This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-320R 
entitled 'Information on False Claims Act Litigation' which was 
released on March 3, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

January 31, 2006: 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Chris Cannon: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley: 
United States Senate: 

Subject: Information on False Claims Act Litigation: 

The False Claims Act (FCA) is one of the government's primary weapons 
to fight fraud against the government. The Act, as amended in 1986, 
provides for penalties and triple damages for anyone who knowingly 
submits or causes the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the 
United States for government funds or property.[Footnote 1] Under the 
FCA's qui tam provisions, a person with evidence of fraud, also known 
as a whistle blower or relator, is authorized to file a case in federal 
court and sue, on behalf of the government, persons engaged in the 
fraud and to share in any money the government may recover. The 
Department of Justice (DOJ) has the responsibility to decide on behalf 
of the government whether to join the whistle blower in prosecuting 
these cases. From fiscal years 1987 through 2005, settlements and 
judgments for the federal government in FCA cases have exceeded $15 
billion, of which $9.6 billion, or 64 percent, was for cases filed by 
whistle blowers under FCA's qui tam provisions.[Footnote 2] The whistle 
blowers share of the qui tam settlements and judgments was over $1.6 
billion during this period. 

With regard to your request to provide information on FCA litigation, 
this report addresses the following questions: 

* What statutory guidance and DOJ policies exist regarding the 
relationship between the government and relators in prosecuting qui tam 
cases? 

* What is known about DOJ's qui tam caseload based on the data it 
collects? 

To determine what statutory guidance and DOJ policies exist, we 
reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and DOJ policies regarding the 
relationship between the government and relators in prosecuting qui tam 
cases. We interviewed DOJ and other federal officials and private 
practice attorneys involved in qui tam litigation. To provide 
information on DOJ's qui tam caseload, we obtained DOJ's qui tam 
database on closed unsealed qui tam cases for fiscal years 1987 through 
2005 and conducted computerized analyses of certain data fields. To 
assess the reliability of the data, we discussed the data collection 
methods for ensuring data quality with responsible officials and 
reviewed the data for reasonableness. We found the data we used for our 
analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

In December 2005, we discussed with your offices the results of our 
work. This document conveys the information provided during those 
discussions (see enclosure). 

We performed our work from April 2005 through January 2006 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results: 

The briefing slides in the enclosure address our two objectives. In 
summary, we found the following: 

* Under the FCA, the federal government has primary responsibility for 
prosecuting a qui tam case and it is at the DOJ's discretion to involve 
the relator on a case-by-case basis. DOJ officials told us that their 
policy is broad and encourages DOJ attorneys to recognize the benefits 
of a cooperative relationship with relators and to exercise their 
professional judgment in dealing with them. DOJ does not collect data 
that document the extent of the relator's participation in the 
prosecution of a qui tam case, nor is it required to do so. 

* DOJ's Civil Division received 8,869 FCA cases from fiscal years 1987 
through 2005.[Footnote 3] During this period, the number of qui tam FCA 
cases generally increased as a proportion of total FCA cases. Agencies 
under the Departments of Health and Human Services and Defense were 
named more frequently than other agencies as allegedly defrauded in qui 
tam cases DOJ received. The 2,490 closed, unsealed qui tam cases that 
GAO analyzed were filed in 92 U.S. district courts. Health care and 
procurement fraud cases constituted about 79 percent of all qui tam 
cases. DOJ pursued health care fraud cases (33 percent or 363 of the 
total 1,117 health care cases) and procurement fraud cases (29 percent 
or 237 of the total 819 procurement cases) more than other types of 
fraud cases.[Footnote 4] Cases in which DOJ intervened took a median of 
38 months to conclude and ranged from 4 months to 187 months. The 
median FCA recovery in a qui tam case was $784,597, of which the median 
relator share was $123,885.[Footnote 5] Recoveries and relator's share 
amounts in health care fraud cases were larger than in other types of 
fraud. Recoveries and relator share amounts were greater in cases where 
DOJ intervened than in cases where DOJ declined to intervene. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We requested comments on a draft of this letter from the Departments of 
Justice, Health and Human Services, and Defense. The Department of 
Justice provided technical comments, which we incorporated into this 
letter. The Departments of Health and Human Services and Defense had no 
comments. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies of 
this report to the Attorney General and other interested parties. We 
will also provide copies to others on request. In addition, the letter 
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions or need additional information, 
please contact me at (202) 512-8777, ekstrandl@gao.gov. Major 
contributors to this letter were John Hansen, Assistant Director, Nancy 
Kawahara, Christine Davis, John G. Smale, Jr., George H. Quinn, Jr., 
and Dorian Dunbar. 

