Page 98 - An Indispensible Resource for Being a Credible Activist

had proof of fraud to come forward with the information under seal to the appropriate fed-
eral agency and to receive a share of the recouped funds. This reward is often hard-earned
given the stress generally experienced. Another name for these kinds of cases is qui tam, or
“he who comes forth on behalf of the king,” as this comes from English law. Many U.S.
states and cities now have their own FCA laws allowing persons who are aware of anyone
or any entity defrauding that city or state to come forward with knowledge and proof.
Of course, you want to be sure there is actual fraud before taking any action. One way
to help you determine whether there is fraud happening is to contact someone at either
Taxpayers Against Fraud (www.taf.org) or the Government Accountability Project
(www.whistleblower.org). Please see additional resources in Part Six of this book. You can
confidentially describe your concerns to an experienced FCA or qui tam attorney, who can
then advise you on whether or not your concerns have any relevance to the FCA laws in
existence where you work. Coming forward with a qui tam case at the federal level requires
that you be represented by an attorney and such a case is filed under seal, meaning that
those who come forward are prohibited from allowing anyone other than their attorney to
know they’ve done so.
There is always the possibility that what you think is fraud is simply an honest mistake,
and there are ways to check that out; however, you need to be prepared for the possibility
of an unpleasant response if there is, in fact, fraud happening. Your attempt to learn whether
it is fraudulent or not by pointing out that a mistake may have been made can expose you
to anger and retaliation if, for example, your company is fearful of getting caught and sus-
pects you may someday cause it to get caught.
Here is an easy metaphor for what you can expect while trying to ascertain if your com-
pany or someone at your company is engaging in fraud. Suppose you are in an airport. You
see someone litter, intentionally, and this bothers you. However, you want to give the per-
son the chance to do the right thing, and you also want the person to know that littering is
socially unacceptable. So you say as nicely as you possibly can, “Excuse me, I think you
dropped something.”
There are a number of responses to this scenario. A completely innocent person will
generally be glad that you pointed this out because he would never want to litter and only
did so unintentionally and, most importantly, will be eager to correct this mistake and pick
up the litter. On the other hand, a guilty person—someone who littered intentionally and is
angry that he got caught—might respond with anger toward you, perhaps deny that he
dropped the litter, may not want to pick it up because he will be so ashamed and angry,
and may even go further with his anger and begin to berate you that you should mind your
own business.
To translate this reaction to a workplace fraud situation, if you point this out and there
really is fraud going on, you must realize that you may be jeopardizing the scammers’ plan
to obtain funds they know they are not entitled to receive. Therefore, even if you give them
a face-saving option by saying, “I think an error has been made here,” you might not be
merely pointing out an embarrassment-inducing error; you might be getting in the way of a
money-making scheme. In this case, you are going to be seen as a problem. If it’s an hon-
est mistake, you will be met with gratitude and praise for having helped the company avert
wrongdoing and very possibly more serious and perhaps costly problems in the future.

CHAPTER 6 • Legal Issues Concerning Public S afety and F raud 81