§ 3729 et seq., which allows a private individual, or "whistleblower" (or relator), with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the federal government to bring suit on its behalf.
[3] Forerunners of qui tam actions also occurred in Anglo-Saxon England; in the year 656, Wihtred of Kent issued a decree that a Sabbath-breaker would "forfeit his healsfang, and the man who informs against him shall have half the fine, and [the profits arising from] the labour.
"[3] The 1318 Statute of York, which set uniform prices for certain consumer goods, was an early English qui tam provision.
[3] To ensure enforcement, the act provided that one-third of the forfeited merchandise "shall be delivered to the Party that sued the Offender, as the King's Gift.
"[3] Two Statutes of Labourers, enacted in 1349 and 1350, set wage and price controls and provided for informers to seek forfeiture from the violator, or from mayors or bailiffs who failed to enforce the regulations.
Shortly thereafter, another law authorized qui tam suits if a person responsible for procuring and arranging for carriage of provisions for the King's household accepted a bribe.
The value of qui tam suits as a check on public officials had become so well accepted by 1444 that Parliament adopted no fewer than five such statutes in that single year.
[3] The practice fell into disrepute in England in the 19th century by which time it was principally used to enforce laws related to Christian Sunday observance.
It was brought to an effective end by the Common Informers Act 1951 but, in 2007, there were proposals to introduce legal provision on the U.S. model back to the United Kingdom.
[citation needed] The case of Richard Marven and Samuel Shaw led the Continental Congress to pass the first whistleblower law in the new United States in 1778.
During the Civil War, unscrupulous contractors sold the Union Army, among other things, decrepit horses and mules in ill health, faulty rifles and ammunition, and rancid rations and provisions.
Importantly, a reward was offered in what is called the "qui tam" provision, which permits citizens to sue on behalf of the government and be paid a percentage of the recovery.
The law was substantially weakened in 1943 during World War II while the government rushed to sign large military procurement contracts.
[15] In addition, the statute provides an award of the relator's attorneys' fees, making qui tam actions a popular topic for the plaintiff's bar.
If the government does not decide to participate in a qui tam action, the relator may proceed alone without the Department of Justice, though such cases historically have a much lower success rate.
Judge Dan Aaron Polster determined that it violated the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution, because it represented "a wholesale delegation of criminal law enforcement power to private entities with no control exercised by the Department of Justice".
[1] The America Invents Act made significant changes to false marking laws, that affected all pending and future false marking actions:[2] In the provinces of Canada that observed the English common law, the qui tam action has had limited scope, although as recently as 1933 the Exchequer Court Act, R.S.C.
In order for a whistleblower (also known as a "relator" in the context of the FCA) to bring a qui tam action that is based upon publicly disclosed information, that person must legally qualify as an "original source."