Military Procurement Fraud Prosecutions
🔍 What Is Military Procurement Fraud?
Military procurement fraud occurs when contractors, suppliers, or individuals deceive the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) or other military agencies during the process of acquiring goods, services, or equipment. This can involve:
Overcharging or billing for undelivered products.
Supplying substandard or counterfeit goods.
Falsifying test results or certification documents.
Bribery or kickbacks in the contracting process.
Misrepresenting capabilities or qualifications.
Because military procurement involves billions of dollars and national security, the U.S. government aggressively prosecutes fraud in this area.
⚖️ Legal Framework
False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733: Prohibits submitting false claims to the government.
18 U.S.C. § 287 (False, fictitious or fraudulent claims).
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False statements to the government).
18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail fraud).
18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to defraud the government).
Armed Services Procurement Act and specific DoD regulations criminalize fraud.
Sentencing guidelines provide for hefty fines and imprisonment.
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2002)
Facts:
Lockheed Martin was accused of knowingly submitting inflated cost estimates and false certifications on contracts for the U.S. Air Force.
The company failed to disclose defective parts supplied by subcontractors.
Charges:
Violations of the False Claims Act.
Fraudulent billing and false statements.
Outcome:
Settled for $50 million.
Lockheed Martin implemented extensive compliance programs.
Significance:
High-profile case demonstrating FCA’s role in addressing military procurement fraud.
Encouraged government contractors to maintain accurate billing and quality control.
2. United States v. Haliburton (2009)
Facts:
Halliburton's subsidiary KBR was investigated for overbilling the U.S. Army for fuel services in Iraq.
Allegations included false invoicing and charging for services not rendered.
Charges:
False claims under the FCA.
Fraudulent billing practices.
Outcome:
Halliburton agreed to a $579 million settlement with the government.
Significance:
One of the largest military procurement fraud settlements.
Spotlight on war-zone contracting and contractor accountability.
3. United States v. BAE Systems (2010)
Facts:
BAE Systems was charged with falsifying test data related to armored vehicles supplied to the Army.
The company knowingly provided faulty armor plating that did not meet military specifications.
Charges:
False statements and fraud.
Violations of procurement regulations.
Outcome:
BAE Systems paid $28 million in fines and damages.
Significance:
Highlights dangers of substandard equipment in military procurement.
Emphasizes legal consequences for compromising soldier safety.
4. United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root (2014)
Facts:
Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) employees conspired to rig bids and inflate costs for construction contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Created fake invoices and falsified hours worked.
Charges:
Conspiracy to defraud the government.
False claims and wire fraud.
Outcome:
Several executives pleaded guilty; company paid millions in restitution.
Significance:
Shows individual and corporate accountability.
Demonstrates complexity of fraud schemes in military contracting.
5. United States v. DynCorp International (2017)
Facts:
DynCorp International was found to have submitted false reports regarding the performance and cost of security services provided to the military.
Misrepresented employee qualifications and hours worked.
Charges:
False claims.
Making false statements to the government.
Outcome:
Paid $15 million to settle claims.
Significance:
Reinforces scrutiny of private military contractors.
Focus on truthful reporting and accurate documentation.
6. United States ex rel. Wilkins v. Northrop Grumman (2012)
Facts:
Whistleblower suit under the False Claims Act.
Northrop Grumman allegedly sold defective electronic components for military aircraft.
Whistleblower exposed falsification of inspection records.
Charges:
False claims.
Fraudulent certification.
Outcome:
Settled for $23 million.
Significance:
Illustrates importance of whistleblowers in uncovering military procurement fraud.
Encourages internal compliance reforms.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Charges | Outcome | Legal Importance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Lockheed Martin (2002) | Federal | False Claims Act, false statements | $50M settlement | FCA enforcement in military contracting |
| U.S. v. Halliburton (2009) | Federal | False claims, fraudulent billing | $579M settlement | War-zone contract fraud spotlight |
| U.S. v. BAE Systems (2010) | Federal | False statements, fraud | $28M fines | Substandard armor and soldier safety |
| U.S. v. Kellogg Brown & Root (2014) | Federal | Conspiracy, false claims, wire fraud | Guilty pleas, restitution | Bid-rigging and fake invoices |
| U.S. v. DynCorp International (2017) | Federal | False claims, false statements | $15M settlement | Contractor performance fraud |
| U.S. ex rel. Wilkins v. Northrop Grumman (2012) | Federal | False claims, fraudulent certification | $23M settlement | Whistleblower role in fraud detection |
Additional Notes:
Military procurement fraud cases often involve complex schemes using forged documents, fake invoices, and misrepresentations.
The False Claims Act’s “qui tam” provisions empower whistleblowers to file suits and share in recoveries.
Investigations involve multiple agencies such as DoD OIG (Office of Inspector General), FBI, and DOJ.
Penalties can include prison sentences, corporate fines, debarment from government contracting, and civil damages.
Cases reinforce the government’s commitment to protecting taxpayer money and ensuring military readiness.
Conclusion
Military procurement fraud undermines national security and wastes taxpayer dollars. U.S. federal law aggressively prosecutes individuals and companies involved in such fraud. The cases above illustrate a range of fraudulent behaviors and the severe legal consequences, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in defense contracting.
RELATED Blog
0 comments