Signed by: 

Laurie E. Ekstrand: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 

Enclosure: 

Information on False Claims Act Litigation: 

Briefing for Congressional Requesters: 

December 15, 2005: 

Introduction: 

Since Congress amended the False Claims Act (FCA) [NOTE 1] in 1986, the 
government has won recoveries of over $15 billion from fiscal years 
1987 through 2005. 

Of the $15 billion, 64 percent, or $9.6 billion, was for recoveries 
associated with cases filed by whistle blowers under FCA's qui tam 
provisions. [NOTE 2] Whistle blowers were entitled to a share of these 
qui tam recoveries, which totaled over $1.6 billion during this period. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has the responsibility to decide on 
behalf of the government whether to join the whistle blower in 
prosecuting these cases. 

NOTES: 

[1] The False Claims Act, as amended, is codified at 31 U.S.C.  3729-
33. 

[2] Represents funds the government is entitled to recover as a result 
of qui tam case settlements or court judgments. These funds may or may 
not have been collected by the government. A DOJ official told us that 
while most of these funds arise from FCA allegations in the qui tam 
complaint, some funds are attributable to government initiated claims 
under the FCA and other statutory and common law claims, such as breach 
of contract, bribery, or conflict of interest, and that the relator is 
not entitled to a share of these funds. The official also told us that 
precise amounts attributable to each claim may not be distinguished in 
the case of a lump-sum settlement or judgment. 

Definitions: 

Term: False Claims Act; 
Definition: The FCA is a civil antifraud statute, providing that any 
person who knowingly submits or causes the submission of false claims 
for government funds or property is liable for damages and penalties. 

Term: Qui tam; 
Definition: Qui tam is an abbreviation for a Latin phrase dating back 
to 13th century England, meaning a person who sues for the king as well 
as for himself. Under the FCA, a qui tam case is filed by a private 
person on behalf of the federal government. The government can also 
pursue FCA claims through federal agency investigations and referrals 
without a relator. 

Term: Relator; 
Definition: A person who files a civil case for a violation of the FCA. 
Relators are also known as whistle blowers. 

Term: Case under seal; 
Definition: Under the FCA, a relator files a qui tam case under court 
seal, and the case is not publicly disclosed. Until the court lifts the 
seal in whole or in part, no records relating to the case may be 
disclosed, except to DOJ. 

Term: DOJ intervenes in a qui tam case; 
Definition: DOJ represents the government and is a named party in every 
qui tam case. When DOJ decides to intervene in a case, it takes primary 
responsibility for prosecuting the case. 

Term: DOJ declines to intervene in a qui tam case; 
Definition: When DOJ declines to intervene in the case, the relator has 
the right to pursue the case without the government. However, DOJ can 
decide to intervene in the case upon showing of good cause, and any 
settlements in the case are made with the consent of the government. 

Term: Qui tam recoveries; 
Definition: The funds the government is entitled to recover as a result 
of qui tam case settlements or court judgments. These funds may or may 
not have been collected by the government. A DOJ official told us that 
while most of these funds arise from FCA allegations in the qui tam 
complaint, some are attributable to government initiated claims under 
the FCA and other statutory and common law claims, such as breach of 
contract, bribery, or conflict of interest, and that the relator is not 
entitled to a share of these funds. The official also told us that 
precise amounts attributable to each claim may not be distinguished in 
the case of a lump-sum settlement or judgment. 

Term: Relator share of qui tam recoveries; 
Definition: If the qui tam case is successful, the relator is entitled 
to a share of the recoveries.

[End of table] 

Objectives: 

What statutory guidance and DOJ policies exist regarding the 
relationship between the government and relator in prosecuting qui tam 
cases? 

