Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 661
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21 (2026)

  Actions for false claims to the State; qui tam actions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[PART II.]  QUI TAM ACTIONS OR RECOVERY OF

FALSE CLAIMS TO THE STATE

 

     §661-21  Actions for false claims to the State; qui tam actions.  (a)  Notwithstanding section 661-7 to the contrary, any person who:

     (1)  Knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

     (2)  Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

     (3)  Has possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the State and, intending to defraud the State or to wilfully conceal the property, delivers, or causes to be delivered, less property than the amount for which the person receives a certificate or receipt;

     (4)  Is authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of property used, or to be used by the State and, intending to defraud the State, makes or delivers the receipt without completely knowing that the information on the receipt is true;

     (5)  Knowingly buys, or receives as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public property from any officer or employee of the State who is not lawfully authorized to sell or pledge the property;

     (6)  Knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the State, or knowingly conceals, or knowingly and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the State;

     (7)  Is a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim to the State, who subsequently discovers the falsity of the claim, and fails to disclose the false claim to the State within a reasonable time after discovery of the false claim; or

     (8)  Conspires to commit any of the conduct described in this subsection,

shall be liable to the State for a civil penalty of not less than $11,463 and not more than $22,927, plus three times the amount of damages that the State sustains due to the act of that person; provided that for 2020 and annually thereafter, the minimum and maximum penalty amounts shall be the same as the minimum and maximum civil monetary penalty amounts authorized for the federal False Claims Act, title 31 United States Code section 3729, adjusted for cost-of-living adjustments and for the same effective dates, as adopted by the United States Department of Justice by federal rule in title 28 Code of Federal Regulations part 85, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, P.L. 101-410, title 31 United States Code section 3717.

     (b)  If the court finds that a person who has violated subsection (a):

     (1)  Furnished officials of the State responsible for investigating false claims violations with all information known to the person about the violation within thirty days after the date on which the defendant first obtained the information;

     (2)  Fully cooperated with any state investigation of the violation; and

     (3)  At the time the person furnished the State with the information about the violation, no criminal prosecution, civil action, or administrative action had commenced under this title with respect to the violation, and the person did not have actual knowledge of the existence of an investigation into the violation;

the court may assess not less than two times the amount of damages that the State sustains because of the act of the person.  A person violating subsection (a) shall also be liable to the State for the costs and attorneys' fees of a civil action brought to recover the penalty or damages.

     (c)  Liability under this section shall be joint and several for any act committed by two or more persons.

     (d)  This section shall not apply to any controversy involving an amount of less than $500 in value.  For purposes of this subsection, "controversy" means the aggregate of any one or more false claims submitted by the same person in violation of this part.  Proof of specific intent to defraud is not required.

     (e)  For purposes of this section:

     "Claim" means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money or property, and whether or not the State has title to the money or property, that is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the State or is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money or property is to be spent or used on the State's behalf or to advance a state program or interest, and if the State provides or has provided any portion of the money or property that is requested or demanded or will reimburse the contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the money or property that is requested or demanded.  "Claim" shall not include requests or demands for money or property that the State has paid to an individual as compensation for employment or as an income subsidy with no restrictions on that individual's use of the money or property.

     "Knowing" and "knowingly" means that a person, with respect to information:

     (1)  Has actual knowledge of the information;

     (2)  Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or

     (3)  Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information;

and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.

     "Material" means having the tendency to influence or capability to influence the payment or receipt of money or property.

     "Obligation" means an established duty, whether or not fixed, arising from an express or implied contractual, grantor-grantee, or licensor-licensee relationship, from a fee-based or similar relationship, from statute, regulation, or administrative rule, or from the retention of any overpayment. [L 2000, c 126, pt of §1; am L 2001, c 55, §28(1); am L 2012, c 294, §6; am L 2019, c 68, §2]

 

Note

 

  The 2019 amendment applies to violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, and to assessments of civil penalties made after June 7, 2019.  L 2019, c 68, §3.

 

Case Notes

 

  Defendants' motion for summary judgment granted as to plaintiffs' claim under the federal and state False Claims Acts (claim analyzed under the federal Act); there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendant knowingly submitted false claims to medicare under the "incident to" rules.  490 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (2007).

