Law Commons^™

Will The Real Mens Rea Please Stand Up: Assessing The Fifth Circuit’S Kickback Jurisprudence After United States V. Nora, John J. Locurto

St. Mary's Law Journal

Many criminal statutes require willful misconduct, yet willfulness remains an elusive concept. Its meaning and application depend as much on the outcome a court desires as the definition or legal standard a court claims to apply. Ambiguity in the required mens rea is an age-old problem with a venerable pedigree in the circuits and Supreme Court. This article considers anew the struggle to define “willfully” as that term is used in the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, one of the federal government’s key weapons against health care fraud.

When it decided United States v. Nora and reversed the …

Defining Willful Remuneration: How Bryan V. United States Affects The Scienter Requirement Of The Medicare/Medicaid Anti-Kickback Statute, Robb Degraw

Journal of Law and Health

At the forefront of the debate over the anti-kickback statute, and the topic of this Note, is the mens rea, or mental state, that is required for a violation of the law. According to the statute, an individual must "knowingly and willfully" solicit or receive, or offer to pay, remuneration in order to induce business reimbursed under any federal health care program. The interpretation of these terms by the federal courts has varied wildly, as have the underlying Supreme Court cases cited as precedent for such interpretations. However, in June of 1998, the Supreme Court defined the meaning of "willfully" …