What is known about DOJ's qui tam caseload based on the data it 
collects? 

Scope and Methodology: 

To determine what statutory and DOJ guidance exist regarding the 
relationship between the relator and the government, we: 

* reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and DOJ policies and: 

* interviewed DOJ and other federal officials and private attorneys 
involved in qui tam cases. 

To provide information on DOJ's qui tam caseload, we: 

* obtained DOJ's qui tam database on closed unsealed qui tam cases for 
fiscal years 1987 through 2005 and conducted computerized analyses of 
certain data fields. 

Data Reliability: 

To assess the reliability of the data, we: 

* discussed the data collection methods with responsible agency staff, 

* reviewed the data and information for reasonableness, 

and: 

* obtained related documentation where available. 

We found that the DOJ qui tam database we used for our analyses was 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

Results in Brief-FCA and DOJ Guidance on the Government-Relator 
Relationship: 

Under the FCA, the federal government has primary responsibility for 
prosecuting a qui tam case and it is at DOJ's discretion to involve the 
relator on a case-by-case basis. 

DOJ officials told us that their policy is broad and encourages DOJ 
attorneys to recognize the benefits of a cooperative relationship with 
relators and to exercise their professional judgment in dealing with 
them. 

DOJ does not collect data that document the extent of the relator's 
participation in the prosecution of a qui tam case, nor is it required 
to do so. 

Results in Brief-Information on Qui tam Cases: 

Of the total 8,869 FCA cases [NOTE 1] DOJ's Civil Division received 
from fiscal years 1987 through 2005, the number of qui tam FCA cases 
generally increased as a proportion of total FCA cases. 

The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Defense (DOD) 
agencies were named more frequently than other agencies as allegedly 
defrauded in qui tam cases DOJ received. 

The 2,490 closed, unsealed qui tam cases that GAO analyzed were filed 
in 92 U.S. district courts; the Central District of California (Los 
Angeles) was the busiest, with 10 percent of all cases filed. 

Health care and procurement fraud cases constituted about 79 percent of 
all qui tam cases. 

* DOJ pursued [NOTE 2] health care fraud cases (33 percent or 363 of 
the total 1,117 health care cases) and procurement fraud cases (29 
percent or 237 of the total 819 procurement cases) more than other 
types of fraud cases. 

* Cases in which DOJ intervened took a median of 38 months to conclude 
and ranged from 4 months to 187 months. 

Results in Brief-Information on Qui tam Cases: 

* The median FCA recovery in a qui tam case was $784,597. Of that 
amount, the median relator share was $123,885. [NOTE 3] 

* Recoveries and relator's share amounts in health care fraud cases 
were larger than in other types of fraud. 

* Recoveries and relator share amounts were greater in cases where DOJ 
intervened than in cases where DOJ declined to intervene. 

NOTES: 

[1] Represents newly received FCA referrals and investigations 
initiated by the government and newly filed qui tam cases initiated by 
a relator. These include open cases and cases under seal. According to 
a DOJ official, this does not include non-qui tam cases under $5 
million handled by the United States Attorney's offices. The official 
also told us that the Civil Division does not maintain data on these 
cases. 

[2] Includes DOJ intervened cases and cases settled by DOJ before 
declination or intervention. 

[3] includes relators whose qui tam case resulted in a settlement or 
judgment, but the relators received zero or a reduced share of the 
government's recovery. A DOJ official told us that these cases involved 
instances where the relator's entitlement to a full statutory share was 
jurisdictionally barred or in question and that this information is 
reflected in DOJ case files. 

Background-Qui Tam provisions of the False Claims Act: 

* Anyone who knowingly submits or causes the submission of false claims 
to the government is liable for damages up to three times the erroneous 
payment, plus civil penalties. 

* A private individual with knowledge of false claims-called the 
relator-may bring a suit on the government's behalf called a qui tam 
case. 

* The relator's incentive to sue is the potential to share in the 
recoveries if the case is successful. 

Background-Qui Tam Procedures under the FCA: 

* The relator can file a qui tam complaint under seal in any U.S. 
district court where any defendant can be found, resides, or transacts 
business, or in any U.S. district court where the fraud occurred, with 
a copy of the complaint served on the Attorney General and the 
appropriate U.S. Attorney. 

