Whistleblowers under the False Claims Act

When evaluating a potential qui tam action, one of the most consequential decisions a whistleblower and their counsel make occurs before the complaint is ever filed: choosing where to bring the action. Unlike many federal causes of action constrained by narrow venue restrictions, the False Claims Act (FCA) confers broad, nationwide jurisdiction:

“Any action under section 3730 may be brought in any judicial district in which the defendant or, in the case of multiple defendants, any one defendant can be found, resides, transacts business, or in which any act proscribed by section 3730 occurred.”

See 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a).

For companies operating regionally or nationally, such as major health systems, defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, or nationwide durable medical equipment suppliers, the phrase “transacts business” means a relator may have the legal option to file in dozens of different federal judicial districts across the United States.

Because venue choice can dictate everything from government intervention rates to case processing times, analyzing empirical recovery data across U.S. Attorney’s Offices (USAOs) is a critical component of pre-filing strategy.

Qui Tam Attorneys for Whistleblowers under False Claims Act

If you have uncovered evidence of systemic fraud against Medicare, Medicaid, or another government agency, taking action as a whistleblower requires immediate strategic and legal protection. Contact the Qui Tam Attorneys for Whistleblowers at Sammis Law Firm. Call our Tampa office at (813) 250-0500 to schedule a confidential consultation regarding a lawsuit under the False Claims Act.

During your initial consultation, we conduct a private, in-depth evaluation of your potential qui tam action under strict attorney-client privilege. We carefully review your documentation, analyze whether the wrongful conduct constitutes actionable fraud under 31 U.S.C. § 3729, and assess critical threshold issues such as the FCA’s “first-to-file” rule, the public disclosure bar, and your qualification as an “original source.”

We also address your practical, day-to-day concerns, including federal and Florida statutory anti-retaliation protections, and walk you through the procedural lifecycle of filing a complaint under seal, collaborating with Assistant U.S. Attorneys and federal investigators, and positioning you for the maximum statutory relator share.

Read more about finding a Qui Tam Attorney under Florida’s False Claims Act. The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm can also help you file a related Qui Tam cases under the Florida False Claims Act in Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, FL.

We also represent companies in Florida actions related to these types of claims. The seizure of bank accounts is often the companies first indication that an investigation under the False Claims Act is being investigated.

Call 813-250-0500 for more information.

Challenging Federal In Rem Bank Account Seizures

In federal healthcare and procurement fraud investigations, the Department of Justice and Assistant United States Attorneys frequently bypass standard civil litigation and proceed in rem against corporate bank accounts under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and § 981(a)(1)(A).

By alleging that funds are proceeds of false claims (18 U.S.C. § 287), health care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347), or money laundering (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956/1957), federal prosecutors obtain warrants of arrest in rem to freeze entire operational accounts without prior notice.

Defending a federal in rem healthcare forfeiture case requires aggressive, procedural litigation from day one under the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (Supplemental Rule G) and the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA):

• • Establishing Statutory Standing via Verified Claim:
    • Under Supplemental Rule G(5), any business or individual claiming an interest in the seized funds must file a verified claim identifying the specific property, stating the claimant’s interest under oath, and serving it on the government within the strict 30- to 35-day statutory window.
    • Because business entities like LLCs and corporations cannot appear pro se, corporate claimants must appear through licensed counsel.
  • Attacking the Complaint Under Supplemental Rule G(2)(f):
    • Federal forfeiture complaints are held to a heightened pleading standard.
    • Under Supplemental Rule G(2)(f), the government must state “sufficiently detailed facts to support a reasonable belief that the government will be able to meet its burden of proof at trial” by a preponderance of the evidence.
    • If the complaint merely identifies technical billing errors (such as telehealth or face-to-face consultation deficiencies) but fails to allege that the business knowingly submitted fraudulent claims, the complaint is legally deficient and subject to an immediate Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss.
  • Severing Legitimate Revenue From Commingled Accounts:
    • Federal agencies routinely freeze millions of dollars in a general account based on an investigation into a tiny fraction of disputed billings.
    • Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(c)(3), the government must prove a “substantial connection” between the specific property seized and the offense.
    • We challenge disproportionate seizures by isolating legitimate commercial revenue from disputed claims and attacking unsupported money laundering allegations.
  • Demanding the Immediate Release of Funds:
    • When the government fails to allege specific intent or misses court deadlines to amend defective pleadings, we aggressively move the federal district court for orders directing the U.S. Marshals Service to immediately release the seized funds.
    • A federal asset freeze is often an attempt by the government to choke off a business’s legal defense resources before an indictment is returned.

