(a) Referral of cases. The head of each agency, each Secretary concerned, or the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, as appropriate, must refer to the Attorney General the name of any individual when there is reasonable cause to believe that such individual has willfully failed to file a public report or information required on such report, or has willfully falsified any information (public or confidential) required to be reported under this part.
(b) Civil action. The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information required by filers of public reports under subpart B of this part. The court in which the action is brought may assess against the individual a civil monetary penalty in any amount, not to exceed the amounts set forth in table 1 to this paragraph (b), as provided by 5 U.S.C. 13106(a)(1), and as adjusted in accordance with the inflation adjustment procedures prescribed in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended.
Table 1 to § 2634.701(b)
| Date of violation | Penalty |
|---|
| Violation occurring between Sept. 14, 2007 and Nov. 2, 2015 | $50,000 |
| Violation occurring after Nov. 2, 2015 | 75,540 |
(c) Criminal action. An individual may also be prosecuted under criminal statutes for supplying false information on any financial disclosure report.
(d) Administrative remedies. The President, the Vice President, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, the Secretary concerned, the head of each agency, and the Office of Personnel Management may take appropriate personnel or other action in accordance with applicable law or regulation against any individual for failing to file public or confidential reports required by this part, for filing such reports late, or for falsifying or failing to report required information. This may include adverse action under 5 CFR part 752, if applicable.
[83 FR 33981, July 18, 2018, as amended at 84 FR 6054, Feb. 26, 2019; 85 FR 2280, Jan. 15, 2020; 86 FR 7636, Feb. 1, 2021; 87 FR 2524, Jan. 18, 2022; 88 FR 1140, Jan. 9, 2023; 89 FR 1440, Jan. 10, 2024; 90 FR 3611, Jan. 15, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case:
Adams v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
Adams v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 (d). The government also cites a statute of general applicability that imposes a minimum suspension of thirty days for the unauthorized use of a government vehicle.”
United States v. Gant, 268 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2003).
“…section 104(a) for EIGA filing-requirement violations occurring on or after September 29, 1999 now stands at $11,000. 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 (b).”
United States v. Manigault Newman (D.D.C. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The Executive Office of the President referred the matter to the Department of Justice, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 . Id. 424 . And on June 25, 2019, the Government ' The Government’s complaint asserts that she was terminated on December 19, 2017.”
United States v. Abbott (D.D.C. 2025).
· cites it 2× “§ 13106 (a)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 (b) (2023); see also 28 U.”
United States v. Saffarinia (D.D.C. 2020).
“4 § 104(a)(1) (outlining civil penalty for knowingly and willfully falsifying required information); 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 (b) (substantially similar); id.”
United States v. Lairy (D.D.C. 2020).
“5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 (b) (2019). The Government has submitted a declaration of the DOE employee, Yvonne Stewart, who communicated through email with Mr.”
United States v. James Abbott (D.C. Cir. 2026).
“5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 (b) (2023). The applicable maximum for Abbott, at the time the government filed suit, was $71,316.”
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Refco Grp., Ltd., 46 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Colo. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 (a) (1998). 5 Before the Order was entered, *1113 FDIC states, its Assistant Executive Secretary (Ethics) had referred the matter to its Inspector General for investigation and, immediately after the hearing, the Inspector General.”
Fairfax v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 443 F. App'x 730 (3rd Cir. 2011).
“Moreover, Fairfax does not have a private right of action under 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701 for alleged falsification of reports by the SSA or under 18 U.”
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.