Three Defenses for Criminal Liability in Government Contractor Fraud Civil or Criminal Cases

Introduction to Elements in a Government Contractor Fraud Criminal Case – Knowing Them Can Set Up Your Legal Defense and Avoid Jail Time.

By Theodore. P. Watson, Esq. A government contractor fraud criminal case imposes a burden of proof on the prosecution to prove all elements required for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements vary depending on the crime charged and the jurisdiction, but usually include the accused’s (you) actus reus (the actual “guilty act”) or mens rea (state of mind).

When defending against criminal liability in government contractor fraud cases, there are three key legal defenses that can be used to avoid liability: lack of intent is one of the most important defenses used in fraud cases. The prosecution’s case fails if they cannot show that you intended to defraud the government. This is the most likely place to start preparing to defend yourself.

Government contracting criminal cases can be very complex because they are not the traditional cases that are commonly seen. Many of the rights granted to government contractors stem from the United States Constitution.

Congress writes the criminal codes and the codes involving the process when government contractors lose their property rights to a government contract. There is a substantial amount of room for mistakes, and many government contractors can end up being convicted of criminal acts.

What is Mens Rea?

Mens rea is a legal concept that refers to the mental state of a person when they commit an act. It is used in criminal law as a defense against criminal liability. This includes government contractor fraud criminal cases Under general principles of common law, a defendant must have had knowledge or intent to commit a crime for it to be considered for criminal liability. Mens rea allows defendants to claim that they did not realize their actions were illegal and therefore should not be held liable for them.

What is Actus Reus?

Actus reus is the physical act of committing a crime. It is used in criminal law as a defense against criminal liability. Under general principles of common law, an accused must have had knowledge or intent to commit a crime for it to be considered for criminal liability. Actus reus allows defendants to claim that they did not realize their actions were illegal and therefore should not be held liable for them.

When it comes to government contractor fraud criminal cases, there are three key defenses that Government contractors may raise defenses for criminal liability . These defenses include 1) lack of mens rea; 2) lack of actus reus.

Government contractors need to be aware that if they are accused of fraud crime, there may be defenses available to them. Such can help government contractors avoid criminal liability and potentially reduce their exposure to civil penalties or other sanctions. Depending on the circumstances, three common defenses that government contractors may raise include: good faith reliance on official guidance, lack of intent to defraud, and lack of knowledge of improper conduct.

Good faith reliance on official guidance is one defense a contractor might use when accused of a fraud crime. This involves proving that the conduct at issue was based upon either an express or implied instruction from a governmental authority with oversight power over the procurement process in question. If successful, this defense may allow a contractor to establish that the conduct in question was done with good faith, and thus did not result from an intent to defraud the government.

Lack of intent to defraud is another defense contractors might use. In this case, contractors must demonstrate that the conduct at issue was done without any intent to wrongfully obtain a financial or other benefit from the government. For example, if a contractor makes an incorrect statement on their bid but there is no evidence they knew it was false and had no intention of deceiving the government, this could be sufficient for them to avoid criminal liability.

Can a contractor be criminally charged for procurement fraud? Yes, as a government contractor, you can be charged criminally for procurement fraud. This type of action has serious consequences and can lead to huge fines and even imprisonment if the case proceeds to trial. Federal contractors should always comply with the terms of their contracts and understand the legal requirements regarding government procurements to avoid criminal liability. If you are facing procurement fraud charges, you should seek immediate defense contractor fraud representation.

Common Government Contractor Fraud Civil or Criminal Defenses

Contractor Fraud Civil or Criminal Cases: Three Defenses For Criminal Liability in Government Contractor Fraud Case: Government contractors are responsible for rigorous compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements when dealing with the government. When the contractor fails to meet these standards, it can lead to criminal liability under various federal laws including FCPA, False Claims Act, and Anti-Kickback Statute. Government contractors may raise defenses for criminal liability that recognize their unique position as a  government partner.

In a government contractor fraud criminal case, there are several potential defenses that can be used to contest criminal liability. Here are three commonly employed defenses:

1. Lack of Intent: One key defense is to argue that there was no intent to commit fraud. Criminal liability typically requires proof of fraudulent intent, meaning the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in deceptive practices to obtain financial gain. If the defendant can demonstrate a lack of intent or show that any false statements or actions were unintentional, it can serve as a defense against criminal liability.

2. Lack of Knowledge: Another defense is to assert that the defendant did not have knowledge of the fraudulent activity. To establish criminal liability, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant had knowledge of the fraudulent scheme and willingly participated in it. If the defendant can prove that they were unaware of any fraudulent activities or had no involvement in the deceptive conduct, it can serve as a defense against criminal charges.

3. Entrapment: Entrapment can be raised as a defense when the government induces or coerces an individual into committing a crime they would not have otherwise committed. If the defendant can show that they were lured into engaging in fraudulent behavior by government agents or informants, they may argue entrapment as a defense to criminal liability.

