False Claims Against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 287)

What a federal false claim charge means

A charge under 18 U.S.C. § 287 says you cheated the United States itself. Not a bank, not a customer, but the federal government. The classic examples are a tax return that asks for a refund you knew you were not owed, a Medicare bill for visits that never happened, an invoice to a federal agency padded with work never done, or a grant application that hides disqualifying facts.

This page is about the criminal charge only. It sits inside our broader federal white collar defense practice, and it is different from the nearby charge of false statements, which we explain below.

The statute itself is short. It says:

"Whoever makes or presents to any person or officer in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, or to any department or agency thereof, any claim upon or against the United States, or any department or agency thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent, shall be imprisoned not more than five years and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in this title."

Every defense starts with that sentence. Notice what it requires and what it does not. It requires a claim, meaning a demand for money or property from the government. The Justice Department's guidance describes the covered demand the same practical way, as asking the government to pay money or hand over property it supposedly owes you. It requires knowledge. And the punishment words, not more than five years, set a ceiling. They do not promise any particular sentence, and they do not set a floor.

The three things the government must prove

To convict, prosecutors must establish each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt. If any one of them fails, the count fails.

1. You made or presented a claim to a department or agency of the United States. The Justice Department frames this first element as "made or presented a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim to a department of the United States". The claim has to actually reach the government. As the Department's guidance puts it: "Presentation of a claim is more than an intention to make a claim." Thinking about billing for work you did not do is not enough. Preparing a draft you never submit is not enough. The claim must be presented actually and physically, and thereby made to the government.

Presentment does not require you to walk the paper into a federal building yourself. A claim routed through a middleman still counts if it actually reached the government. That is why billing companies, tax preparers, and office staff show up so often in these cases. Each person who knowingly touched a false claim can face scrutiny for their own role.

2. The claim was false, fictitious, or fraudulent. The demand for money or property must rest on something untrue. Common forms include services never provided, costs never incurred, patients never seen, hours never worked, income or dependents invented on a return, and eligibility facts hidden on a grant or loan application. Small lies can qualify if they made the claim false. The question is whether what you asked the government to pay rested on a falsehood.

3. You knew the claim was false when you made or presented it. Knowledge is usually the whole fight. The statute punishes only a person who acts knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent. A billing mistake, a misunderstood rule, reliance on an accountant or a coder, or a good faith reading of a confusing regulation can all cut against knowledge, depending on the facts. What the government typically tries to show instead is a pattern: repeated identical errors, warnings you ignored, training you received, or messages showing you understood the rule and billed around it.

Two related points need care because courts have not spoken with one voice. The Justice Department's own guidance notes that federal appeals courts have split over whether the false claim must also be material, meaning capable of influencing the government's decision, and have divided over whether willfulness beyond knowledge is an essential element. Those disagreements belong to specific circuits and specific cases. They are not nationwide rules, and how they affect any one case depends on where it is charged and what the trial judge instructs the jury.

Penalties under § 287: what the law allows at most

For each count under § 287, the statute allows:

• Up to 5 years in federal prison.
• A fine of up to $250,000 for an individual or up to $500,000 for an organization, or alternatively up to twice the gain or loss, under the general federal fine law.
• Up to 3 years of supervised release after prison, because a 5-year offense is classified as a Class D felony.
• No mandatory minimum prison term. The judge may impose anything from probation up to the maximum, guided by the sentencing guideline and the facts.

One special fine bears mention because it appears in the statute's own history and can only matter here. Claims tied to a Defense Department contract, made or presented after November 8, 1985, face a maximum fine of $1,000,000 under a defense procurement penalty law. Contractors and subcontractors billing the Pentagon should know that provision exists.

Read every number above as a ceiling, not a forecast. Judges sentence individuals, not averages. The dollar amount, your role, your history, and how the guideline calculates your range all move the result. The facts of a case change everything.

There is also a time limit on bringing the charge. For non-capital federal offenses the default rule is that "no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed". Each new presentment can start its own clock, which is one reason prosecutors study billing histories going back years.

How the sentence is calculated under §2B1.1

The 2025 Guidelines Manual points every § 287 conviction to one guideline: §2B1.1, which covers theft, fraud, and deceit. The Appendix A index lists 18 U.S.C. § 287 next to §2B1.1, so there is no dispute about which guideline governs.

The starting point is low. Under §2B1.1(a), the base offense level is 7 only when the offense of conviction carries a statutory maximum of 20 years or more. A § 287 conviction carries 5. So the base offense level is 6. That starting point is specific to statutes with lower maximums and is one of the details that makes this page different from fraud pages built around 20-year statutes.

Loss drives the range. The guideline then adds levels based on loss, and the Manual states the core rule plainly: "Loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss." Intended loss counts even if the scheme could never have succeeded. The 2025 loss table adds 2 levels once loss passes $6,500 and rises step by step to 30 added levels above $550,000,000. For sentencings on or after November 1, 2026, Amendment 2 of the Sentencing Commission's 2026 amendments moves those figures to $9,000 and $750,000,000, unless Congress acts.

False claim cases have their own loss rule inside that framework, and it matters here more than anywhere else. The application notes provide:

"In a case involving government benefits (e.g., grants, loans, entitlement program payments), loss shall be considered to be not less than the value of the benefits obtained by unintended recipients or diverted to unintended uses, as the case may be."

