38 C.F.R. § 3.901

Fraud

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Definition. An act committed when a person knowingly makes or causes to be made or conspires, combines, aids, or assists in, agrees to, arranges for, or in any way procures the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, concerning any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (except laws relating to insurance benefits).

(b) Effect on claim. For the purposes of paragraph (d) of this section, any person who commits fraud forfeits all rights to benefits under all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs other than laws relating to insurance benefits.

(c) Forfeiture before September 2, 1959. Where forfeiture for fraud was declared before September 2, 1959, in the case of a veteran entitled to disability compensation, the compensation payable except for the forfeiture may be paid to the veteran's spouse, children and parents provided the decision to apportion was authorized prior to September 2, 1959. The total amount payable will be the lesser of these amounts:

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103)

(1) Service-connected death benefit payable.

(2) Amount of compensation payable but for the forfeiture.

No benefits are payable to any person who participated in the fraud causing the forfeiture.

(d) Forfeiture after September 1, 1959. After September 1, 1959, forfeiture by reason of fraud may be declared only

(1) Where the person was not residing or domiciled in a State as defined in § 3.1(i) at the time of commission of the fraudulent act; or

(2) Where the person ceased to be a resident of or domiciled in a State as defined in § 3.1(i) before expiration of the period during which criminal prosecution could be instituted; or

(3) The fraudulent act was committed in the Philippine Islands.

Where the veteran's rights have been forfeited, no part of his or her benefit may be paid to his or her dependents. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103)

(e) Remission of forfeitures imposed prior to September 2, 1959. Where it is determined that a forfeiture for fraud which was imposed prior to September 2, 1959, would not be imposed under the law and regulation in effect on and after September 2, 1959, the forfeiture shall be remitted effective June 30, 1972. Benefits to which a person becomes eligible by virtue of the remission, upon application therefor, shall be awarded effective as provided by § 3.114.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103) [27 FR 8590, Aug. 28, 1962, as amended at 37 FR 19134, Sept. 19, 1972; 53 FR 17934, May 19, 1988]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Keith A. Roberts v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 416 (Vet. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Keith A. Roberts v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 416 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" (emphases added)); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 (d) (2009) (limiting section 6103 to cases where (1) "the person was not residing or domiciled in a State .”

Flores v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 516 (Vet. App. 2005). “” 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 (a) (2005). This Court addressed the provisions of 38 U.”

Pedro P. Del Rosario v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 399 (Vet. App. 2009). ““Fraud” is defined by VA regulation as “[a]n act committed when a person knowingly makes or causes to be made[, among other things,] .”

People v. Yeager-Reiman (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “” ( 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 (a).) 11 Title 38 U.S.C.”

Patterson v. Sapphire Resorts (E.D.N.Y 2024). · cites it 3× “Relying on 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 , Plaintiff alleges that federal question jurisdiction exists “based on Starpoint falsely ‘trading’ on a fraudulently asserted relationship with the United States Veterans’ Administration.”

12-26 128 (Board of Vet. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 3503 (a) (1975)]; 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 (2016). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION I.”

14-31 762 (Board of Vet. App. 2018). “38 C.F.R. § 3.901 . VA has also defined “fraud” as “an intentional misrepresentation of fact, or the intentional failure to disclose pertinent facts, for the purpose of obtaining or retaining.”

Joannou v. Watkins (M.D. Ga. 2020). “§ 1001 , the Georgia False Medicaid Claims Act, 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 and “other related federal, state, and local” laws.”

Rosalia A. Flores v. R. James Nicholson (Vet. App. 2006). “" 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 (a) (2005). This Court addressed the provisions of 38 U.”

— 38 C.F.R. § 3.901(d) — 1 case

People v. Yeager-Reiman (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “” ( 38 C.F.R. § 3.901 (a).) 11 Title 38 U.S.C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.