context: Fortuities in the government's subsequent decisionmaking process have no effect on the objective truth or falsity of the claimant's asserted entitlement, and should thus have no effect on the claimant's potential liability under the Act. This reading of the Act is consistent with this court's analysis of analogous provisions in the criminal False Claims Act and related statutes.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 602 F.2d 231, 233
citation_a.parenthetical: holding, in the context of the criminal False Claims Act, that "[t]o prove Falsity, the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time [the defendant] made it"
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Milton, 602 F.2d 231, 233 (9th Cir.1979) (holding, in the context of the criminal False Claims Act, that “[t]o prove Falsity, the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time [the defendant] made it”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Leahy, 82 F.3d 624, 633 n. 11 (5th Cir.1996) (holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 U.S.C. § 286 — a companion statute to the criminal FCA — because his claims were false when submitted, even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 U.S.C. SS 286 -- a companion statute to the criminal FCA -- because his claims were false when submitted, even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Milton, 602 F.2d 231, 233 (9th Cir.1979) (holding, in the context of the criminal False Claims Act, that “[t]o prove Falsity, the government only had to prove that the statement was known to be untrue at the time [the defendant] made it”) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Leahy, 82 F.3d 624, 633 n. 11 (5th Cir.1996) (holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 U.S.C. § 286 — a companion statute to the criminal FCA — because his claims were false when submitted, even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor).