N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 44 / Article 9
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3 (2026)

False claims; liability; penalties; exception.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. A person shall not:

       (1)     knowingly present, or cause to be presented, to an employee, officer or
agent of the state or a political subdivision or to a contractor, grantee or other recipient
of state or political subdivision funds a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

       (2)     knowingly make or use, or cause to be made or used, a false, misleading
or fraudulent record or statement to obtain or support the approval of or the payment on
a false or fraudulent claim;

      (3)    conspire to defraud the state or a political subdivision by obtaining
approval or payment on a false or fraudulent claim;

       (4)    conspire to make, use or cause to be made or used, a false, misleading or
fraudulent record or statement to conceal, avoid or decrease an obligation to pay or
transmit money or property to the state or a political subdivision;

       (5)    when in possession, custody or control of property or money used or to be
used by the state or a political subdivision, knowingly deliver or cause to be delivered
less property or money than the amount indicated on a certificate or receipt;
       (6)    when authorized to make or deliver a document certifying receipt of
property used or to be used by the state or a political subdivision, knowingly make or
deliver a receipt that falsely represents a material characteristic of the property;

      (7)    knowingly buy, or receive as a pledge of an obligation or debt, public
property from any person that may not lawfully sell or pledge the property;

       (8)    knowingly make or use, or cause to be made or used, a false, misleading
or fraudulent record or statement to conceal, avoid or decrease an obligation to pay or
transmit money or property to the state or a political subdivision; or

       (9)      as a beneficiary of an inadvertent submission of a false claim and having
subsequently discovered the falsity of the claim, fail to disclose the false claim to the
state or political subdivision within a reasonable time after discovery.

    B. Proof of specific intent to defraud is not required for a violation of Subsection A of
this section.

   C. A person who violates Subsection A of this section shall be liable for:

       (1)   three times the amount of damages sustained by the state or political
subdivision because of the violation;

       (2)   a civil penalty of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more
than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each violation;

       (3)    the costs of a civil action brought to recover damages or penalties; and

      (4)    reasonable attorney fees, including the fees of the attorney general, state
agency or political subdivision counsel.

   D. A court may assess not less than two times the amount of damages sustained by
the state or a political subdivision if the court finds all of the following:

        (1)    the person committing the violation furnished the attorney general or
political subdivision with all information known to that person about the violation within
thirty days after the date on which the person first obtained the information;

        (2)    at the time that the person furnished the attorney general or political
subdivision with information about the violation, a criminal prosecution, civil action or
administrative action had not been commenced with respect to the violation, and the
person did not have actual knowledge of the existence of an investigation into the
violation; and

        (3)    the person fully cooperated with any investigation by the attorney general
or political subdivision.
   E. This section does not apply to claims, records or statements made pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 7 NMSA 1978.

History: Laws 2007, ch. 40, § 3; 2015, ch. 128, § 2.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

