Source: http://www.compliancelawjournal.com/compliancelawjournal/issue_1?pg=92
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 11:18:28+00:00

Document:
18. 31 U.S. C. §§ 3729–3733.
19. See e.g., Illinois False Claims Act, 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 175/1; False Claims Act, CAL GOV’T CODE §§ 12650-55; Florida False Claims Act, FLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 68.081-092.
20. See Chicago, Il., Code § 1-22 (2016); Allegheny County, Pa., Code § 485 (2011); Miami-Dade County, Fl., Code § 21 (2016); Broward County, Fl., Code § 1-276 (2016); New York City, N. Y., Code § 7-801 (2015).
21. While the U.S. False Claims Act remains a powerful tool in the hands of the public to assist the federal government in identifying fraud and abuse, not every instance of non-compliance can fall under its wing. In Universal Health Services, Inc. v U.S. ex rel Escobar, the court noted, “We emphasize, however, that the False Claims Act is not a means of imposing treble damages and other penalties for insignificant regulatory or contractual violations.” Universal Health Servs. Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S.Ct. 1989, 2004 (2016).
22. It is important to note that the leadership of a compliance program should not be expected to guard against every risk the organization takes. Not only is this impossible in today’s state of the law, but to put it quite plainly it is not the job of the compliance program alone to comply with the law. The workforce that makes up the corporation and acts in the normal course of business is obligated to follow the law. The compliance program is not set aside as the office that makes sure the organization follows the law rather it is the office that assists the organization in a systematic attempt to manage regulatory risk. This is not a small point because laws and their prickly penalties can pop out of the most unsuspecting places at the most inopportune time and there may have been nothing the compliance program could have done to prevent or manage that risk in any practical way.

References: § 1
 § 485
 § 21
 § 1
 § 7
 v.