It is important to note that each case is unique, and the availability and success of these defenses will depend on the specific circumstances and evidence presented. Consulting with an experienced government contract fraud defense attorney is essential to determine the most effective defense strategy based on the individual case.

If you are facing government contractor fraud criminal charges, our team of skilled defense contractor fraud representation professionals can provide you with comprehensive legal representation. We have experience in defending clients against criminal liability and can tailor our defense strategies to the specific circumstances of your case. Contact us today to discuss your situation and explore your defense options.

What are Defenses for Criminal Liability in False Claims Act Case?

The False Claims Act (FCA) makes it illegal to submit a false or fraudulent claim to the government for payment. The FCA provides the government with significant tools to protect taxpayers’ money by providing incentives for individuals and entities to report fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds. To avoid criminal liability under the False Claims Act, contractors may raise several defenses including lack of knowledge, lack of intent, and public disclosure bar.

The first defense is “lack of knowledge”. Under this defense a contractor will need to prove that they did not know their actions were in violation of the False Claims Act. This could involve showing that their actions were based on an understandable misunderstanding or reliance on official guidance from a governmental authority.

The second defense is “lack of intent”. This defense would require the contractor to show that they did not have a specific intent to defraud or commit any other FCA violation. If successful, this defense could allow contractors to avoid criminal liability for their actions.

Finally, the “public disclosure bar” may be used as a way to limit civil and criminal liability under the False Claims Act. Under this defense, government contractors can argue that their alleged violations were already publicly disclosed elsewhere, thus relieving them from liability for those violations. It is important for contractors to research all relevant legal requirements prior to engaging in any activities with the government that might be subject to this rule in order to ensure that their actions are compliant and do not lead to criminal liability.

What are Three Defenses for Criminal Liability in a Government Contracts Conspiracy Case?

Government contractors may also be charged with criminal liability under the federal conspiracy statute. In these circumstances, a contractor can raise several defenses to avoid criminal liability. These include lack of knowledge, lack of intent, and entrapment defense.

The first potential defense is “lack of knowledge”. This defense requires the contractor to prove that they did not have any knowledge of the alleged conspiratorial activities and had no intention to engage in them. The success of this defense depends on whether or not the evidence shows that the contractor was aware of their actions and had no reason to believe they were engaging in improper conduct.

The second defense is “lack of intent”. Under this defense, government contractors may claim that they had no intent to participate in a conspiracy against the government. This defense could be successful if the contractor can demonstrate that their actions were legally permissible and not intended to defraud or mislead the government.

Finally, “no affirmative action towards the conspiracy” is also another defense available to government contractors. This defense requires the contractor to prove that they took no affirmative steps towards furthering the conspiracy, such as actively recruiting new members or providing financial support. If a contractor can show that their actions merely amounted to passive involvement in the scheme, it is more likely that this defense will be successful.

Fraud Government Contractor Defense

Government contractors must take great care and diligence when dealing with government contracts, as violations of these agreements may result in criminal liability. However, by understanding and utilizing key legal defenses, they can protect themselves from potential wrongdoing and limit their exposure to criminal penalties. It is important for any contractor doing business with the government to consult an experienced government contractor fraud defense attorney when facing a criminal investigation for government contract fraud, indictment or being actively prosecuted for fraud against the United States.

Is Lack of Procedural Due Process a Constitutional Defense for Government Contractors in a Criminal Case?

Lack of procedural due process is sometimes used as a constitutional defense in criminal cases against government contractors. This defense may be applicable if the contractor can prove that the government did not provide them with adequate notice and opportunity to respond before taking action against them.

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” and this protection extends to all persons regardless of their status as government contractors. If a contractor can demonstrate that they were not given proper notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to being charged with a crime, then lack of procedural due process could potentially serve as a legal defense in their case.

While a lack of procedural due process may be a viable defense in some situations, it is always important for government contractors to consult an experienced government contractor fraud defense attorney when facing criminal charges. An attorney can provide valuable advice on the best way to proceed and help protect a contractor’s rights under the law.

Conclusion

Government contractors must take great care when engaging with the federal government as any violations of regulations or agreements may result in criminal liability. However, by understanding key legal defenses, they may be able to successfully avoid criminal penalties. Defenses such as lack of knowledge, lack of intent and procedural due can be raised in cases involving government contracts fraud and can help protect contractors from harsh punishments. Additionally, lack of procedural due process could also serve as a constitutional defense for government contractors if they can prove that the government failed to provide them with adequate notice and opportunity to respond. It is important for any contractor doing business with the government to consult an experienced government contractor fraud defense attorney when facing a criminal investigation or being actively prosecuted for fraud against the United States. 

For immediate legal representation in a pending government contractor fraud case, call our criminal defense attorneys at 1.866.601.5518.