* The complaint remains under seal for 60 days (or longer for good 
cause shown) while DOJ and/or other federal agency fraud units 
investigate the allegations and DOJ decides whether to intervene and 
take over the case. 

* Qui tam litigation is handled either by DOJ's Civil Division or the 
United States Attorneys, sometimes on a joint basis. Generally, U.S. 
Attorneys handle investigations of FCA claims under $5 million, 
including referrals from federal agencies and qui tam cases. The Civil 
Division tracks qui tam cases litigated by the United States Attorneys 
for statistical reporting purposes. [NOTE] 

NOTE: 

According to a DOJ official, the Civil Division does not track non-qui 
tam cases generally under $5 million which were initiated and pursued 
by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices. 

Background-Government Intervention or Declination in a Qui Tam Case: 

DOJ officials told us that after investigating the allegations and 
considering the input of relevant government officials, DOJ makes a 
decision to: 

* Intervene and take over primary responsibility for prosecuting the 
case. DOJ may intervene and decide to take over some but not all of the 
relator's claims. 

* Decline to intervene. The relator has the right to continue as a 
party, but the government retains the right to intervene upon a showing 
of good cause. 

* Settle the case before intervening. Whether or not DOJ intervenes, 
the government may settle the case over the relator's objections if the 
court determines that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and 
reasonable. 

Background-Relator's Share in Qui Tam Recoveries: 

In general, the relator in a successful qui tam suit is entitled to a 
share of the recovery: 

* between 25 and 30 percent if the government declines to intervene. 

* between 15 and 25 percent if the government intervenes. 

Background-Relator's Share in Qui Tam Recoveries: 

Several factors may affect the relator's share of the recovery, such 
as: 

* how substantially the relator contributed to the case, 

* whether the case primarily depended on disclosures from other sources 
(in which case the relator's share can be no more than 10 percent), 

* whether the relator planned and initiated the false claim (in which 
case the relator's share can be reduced to any amount the court deems 
appropriate), and: 

* whether statutory bars preclude the relator from sharing in the 
recovery because of a criminal conviction or a jurisdictional 
disqualification in the case. 

Background-Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program: 

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, among 
other things, established a Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program 
(HCFAC) to strengthen ongoing efforts to combat fraud and abuse in 
health care programs. 

Under the HCFAC program, a portion of settlements and judgments 
resulting from FCA cases involving health care fraud are used to 
finance part of the antifraud activities in HHS and DOJ. 

In fiscal year 2004, HHS and DOJ were allocated over $240 million from 
HCFAC program funds to devote to their health care fraud enforcement 
activities. 

FCA and DOJ Guidance on the Government-Relator Relationship: 

FCA Gives Government Discretion in Its Relationship with Relator: 

* If the government intervenes, the FCA gives the government primary 
responsibility for prosecuting a qui tam case. 

* The FCA does not specify the degree to which the government must 
cooperate with the relator. 

* DOJ attorneys use their discretion in deciding how much the relator 
and relator's counsel may assist in the case. 

DOJ Policy Is Broad Regarding the Government-Relator Relationship: 

DOJ officials told us that their policy is broad and encourages DOJ 
attorneys to recognize the benefits of a cooperative relationship with 
relators and to exercise their professional judgment in dealing with 
them. 

Many factors could affect the Government-relator relationship, such as 

* the amount of information the relator possesses about the potential 
fraud, 

* the degree of experience possessed by the relator's counsel, 

* the existence of a criminal investigation and other issues involving 
sensitivity of data, such as privacy or national security, and: 

* interpersonal dynamics between the relator and defendant. 

DOJ Data Documenting the Relationship between the Government and the 
Relator: 

DOJ does not collect data that document the extent of the relator's 
participation in the prosecution of a qui tam case, nor is it required 
to do so. 

Information on DOD's Qui Tam Caseload for Fiscal Years 1987 through 
2005: 

The Number of New Qui Tam Cases Generally Increased: 

Of the total 8,869 new FCA cases [NOTE 1] DOJ's Civil Division received 
from fiscal years 1987 through 2005, the number of qui tam cases 
generally increased as a proportion of the total FCA cases. 