The 2015 amendment, effective June 19, 2015, includes political subdivisions in the
provision relating to false claims; added "or a political subdivision" throughout the
section; and in Paragraph (4) of Subsection C, after "attorney general", deleted "or", and
after "state agency", added "or political subdivision".
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: United States v. Dental Dreams, LLC, 307 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D.N.M. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Dental Dreams, LLC, 307 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 6× “§ 27-14-4 (A), (C), (E) ; and N.M. Stat. Ann. § 44-9-3 (A)(1), (2), (3), (8), and (9).”
State ex rel. Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A.”
Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D.N.M. 2011). · cites it 4× “See Foy Docket Sheet, Notice of Filing Concerning Violations of Section 44-9-3(A)(9) After July 1, 2007, filed October 18, 2010; Order Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed on Remaining Claims, filed February 7, 2011.”
State Ex Rel. Foy v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, 2022 NMCA 026 (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “FATA allows private persons to “bring a civil action for a violation of Section 44-9-3 . . . on behalf of the person and the state or political subdivision.”
Hunt v. Cent. Consol. Sch. Dist., 951 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D.N.M. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Defendants responded that § 44-9-11 is not a stand-alone provision, but provides a cause of action only for retaliation against employees for reporting specific fraudulent actions which § 44-9-3 sets forth. See Tr. at 89:4-18 (German).”
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 025 (N.M. 2015). · cites it 5× “17 Compare § 44-9-3, with 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (2014). Like the federal Act, FATA allows 18 the Attorney General or a qui tam plaintiff, on behalf of the State, to bring a civil 19 action for violation of the Act.”
State of NM ex rel Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A.”
New Mexico Ex Rel. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n of New Mexico, Inc. v. Austin Capital Mgmt. Ltd., 671 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D.N.M. 2009). “…office, and the school fund, because the FATA allows recovery of three times the actual losses suffered by the state. NMSA 44-9-3(C).”
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Preferred Care, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (D.N.M. 2015). “§§ 44-9-3(A). Careful examination of the claims brought under this statute reveals that they do not present a federal question as contemplated by Grable and its progeny.”
State of N.M., ex rel Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2013 NMCA 43 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 10× “1523 , 1535 (2010) (noting that most states’ false-claims statutes were passed in recent years, spurred by Congress’ “financial incentive for states to pass FCAs that mirror the federal FCA”).”
State Ex Rel. Stalter v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 15× “The Elements of a FATA Cause of Action 15 {25} Relator’s complaint alleges, in relevant part, that Defendants have engaged in 16 three of the nine acts prohibited by Section 44-9-3(A) of FATA: (1) Section 44-9- 17 3(A)(1)’s prohibition on “knowingly present[ing] .”
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025). · cites it 13× “1 See § 44-9-3(A)(1). FATA is unique in that it provides for a civil action known as qui tam, where a private party, known as a relator, can enforce FATA’s terms on behalf of the State.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(A) — 5 cases
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Preferred Care, Inc., 158 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (D.N.M. 2015). “§§ 44-9-3(A). Careful examination of the claims brought under this statute reveals that they do not present a federal question as contemplated by Grable and its progeny.”
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 025 (N.M. 2015). “17 Compare § 44-9-3, with 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (2014). Like the federal Act, FATA allows 18 the Attorney General or a qui tam plaintiff, on behalf of the State, to bring a civil 19 action for violation of the Act.”
State of N.M., ex rel Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2013 NMCA 43 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). “1523 , 1535 (2010) (noting that most states’ false-claims statutes were passed in recent years, spurred by Congress’ “financial incentive for states to pass FCAs that mirror the federal FCA”).”
State Ex Rel. Stalter v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). “The Elements of a FATA Cause of Action 15 {25} Relator’s complaint alleges, in relevant part, that Defendants have engaged in 16 three of the nine acts prohibited by Section 44-9-3(A) of FATA: (1) Section 44-9- 17 3(A)(1)’s prohibition on “knowingly present[ing] .”
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 25 (N.M. 2015).
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(A)(1) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A.”
State of NM ex rel Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A.”
La Frontera Ctr., Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc. (D.N.M. 2023).
La Frontera Ctr., Inc. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc. (D.N.M. 2024).
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025).
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(A)(2) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Stalter v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). “The Elements of a FATA Cause of Action 15 {25} Relator’s complaint alleges, in relevant part, that Defendants have engaged in 16 three of the nine acts prohibited by Section 44-9-3(A) of FATA: (1) Section 44-9- 17 3(A)(1)’s prohibition on “knowingly present[ing] .”
