Opinion ID: 164300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: An Independent Execution Or Attempted Execution

Text: 30 Finally, the government argues the Companies committed a separate offense [under the Major Fraud Act] at the June 28, 1995 meeting. The government claims the Companies committed a separate offense at this meeting because (1) their false representations [at the meeting]... significantly increased the risk that the claim would be paid, and (2) [t]he Corps detrimentally relied on [their] misrepresentations to continue processing the claim, which entailed an expenditure of time and money. Once again, we reject the government's argument. 31 Nowhere does the superseding indictment allege the 1995 meeting was a separate execution or attempted execution of a scheme. Instead, the superseding indictment alleges the Companies arranged the meeting with the Corps in order to support and promote their claim for equitable adjustment, i.e., the Companies wanted to increase the likelihood the Corps would pay their claim. The meeting did not concern any other claims. It therefore did not create a new and independent financial risk to the government or create a new and independent obligation to be truthful. Nor did the meeting constitute a substantial step towards a new and independent execution. Although the Companies' alleged misrepresentations at the meeting may have increased the likelihood the Corps would pay the claim, the financial risk to the government was not new or independent of the risk the Companies created by filing their claim for equitable adjustment in the first place. Likewise, the Companies' obligation to be truthful at this meeting derived from, or was an extension of, its initial obligation to tell the truth when they filed the claim. 32 As a result of the language in the indictment, we conclude the 1995 meeting was not an independent execution or attempted execution; it was merely an act in furtherance of the Companies' scheme to defraud the United States or obtain money from the United States. Although, according to the government, the Companies' conduct was not innocent, the conduct is not an independent offense under the Major Fraud Act.