Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.612 (2026)
Civil penalty for receiving benefit by reason of fraud, making fraudulent statement, knowingly concealing material fact, or engaging in prohibited conduct; criminal action not required.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
THE MEDICAID FALSE CLAIM ACT
Act 72 of 1977
400.612 Civil penalty for receiving benefit by reason of fraud, making fraudulent statement, knowingly concealing material fact, or engaging in prohibited conduct; criminal action not required.
Sec. 12.
(1) A person who receives a benefit that the person is not entitled to receive by reason of fraud or making a fraudulent statement or knowingly concealing a material fact, or who engages in any conduct prohibited by this statute, shall forfeit and pay to the state the full amount received, and for each claim a civil penalty of not less than $5,000.00 or more than $10,000.00 plus triple the amount of damages suffered by the state as a result of the conduct by the person.
(2) A criminal action need not be brought against the person for that person to be civilly liable under this section.
History: 1977, Act 72, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1977 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 421, Imd. Eff. Jan. 6, 2009
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1983–2014 · leading case: State of Michigan Ex Rel Marcia Gurganus v. Cvs Caremark Corp, 496 Mich. 45 (Mich. 2014).
State of Michigan Ex Rel Marcia Gurganus v. Cvs Caremark Corp, 496 Mich. 45 (Mich. 2014). “[MCL 400.612(1).] The HCFA and the MFCA also define “knowingly.”
In Re Chavez Est., 339 N.W.2d 35 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “MCL 400.612; MSA 16.614(12). However, in our opinion this language is not at all inconsistent with our finding concerning the meaning of § 60.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 400.612(1) — 1 case
State of Michigan Ex Rel Marcia Gurganus v. Cvs Caremark Corp, 496 Mich. 45 (Mich. 2014). “[MCL 400.612(1).] The HCFA and the MFCA also define “knowingly.”
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.