  Where plaintiffs' qui tam action, brought under the federal and state False Claims Acts, alleged that defendants submitted false claims to medicaid, defendants' motion for summary judgment granted; among other things, defendants did not submit facially false claims.  560 F. Supp. 2d 988 (2008).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Haw. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Haw. 2007). · cites it 8× “Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 661-21 et seq. The language of Haw.”
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “Prior to the 2012 amendments, HRS § 661-21 (Supp. 2011) provided, in relevant part, as follows: (a) .”
Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd., 194 P.3d 1126 (Haw. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “2007) (authorizing civil actions by private persons for violation of HRS § 661-21 (Supp.2007) relating to false claims made to the State).”
United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., 507 F.3d 720 (1st Cir. 2007). “082 (2), the Hawaii False Claims Act, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 661-21(a), the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act, 740 Ill.”
Kng Corp. v. Kim, 110 P.3d 397 (Haw. 2005). · cites it 2× “Defendant further argues that the court failed to ascertain whether rent was actually owed and that HRS § 661-21 violates equal protection because it discriminates between renters who can afford rent trust fund deposits and those who cannot.”
United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Mass. 2006). · cites it 2× “082 (2)(a) & (b); Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 661-21(a)(1) & (2); 740 Ill.”
United States Ex Rel. Nowak v. Medtronic, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D. Mass. 2011). “1; Haw.Rev.Stat. § 661-21 (a)(l)-(2); 740 Ill.”
United States Ex Rel. Woodruff v. Hawai'i Pac. Health, 560 F. Supp. 2d 988 (D. Haw. 2008). · cites it 3× “With respect to the Hiraoka Declaration, the court does not rely on any of Hiraoka's conclusions in reaching its ultimate decisions, but rather, cites the Hiraoka Declaration only for general background on billing procedures and coding systems.”
United States Ex Rel. Schneider v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 224 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2016). “§ 23-3-121 (a)(7) Count VIII: Hawaii False Claims Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21 (a)(6) Count IX: Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act, 740 Ill.”
The Employees' Ret. Sys. of The State of Hawaii v. Clarion Partners, LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 161480 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “Jackson appeals that decision. The Clarion defendants have filed a cross-appeal claiming that the court erred by denying their request for certain costs which they contend were recoverable under Hawaii law.”
The Employees' Ret. Sys. of The State of Hawaii v. Clarion Partners, LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 161480 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 2× “OPINION ¶1 Plaintiff Stephen Jackson filed this qui tam lawsuit under Hawaii’s false claims statute ( Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21 et seq. (2014) (Hawaii False Claims Act)), against defendants Clarion Partners, LLC, and ING Clarion Realty Services, LLC.”
State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (D. Haw. 2021). · cites it 20× “That is, the “FCA attaches liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government’s wrongful 5 Counts One and Two are essentially identical to Counts Five and Six, but are based on Hawaii law, HRS §§ 661-21(a)(1) and (a)(2). See ECF No.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21(a) — 2 cases
United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer, Inc., 507 F.3d 720 (1st Cir. 2007). “082 (2), the Hawaii False Claims Act, Haw.Rev.Stat. § 661-21(a), the Illinois Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act, 740 Ill.”
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). “Prior to the 2012 amendments, HRS § 661-21 (Supp. 2011) provided, in relevant part, as follows: (a) .”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21(a)(1) — 2 cases
United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Mass. 2006). “082 (2)(a) & (b); Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 661-21(a)(1) & (2); 740 Ill.”
State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (D. Haw. 2021). “That is, the “FCA attaches liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government’s wrongful 5 Counts One and Two are essentially identical to Counts Five and Six, but are based on Hawaii law, HRS §§ 661-21(a)(1) and (a)(2). See ECF No.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21(a)(2) — 1 case
State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (D. Haw. 2021). “That is, the “FCA attaches liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government’s wrongful 5 Counts One and Two are essentially identical to Counts Five and Six, but are based on Hawaii law, HRS §§ 661-21(a)(1) and (a)(2). See ECF No.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21(a)(3) — 1 case
State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (D. Haw. 2021). “That is, the “FCA attaches liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government’s wrongful 5 Counts One and Two are essentially identical to Counts Five and Six, but are based on Hawaii law, HRS §§ 661-21(a)(1) and (a)(2). See ECF No.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21(a)(6) — 2 cases
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). “Prior to the 2012 amendments, HRS § 661-21 (Supp. 2011) provided, in relevant part, as follows: (a) .”
State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (D. Haw. 2021). “That is, the “FCA attaches liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government’s wrongful 5 Counts One and Two are essentially identical to Counts Five and Six, but are based on Hawaii law, HRS §§ 661-21(a)(1) and (a)(2). See ECF No.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21(a)(7) — 2 cases
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). “Prior to the 2012 amendments, HRS § 661-21 (Supp. 2011) provided, in relevant part, as follows: (a) .”
State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (D. Haw. 2021). “That is, the “FCA attaches liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government’s wrongful 5 Counts One and Two are essentially identical to Counts Five and Six, but are based on Hawaii law, HRS §§ 661-21(a)(1) and (a)(2). See ECF No.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-21(a)(8) — 3 cases
United States Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Hawaii Pac. Health, 490 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Haw. 2007). “Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 661-21 et seq. The language of Haw.”
State v. Ministries, 416 P.3d 918 (Haw. App. 2018). “Prior to the 2012 amendments, HRS § 661-21 (Supp. 2011) provided, in relevant part, as follows: (a) .”
State of Hawaii v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii LLC (D. Haw. 2021). “That is, the “FCA attaches liability, not to the underlying fraudulent activity or to the government’s wrongful 5 Counts One and Two are essentially identical to Counts Five and Six, but are based on Hawaii law, HRS §§ 661-21(a)(1) and (a)(2). See ECF No.”
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.