The Manual illustrates it with food stamps: "if the defendant was the intended recipient of food stamps having a value of $100 but fraudulently received food stamps having a value of $150, loss is $50." Only the extra amount counts when you were entitled to part of what you got. That distinction, between the full payment and the false increment, is often the most important sentencing fight in a grant, loan, tax refund, or benefit case, because the charged amount and the guideline loss can be very different numbers.

Enhancements can add levels where the facts fit. Depending on what happened, the guideline can add levels for offenses involving 10 or more victims or substantial hardship to victims, for relocating a scheme or using sophisticated means, for misrepresenting authority such as acting on behalf of a government agency, and for conduct during a bankruptcy case, among others. None of these applies automatically. Each has factual predicates the government must establish, and each is worth contesting. You can explore how these pieces interact with our federal sentencing overview and the sentencing calculator, which models the §2B1.1 fraud guideline.

The closest neighbour charges, including § 286

False claim cases are often charged alongside, or confused with, nearby offenses. The differences decide what the government must prove and how much time is at stake.

Section 286: conspiracy to get a false claim paid. This is § 287's closest sibling. It punishes anyone who "enters into any agreement, combination, or conspiracy to defraud the United States, or any department or agency thereof, by obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or allowance of any false, fictitious or fraudulent claim". Two differences matter. First, § 286 targets the agreement itself, so it can reach people who planned and assisted even if the presentment is attributed to someone else. Second, it carries up to 10 years, double the § 287 maximum. Read more about how agreement cases work on our conspiracy page.

Section 1001: false statements. This punishes knowingly false statements in matters within federal jurisdiction, and it expressly requires that the falsehood be material. It does not require a demand for money or property. Lying to an investigator, checking a false box on a form, or submitting a bogus document can violate § 1001 even when no claim for payment exists. Our false statements page covers that charge in full.

The civil False Claims Act. A separate civil law lets the government, or a private whistleblower suing on its behalf, recover money for fraud on federal programs. It seeks dollars, not prison. The Justice Manual devotes a full chapter to fraud against the government and includes procedures for coordinating criminal and civil fraud cases, which means one set of billing records can draw both a criminal investigation and a civil suit at once. A civil settlement does not automatically end criminal exposure, and a criminal acquittal does not automatically end civil exposure, because the two cases use different burdens of proof.

Health care and tax variants. When the false claim is a Medicare or Medicaid bill, prosecutors may also charge health care fraud, which carries higher maximums tied to patient harm. When it is a tax return, tax fraud charges may join or replace the § 287 count. The underlying conduct overlaps, but each statute has its own elements and its own ceiling.

Defenses that arise under this statute

Every case turns on its records, but the defenses below are the ones this statute's wording actually invites.

No knowledge. The government must prove you knew the claim was false. Honest mistakes in complex billing systems, reasonable reliance on a coder, biller, or return preparer, genuine confusion about eligibility rules, and sloppy but innocent office practices all attack this element. The paper trail cuts both ways: prosecutors use repeated identical errors and ignored warnings to argue knowledge, while the defense uses training gaps, contradictory guidance, and corrected claims to argue its absence.

No presentment. If the claim never actually reached the government, the count fails, because presentment means more than intention. Drafts never filed, claims pulled before submission, and internal test entries are the raw material of this defense. The details decide: who sent what, when, and to whom.

No claim upon or against the United States. The demand must seek money or property from the federal government itself. Statements to a state agency about a purely state program, internal paperwork that requests nothing, and communications that demand no payment sit outside the statute's core, though related charges may still apply.

Falsity disputes. Sometimes the service was provided, the cost was real, or the eligibility reading was reasonable. Audits reclassify legitimate grey-area billing as fraud; the defense task is to show the claim was true, or that any inaccuracy was immaterial to payment. Expert testimony about billing rules, fee schedules, and industry practice often matters here.

Amount disputes at sentencing. Even when liability is clear, the guideline loss is frequently negotiable. Credits for value actually delivered, the government-benefits increment rule, and the difference between intended and actual loss can move the range by years. This work begins long before sentencing, because the loss number is built from the same records as the liability case.

Multiplicity and overlap. When one course of conduct produces § 287 counts plus § 286, § 1001, or health care counts, counsel examines whether the charges punish the same act twice and whether the guideline groups them fairly. These arguments are technical and circuit specific, but they can reduce both exposure and the final range.

What to do if you are under investigation

People usually learn about a false claim case in one of four ways: agents appear, a subpoena or target letter arrives, an employer starts an internal review, or payment suddenly stops with an audit notice. Whatever the first sign, the same priorities apply.

First, get counsel before you explain yourself. Investigators are allowed to use everything you say, including exculpatory explanations that lock in facts about your knowledge and role. Second, preserve every record. Deleting, editing, or backdating billing files, emails, or messages after learning of an investigation creates new criminal exposure far worse than the underlying billing dispute. Third, keep the circle small. Do not compare notes with coworkers, text about the case, or post about it. Fourth, do not try to fix old claims on your own. Amended returns and corrected bills can be the right move or a damaging one, and the choice should be made with counsel once the full picture is known.

Early work by a lawyer often includes finding out whether you are a witness, subject, or target, opening a channel with the prosecutor, reviewing the records that will define the loss amount, and preparing for charging, plea, or trial decisions while options are still open.

Frequently asked questions