so before another whistleblower  beats you to the courthouse. Potential qui tam whistleblowers  also should keep in mind that the False Claims Act has a statute of limitations that may be as short as six years.

Damages and fines For Qui Tam Lawsuits

The qui tam law stipulates that a liable defendant pay three times the government’s losses plus a fine for each false claim. When settling a qui tam case, the government often agrees to forego the civil penalties and accepts two to three times the amount of damages suffered by the government. The qui tam defendant also must pay the fees and the case-related expenses of the whistleblower’s attorney.

Qui Tam Whistleblower’s reward

Under the False Claims Act, qui tam whistleblowers are entitled to somewhere between 15 percent to as high as 30 percent of the damage amount the Federal government recovers as a direct result of their qui tam or qui tam whistleblower lawsuits. The amount varies, depending on whether the government intervened in the Wisconsin qui tam case and other factors.

Congress decided to give qui tam whistleblowers in all states a share of the recoveries that result from qui tam or federal whistleblower lawsuits filed to give people a strong incentive to step forward and take the personal and professional risks involved in reporting fraud. It also wanted to encourage private law firms to risk their resources in litigating cases on the public’s behalf.

Site Map