At Sammis Law Firm, we focus on dismantling defective civil forfeiture complaints, navigating the delicate intersection of civil discovery and Fifth Amendment rights, and compelling the return of seized commercial assets.

Why U.S. Attorney Track Records Matter to Whistleblowers

While Main Justice (the DOJ Civil Division’s Fraud Section in Washington, D.C.) maintains oversight over all False Claims Act litigation, the day-to-day investigation, witness interviewing, subpoena enforcement, and settlement negotiations are driven primarily by Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) and affirmative civil enforcement units within the local federal districts.

Not all 94 federal districts handle False Claims Act litigation the same way. The differences between districts vary. First, some districts have deeply staffed, dedicated ACE units with forensic auditors, data analysts, and seasoned civil fraud prosecutors. Others may have only a handful of AUSAs handling the entire civil caseload.

Second, certain districts develop recognized expertise in specific fraud areas due to regional industry concentrations, such as defense contracting in the Eastern District of Virginia, life sciences and pharmaceutical pricing in the District of Massachusetts, or Medicare/Medicaid and managed care fraud in the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida.

Third, Department of Justice statistics show that when the government intervenes in a qui tam action, the likelihood of a successful settlement or judgment increases dramatically. A district’s historical willingness to invest investigative resources into relator allegations directly impacts case outcomes.

Fourth, under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), relators receive between 15% and 25% of proceeds in intervened cases, and up to 30% in non-intervened cases. Districts with active whistleblower dockets are well-versed in negotiating fair relator shares and addressing statutory statutory factors promptly.

Tracking the Numbers: The TAF Coalition Case Database

To navigate venue dynamics, practitioners look beyond national aggregate DOJ statistics and examine district-specific performance. The Anti-Fraud Coalition (TAF) maintains a detailed, case-by-case repository tracking False Claims Act settlements, court judgments, intervention rates, and relator share recoveries across jurisdictions.

By reviewing the public case data lets the attorneys at Sammis Law Firm access:

• Identifying which USAOs routinely secure nine- and ten-figure global resolutions versus districts where healthcare or procurement fraud cases rarely advance past the seal period.
• While all FCA cases remain under seal during the government’s investigation, some districts are notorious for prolonged multi-year seal extensions, whereas others maintain active dockets that move expeditiously toward intervention decisions.
• Choosing a district also means choosing the governing Circuit Court of Appeals. Key substantive disputes, including the pleading standard under Rule 9(b), the contours of the FCA’s materiality standard under Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, and the standard for government dismissal under § 3730(c)(2)(A), are interpreted differently depending on the circuit.

Key Considerations When Selecting a Venue

When multiple federal districts have personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant, counsel should balance several practical factors.

First, we consider the nexus to the evidence. Courts possess the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer an action to another district for the convenience of parties and witnesses. Selecting a district with substantial connections, such as where the regional billing office is situated, where key decision-makers reside, or where core false claims were generated, protects the complaint against defense transfer motions.

Second, we determine how to best collaborate with local counsel. Filing out-of-district requires teaming with respected local counsel who understand the local court rules, the preferences of the assigned federal judges, and the working dynamic of the local U.S. Attorney’s civil division.

Third, we coordinate with false claims act under state law. In cases involving Medicaid fraud or state tax avoidance, aligning the federal district with states that maintain strong state-level False Claims Acts allows state attorneys general to partner with federal prosecutors in a joint recovery effort.

A successful False Claims Act case begins with accurate, credible evidence from an insider. But leveraging the nationwide reach of 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) and evaluating U.S. Attorney performance metrics ensures that evidence is placed in front of prosecutors with the focus, resources, and institutional commitment to bring the fraud to light.

This article was last updated on Friday, September 18, 2026.