United States: CIVIL FALSE CLAIMS ACT: Fourth Circuit Holds That A $24 Million FCA Penalty Is Not An "Excessive Fine" Even Where The Relator Fails To Prove That The United States Suffered Any Economic Harm

Sometimes, an opinion has an "Alice in Wonderland" quality to it, where a court seems to come up with a theory out of thin air. That quality certainly seems to permeate an important aspect of the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in United States ex rel. Bunk v. Gosselin World Wide Moving, N.V., No. 12-1369 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2013). Dispensing with decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence—including one case argued by Chief Justice Roberts before he took the federal bench—the Fourth Circuit ordered the trial court to impose $24 million in FCA penalties against the defendants following a trial at which the relator pointedly sought no FCA damages and no proof of economic harm to the United States was ever established. This result is squarely at odds with a number of constitutional protections, particularly the Eighth Amendment‟s Excessive Fines Clause, as well as a number of decisions applying that constitutional provision to FCA penalty awards. The Fourth Circuit‟s sole reliance on intangible and non-economic factors such as "deterrent effects" and public policy considerations to override the traditional excessive fines analysis lacks precedent and should result in en banc, and, if necessary, Supreme Court review.

Background in the Bunk Case

The penalties at issue in Bunk arose in a consolidated case that began as separate qui tam suits brought by two relators who alleged that the defendants engaged in bid-rigging schemes designed to inflate the rates charged to the Defense Department for the movement of U.S. military household goods between the United States and Europe and within Europe. The government intervened with respect to the cross-ocean moves, but did not intervene with respect to the intra-Europe moves—the so-called Direct Procurement Method or "DPM" claims—which were the focus of the Fourth Circuit‟s penalty analysis. By the time of trial in the Eastern District of Virginia, Gosselin and its executive were the only remaining defendants.1

As to the DPM claims, one of the relators—Mr. Bunk—claimed that the defendants violated the FCA by falsely certifying that their prices were independently determined. However, Mr. Bunk decided to pursue only FCA penalties, not damages. Following lengthy trial proceedings, the jury held that Gosselin was liable under the FCA for its role in the DPM scheme. Subsequently, the trial judge determined that each of the 9,136 invoices that had been submitted under the DPM contract constituted a separate "false claim" under the FCA. As a result, the court determined that, under the statute, the minimum penalty that it could impose was approximately $50 million ($5,500 per claim) and that it had no discretion to impose any lesser amount, notwithstanding the relator‟s offer—with Justice Department concurrence—to accept a remittitur in the amount of $24 million. The trial court held that penalties at the minimum statutory level were grossly disproportionate to the misconduct and the potential economic harm to the government, particularly since the government had paid a total of $3.3 million for the services in question. The trial court noted that, under an excessive fines analysis, the maximum penalty that would pass constitutional muster would have been $1.5 million and that, if the trial court had been permitted to impose penalties less than the statutory minimum, it would have imposed $500,000. In the end, the trial court did not impose any penalties for the DPM scheme. The Fourth Circuit reversed this penalty decision and remanded the case to the trial court with the instruction that judgment should be entered against Gosselin in the amount of $24 million on the DPM scheme cause of action.

The Fourth Circuit's Faulty Reasoning

The Fourth Circuit‟s penalty holding is contrary to precedents that apply the Eighth Amendment‟s excessive fines prohibition to FCA judgments. In United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 446 (1989), the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment to reverse an FCA penalty that was more than 200 times the amount of the damages to the government caused by the defendant‟s fraud, ruling in part that the FCA recovery did not "remotely approximate" the government‟s harm. At the Supreme Court‟s invitation, Chief Justice Roberts (then in private practice) argued in support of the judgment for Halper and filed an amicus brief on Halper‟s behalf. Later, in Hudson v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected its Double Jeopardy rationale in Halper, but continued to strongly support challenges to disproportionate penalties on excessive fines grounds. 522 U.S. 93, 103 (1997) ("The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses already protect individuals from sanctions which are downright irrational . . . [and t]he Eighth Amendment protects against excessive civil fines"). In applying the excessive fines standard, the Supreme Court stated that

the district courts in the first instance, and the courts of appeals, reviewing the proportionality determination de novo, must compare the amount of the forfeiture to the gravity of the defendant's offense. If the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense, it is unconstitutional.

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 336-37 (1998) (assessing the degree of harm, level of culpability, and loss to the public fisc, and determining that the degree of proportionality of the forfeiture to the harm was grossly disproportional in violation of the excessive fines standard). This principle has been applied consistently by courts facing constitutional challenges to penalty awards in FCA cases where those penalties vastly outstrip the proven damages. See JOHN T. BOESE, CIVIL FALSE CLAIMS AND QUI TAM ACTIONS §3.06[B] (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business) (4th ed. & Supp. 2013-1) (citing cases).

Given that the Fourth Circuit recognized in Bunk that "[t]he touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality" and that the "amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish," its conclusion that a $24million penalty passes constitutional muster in a case where the relator did not even pursue—let alone prove—any FCA damages is impossible to understand. The Fourth Circuit did not compare the penalty with the amount of economic harm to the government, and the court did not seem troubled by its own conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of any such harm—the touchstone of the excessive fines analysis. Bunk, slip. op. at 44 ("Thus, to analyze whether a particular award of civil penalties under the FCA is grossly‟ disproportionate such as to offend the Excessive Fines Clause, we must consider the award‟s deterrent effect on the defendant and on others perhaps contemplating a related course of fraudulent conduct."). Similarly, the Fourth Circuit did not assess—as the trial court did below—the ratio between the penalty and the government‟s payments under the contract. Rather, for its excessive fines analysis, the Fourth Circuit relied solely on non-economic factors to deem the $24 million penalty to be fully in accord with the Constitution. The result of this stunning ruling, if it stands, would be to open the door once again to a world in which FCA defendants can face statutory penalties grossly disproportionate to any economic harm caused by their conduct.

Another byproduct of this decision may be a new groundswell of qui tam cases. Whereas relators previously may have been dissuaded from pursuing actions where there is little or no evidence of actual loss to the government, they may now be incentivized to do so, particularly in those instances in which there are multiple invoices or statements that could be deemed separate "claims" for penalty purposes. Any such outcome would tend to make the FCA into an even greater bludgeon.


1 Readers should note that the authors‟ law firm represented certain parties involved in the underlying actions, but those parties were not involved in the trial or the appeal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.