New FCA Cases, Fiscal Years 1987 through 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division Fraud Statistics which include open cases 
and qui tam cases under seal. 

[End of table] 

NOTE: 

[1] Represents newly received FCA referrals and investigations 
initiated by the government and newly filed qui tam cases initiated by 
a relator. 

HHS and DOD Agencies More Frequently Named as Allegedly Defrauded: 

HHS and DOD agencies were more frequently named than other agencies as 
allegedly defrauded in qui tam cases DOJ received. HHS agencies were 
named 54 percent of the time and DOD agencies were named 29 percent of 
the time of the total 5,129 qui tam cases DOJ received from fiscal year 
1987 through 2005. 

Number of Qui Tam Cases Listed by Allegedly Defrauded Agency, Fiscal 
Years 1987 through 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: More than one federal agency could be named in each qui tam case. 

Source: DOJ's Civil Division Fraud Statistics, which includes open 
cases and qui tam cases under seal. 

[End of table] 

Qui Tam Cases Filed in U.S. District Courts: 

The 2,490 closed, unsealed qui tam cases GAO analyzed were filed in 92 
U.S. district courts. The Central District of California (Los Angeles) 
was the busiest, with 10 percent of all cases filed. 

Table legend: 

C.D. = Central district M.D. = Middle district E. D. = Eastern district 
D. = Statewide district S. D. = Southern district W.D. =Western 
district N.D. = Northern district: 

Qui Tam Cases Filed in U.S. District Courts, Fiscal Years 1987 through 
2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[End of table] 

Most Cases Involve Health Care and Procurement Fraud: 

Health care and procurement fraud cases constitute about 79 percent of 
all qui tam cases. 

Health care fraud cases were pursued in part by DOJ and HHS staff 
funded by the HCFAC program. 

Types of Fraud Alleged in Qui Tam Cases, Fiscal Years 1987 through 
2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] A DOJ official told us that the miscellaneous fraud category 
includes cases where the complaint is vague or does not fit into other 
case 
types. 

[End of table] 

DOJ Pursued Health Care and Procurement Cases More Often than Others: 

DOJ pursued health care fraud cases (33 percent or 363 of total 1,117 
health care cases) and procurement fraud cases (29 percent or 237 of 
total 819 procurement cases) more than other types of fraud cases. 

Percent of Qui Tam Cases Pursued by DOJ Listed by Type of Fraud 
Alleged, Fiscal Years 1987 through 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Does not include 132 cases that were dismissed prior to DOJ's 
decision to intervene in the case. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] Includes cases where DOJ decided to intervene in some but not all 
of the realtor's claims. 

[2] The sum of DOJ intervened cases and cases settled by DOJ before 
intervention or declination. 

[3] A DOJ official told us that the miscellaneous fraud category 
includes cases where the complaint is vague or does not fit into other 
case types. 

[End of table] 

Time to Conclude Qui Tam Cases in Which DOJ Intervened: 

Cases in which DOJ intervened took a median of 38 months to conclude 
and ranged from 4 months to 187 months. [NOTE 1] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

NOTE: 

[1] Includes cases where DOJ decided to intervene in some but not all 
of the realtor's claims. Time period measured between date the 
complaint was filed to the date the case was concluded by settlement, 
judgment, or dismissal. 

Qui Tam Recoveries: 

Mean: $10,028,482 
Median: $784,597: 

Qui Tam Recoveries, Fiscal Years 1987 through 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] According to a DOJ official, a portion of these qui tam settlement 
and judgment amounts could include amounts attributable to government 
initiated claims under the FCA and other statutory or common law 
claims, such as breach of contract, bribery, or conflict of interest. 
The official also told us that precise amounts attributable to each 
claim may not be distinguished in the case of a lump-sum settlement or 
judgment. 

