On June 28, 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“HHS-OIG”), along with other federal and state law enforcement partners, announced a nationwide health care fraud enforcement action targeting a variety of alleged health care fraud schemes. As has been the case over the last few years, DOJ and HHS-OIG have moved away from categorizing the enforcement action as a “takedown”. The government has not explained the naming change, but one explanation is that it is no longer properly considered a true “takedown” because the enforcement activity (charges, arrests) occurs over many weeks leading up to the day it is announced.
The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) remains busy updating its policies relating to corporate prosecutions, evaluations of compliance programs, and voluntary disclosures. In a pair of speeches at March’s ABA White Collar Conference in Miami, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Polite, Jr. returned to the Department’s revision of its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Program (“ECCP”) by unveiling several significant policies, including those relating to a corporation’s access to and retention of employee electronic communications as well as a company’s compensation structure for executives and employees.
Building on attempts in recent years to strengthen the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) white collar criminal enforcement, on September 15, 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced revisions to DOJ’s corporate criminal enforcement policies. The new policies, and those that are in development, further attempt to put pressure on companies to implement effective compliance policies and to self-report if there are problems. Notably, the new DOJ policies set forth changes to existing DOJ policies through a “combination of carrots and sticks – with a mix of incentives and deterrence,” with the goal of “giving general counsels and chief compliance officers the tools they need to make a business case for responsible corporate behavior” through seven key areas:
With the release of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, questions regarding enforcement activity in states that restrict or ban abortion by statute have been raised and have remained mostly hypothetical. The frequency and scope of future enforcement activity remains unknown. Given the variety of laws now in effect in restricted and ban states, and that enforcement of such laws is subject to state prosecutorial discretion as well as the prevailing political climate, enforcement initiatives are expected to vary by state.
On April 20, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a nationwide coordinated law enforcement action to combat health care-related COVID-19 fraud. In line with the announcement, the federal government has continued throughout this year to focus its enforcement on fraud in the COVID-19 space, particularly on misuse of Provider Relief funds and COVID-19 testing fraud.
On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade—the 1973 landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion. Now, companies that operate in states where abortions are banned or restricted are facing a quagmire of laws and risks regarding enforcement. Additionally, the risk landscape is not static, but rather in flux, as the federal government (agencies such as the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) and a myriad of states introduce new legislation and issue guidance on a near-daily basis.
The Judicial Conference of the United States’ Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure seems poised to advance proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, after the Advisory Committee on Evidence unanimously voted to approve the proposed amendments and recommended that the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure refer the amendments to the Judicial Conference for a full vote.
Imagine you’re a longtime employee of a company that operates in a highly regulated industry. Your employment has seen its ups and downs throughout the years, and you have witnessed many transitions: new policies and procedures implemented, new leadership appointed, and new rules and regulations with which your company must comply to remain in lawful standing with regulators. Occasionally, you’ve observed activity that might be questionable but you never thought much about it. That is, until you’re called into a meeting with your company’s lawyers who inform you that “the U.S. Attorney’s Office wants to meet with you.” What do you do next?
In many cases, the payment of restitution by a party in a lawsuit involving the government or a governmental entity creates a tax-deductible business expense under Title 26, United States Code, Section 162(f) (hereinafter, “Section 162”). When it comes to violations of the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback Statute, Stark Law, or even common law fraud claims and contract disputes, understanding how this statute operates can offer substantial short- and long-term tax-benefits to entities facing stiff financial recoupments. While it is unlikely that the costs of an investigation or restitution order will ever generate a financial net-gain for the entity footing the bill, it is important to appreciate that restitution and proactive remediation costs are viewed differently by both government enforcers (i.e. prosecutors) and tax-collectors, compared with other types of remuneration. Recognizing that there is a difference can, in some cases, help mitigate significant financial burdens.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced plans to increase its enforcement of white collar crimes against individuals and corporations. Monaco made the announcement speaking at the American Bar Association’s While Collar Crime Conference. She made clear to “those of you who are counselors and voices in the C-Suite and Boardroom” that DOJ “will not hesitate to take action when necessary to combat corporate wrongdoing.”
Monaco, DOJ’s second in command, is no stranger to prosecuting corporate crimes having ...
Most have heard the cliché “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.” For many criminal defendants, however, a significant factor in the time served is not just the crime committed, but rather the so-called “trial penalty.”
A “trial penalty” describes situations where a defendant chooses to proceed to trial instead of accepting whatever plea deal the Government had offered and receives a significantly lengthier sentence than she would have received had she not gone to trial. Often the “trial penalty” results in a defendant receiving a much lengthier ...
EBG attorney Edward J. Loya, Jr. was recently named Chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association’s Criminal Law Section. I recently sat down with him for a Q&A regarding this honor, his work with the HNBA, and his white collar criminal practice at EBG.
Q: Most of our readers are probably familiar with the Hispanic National Bar Association, but for those who may not be, can you tell us a little about HNBA’s history and mission?A: The HNBA, which was founded in 1972, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, national membership organization that represents the interests of Hispanic legal ...
- What Does the Upcoming Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Mean for the Admission of Expert Testimony?
- Rare DOJ Criminal Indictment Related to Medicare Advantage Risk Adjustment
- What to Do When Your Distribution Checks Stop Arriving
- The Validity of More Than a Decade’s Worth of Federal Regulations Are at Stake as the U.S. Supreme Court Decides the Constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Funding Structure
- What to Know About the New DOJ Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) Safe Harbor Policy for Voluntary Self-Disclosures Made in Conjunction with Misconduct: Questions and Answers