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025).
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025). “1 See § 44-9-3(A)(1). FATA is unique in that it provides for a civil action known as qui tam, where a private party, known as a relator, can enforce FATA’s terms on behalf of the State.”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(A)(3) — 3 cases
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025).
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025). “1 See § 44-9-3(A)(1). FATA is unique in that it provides for a civil action known as qui tam, where a private party, known as a relator, can enforce FATA’s terms on behalf of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Stalter v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). “The Elements of a FATA Cause of Action 15 {25} Relator’s complaint alleges, in relevant part, that Defendants have engaged in 16 three of the nine acts prohibited by Section 44-9-3(A) of FATA: (1) Section 44-9- 17 3(A)(1)’s prohibition on “knowingly present[ing] .”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(A)(4) — 2 cases
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025).
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025). “1 See § 44-9-3(A)(1). FATA is unique in that it provides for a civil action known as qui tam, where a private party, known as a relator, can enforce FATA’s terms on behalf of the State.”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(A)(9) — 1 case
Hill v. Vanderbilt Capital Advisors, LLC, 834 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (D.N.M. 2011). “See Foy Docket Sheet, Notice of Filing Concerning Violations of Section 44-9-3(A)(9) After July 1, 2007, filed October 18, 2010; Order Permitting Plaintiffs to Proceed on Remaining Claims, filed February 7, 2011.”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(A)(l) — 1 case
State of NM ex rel Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A.”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(B) — 2 cases
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025). “1 See § 44-9-3(A)(1). FATA is unique in that it provides for a civil action known as qui tam, where a private party, known as a relator, can enforce FATA’s terms on behalf of the State.”
State Ex Rel. Stalter v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). “The Elements of a FATA Cause of Action 15 {25} Relator’s complaint alleges, in relevant part, that Defendants have engaged in 16 three of the nine acts prohibited by Section 44-9-3(A) of FATA: (1) Section 44-9- 17 3(A)(1)’s prohibition on “knowingly present[ing] .”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(C) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 36 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A.”
New Mexico Ex Rel. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n of New Mexico, Inc. v. Austin Capital Mgmt. Ltd., 671 F. Supp. 2d 1248 (D.N.M. 2009). “…office, and the school fund, because the FATA allows recovery of three times the actual losses suffered by the state. NMSA 44-9-3(C).”
State of NM ex rel Peterson v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 2014 NMCA 036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “In relevant part, Section 44-9-3 of the Act provides that: A.”
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 025 (N.M. 2015). “17 Compare § 44-9-3, with 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (2014). Like the federal Act, FATA allows 18 the Attorney General or a qui tam plaintiff, on behalf of the State, to bring a civil 19 action for violation of the Act.”
State of N.M., ex rel Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2013 NMCA 43 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). “1523 , 1535 (2010) (noting that most states’ false-claims statutes were passed in recent years, spurred by Congress’ “financial incentive for states to pass FCAs that mirror the federal FCA”).”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(C)(1) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 025 (N.M. 2015). “17 Compare § 44-9-3, with 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (2014). Like the federal Act, FATA allows 18 the Attorney General or a qui tam plaintiff, on behalf of the State, to bring a civil 19 action for violation of the Act.”
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 25 (N.M. 2015).
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025). “1 See § 44-9-3(A)(1). FATA is unique in that it provides for a civil action known as qui tam, where a private party, known as a relator, can enforce FATA’s terms on behalf of the State.”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(C)(2) — 4 cases
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 025 (N.M. 2015). “17 Compare § 44-9-3, with 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (2014). Like the federal Act, FATA allows 18 the Attorney General or a qui tam plaintiff, on behalf of the State, to bring a civil 19 action for violation of the Act.”
State ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2015 NMSC 25 (N.M. 2015).
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025).
Galloway v. N.M. Off. of the Superintendent of Ins. (N.M. 2025). “1 See § 44-9-3(A)(1). FATA is unique in that it provides for a civil action known as qui tam, where a private party, known as a relator, can enforce FATA’s terms on behalf of the State.”
— N.M. Stat. § 44-9-3(D) — 1 case
State of N.M., ex rel Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd., 2013 NMCA 43 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012). “1523 , 1535 (2010) (noting that most states’ false-claims statutes were passed in recent years, spurred by Congress’ “financial incentive for states to pass FCAs that mirror the federal FCA”).”
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.