[End of table] 

Relator Share of Qui Tam Recoveries: 

Mean: $1,700,153 
Median: $123,885: 

Total Relator Share Amounts of Qui Tam Recoveries, Fiscal Years 1987 
through 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] Includes relators whose qui tam case resulted in a settlement or 
judgment, but the relators received zero or a reduced share of the 
government's recovery. A DOJ official told us that these cases involved 
instances where the relator's entitlement to a full statutory share was 
jurisdictionally barred or in question and that this information is 
reflected in DOJ case files. 

[End of table] 

Qui Tam Recoveries by Type of Fraud Alleged: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] According to a DOJ official, a portion of these qui tam settlement 
and judgment amounts could include amounts attributable to government 
initiated claims under the FCA and other statutory or common law 
claims, such as breach of contract, bribery, or conflict of interest. 
The official also told us that precise amounts attributable to each 
claim may not be distinguished in the case of a lump-sum settlement or 
judgment. 

[2] A DOJ official told us that the miscellaneous fraud category 
includes cases where the complaint is vague or does not fit into other 
case types. 

[End of table] 

Relator Share of Qui Tam Recoveries by Type of Fraud Alleged: 

Relator Share Amounts by Type of Fraud Alleged, Fiscal Years 1987 
through 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] A DOJ official told us that the miscellaneous fraud category 
includes cases where the complaint is vague or does not fit into other 
case types. 

[End of table] 

Qui Tam Recoveries by DOJ Case Intervention: 

Qui tam recoveries from cases where DOJ intervened were greater than in 
cases where DOJ declined to intervene. 

Qui Tam Recoveries by DOJ Case Intervention, Fiscal Years 1987 through 
2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] According to a DOJ official, a portion of these qui tam settlement 
and judgment amounts could include amounts attributable to government 
initiated claims under the FCA and other statutory or common law 
claims, such as breach of contract, bribery, or conflict of interest. 
The official also told us that precise amounts attributable to each 
claim may not be distinguished in the case of a lump-sum settlement or 
judgment. 

[2] Includes cases where DOJ intervened in some but not all of the 
realtor's claims. 

[End of table] 

Relator Share of Qui Tam Recoveries by DOJ Case Intervention: 

Relator share amounts were greater in cases where DOJ intervened than 
in cases where DOJ declined to intervene. 

Relator Share of Qui Tam Recoveries by DOJ Case Intervention, Fiscal 
Years 1987 through 2005: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ's Civil Division data on closed, unsealed 
qui tam cases. 

[1] Includes relators whose qui tam case resulted in a settlement or 
judgment, but the relators received zero or a reduced share of the 
government's recovery. A DOJ official told us that these cases involved 
instances where the relator's entitlement to a full statutory share was 
jurisdictionally barred or in question and that this information is 
reflected in DOJ case files. 

[2] Includes cases where DOJ intervened in some but not all of the 
relator's claims. 

[End of table] 

[End of slide presentation] 

[End of section] 

(440383): 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because 
this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission 
from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce 
this material separately. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] The False Claims Act, as amended, is codified at 31 U.S.C.  3729- 
33. 

[2] Represents funds the government is entitled to recover as a result 
of qui tam case settlements or court judgments. These funds may or may 
not have been collected by the government. A DOJ official told us that 
while most of these funds arise from FCA allegations in the qui tam 
complaint, some funds are attributable to government initiated claims 
under the FCA and other statutory and common law claims, such as breach 
of contract, bribery, or conflict of interest, and that the relator is 
not entitled to a share of these funds. The official also told us that 
precise amounts attributable to each claim may not be distinguished in 
the case of a lump-sum settlement or judgment. 

[3] Represents newly received FCA referrals and investigations 
initiated by the government and newly filed qui tam cases initiated by 
the relator. These include open cases and cases under seal. According 
to a DOJ official, these cases do not include non-qui tam cases under 
$5 million handled by the United States Attorneys' Offices. The 
official told us that the Civil Division does not maintain data on 
these cases. 

[4] Includes cases in which DOJ intervened and cases settled by DOJ 
before declination or intervention. 

[5] Includes relators whose qui tam case resulted in a settlement or 
judgment, but the relators received zero or a reduced share of the 
government's recovery. A DOJ official told us that these cases involved 
instances where the relator's entitlement to a full statutory share was 
jurisdictionally barred or in question and that this information is 
reflected in DOJ case files.