The concept of materiality is critical in criminal fraud and false statement cases, as well as civil fraud cases, because it is what distinguishes harmless misrepresentations from consequential ones.
A misrepresentation is material only when it is capable of influencing the decision-maker, such that a lie even to an FBI Special Agent is generally not a crime unless it could be impactful. Lying to the FBI about where you spent your Thanksgiving is probably not material, but it would be material if you’re being investigated for a robbery that took place that day.
Courts and litigants have often struggled when applying this standard in close cases, in part because the standard raises a theoretical question: If the recipient of the false statement knew the truth, could that have influenced the recipient’s decision? The Third Circuit recently weighed in on this requirement in United States v. Johnson, 2021 WL 5492600, --- F.4th --- (3d Cir. Nov. 23, 2021), providing helpful guidance to courts and litigants alike.
In Johnson, the defendant filed a fabricated praecipe in the federal docket in one of the civil sexual assault lawsuits against Bill Cosby, claiming he represented the plaintiff-victim and falsely indicating that the plaintiff had failed to pay taxes on a prior settlement. When the plaintiff’s attorney saw the filing, she inquired with the district court, and the district court struck the filing from the docket. A jury later found the defendant guilty of making false...
HELENA, Mont. — Three Montana health care providers have been arrested for claiming health services that were never provided. The Department of Justice's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit revealed over ...