“OIG currently has enough options,” Waltz said of the Administrative False Claims Act (AFCA), which was tucked within the National Defense Authorization Act passed last year. “This one is probably not one to effectively pursue their mission.”
Waltz explained that the AFCA is similar to the Office of Inspector General Civil Monetary Penalties Law in that it requires “knowing” conduct, defined in a way that tracks the FCA requirement to show intent. However, she noted that the AFCA does not require regulators to prove a specific intent to defraud.
“That may get around situations from the past where one defense raised was that the conduct was not intentional because a defendant didn’t know the conduct was unlawful, Waltz added.
