40 U.S.C. § 123

Civil remedies for fraud

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 40 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—In connection with the procurement, transfer or disposition of property under this subtitle, a person that uses or causes to be used, or enters into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to use or cause to be used, a fraudulent trick, scheme, or device for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain, for any person, money, property, or other benefit from the Federal Government—(1) shall pay to the Government an amount equal to the sum of—(A) $2,000 for each act;(B) two times the amount of damages sustained by the Government because of each act; and(C) the cost of suit;(2) if the Government elects, shall pay to the Government, as liquidated damages, an amount equal to two times the consideration that the Government agreed to give to the person, or that the person agreed to give to the Government; or(3) if the Government elects, shall restore to the Government the money or property fraudulently obtained, with the Government retaining as liquidated damages, the money, property, or other consideration given to the Government.(b)Additional Remedies and Criminal Penalties.—The civil remedies provided in this section are in addition to all other civil remedies and criminal penalties provided by law.(c)Immunity of Government Officials.—An officer or employee of the Government is not liable (except for an individual’s own fraud) or accountable for collection of a purchase price that is determined to be uncollectible by the federal agency responsible for property if the property is transferred or disposed of in accordance with this subtitle and with regulations prescribed under this subtitle.(d)Jurisdiction and Venue.—(1)Definition.—In this subsection, the term “district court” means a district court of the United States or a district court of a territory or possession of the United States.(2)In general.—A district court has original jurisdiction of an action arising under this section, and venue is proper, if at least one defendant resides or may be found in the court’s judicial district. Jurisdiction and venue are determined without regard to the place where acts were committed.(3)Additional defendant outside judicial district.—A defendant that does not reside and may not be found in the court’s judicial district may be brought in by order of the court, to be served personally, by publication, or in another reasonable manner directed by the court.(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1070.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
123(a)	40:489(b).	June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title II, § 209, 63 Stat. 392.
123(b)	40:489(d).
123(c)	40:489(a).
123(d)	40:489(c).

In subsection (a), before clause (1), the words “under this subtitle” are substituted for “hereunder” because “hereunder” probably means under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 which is restated in subtitle I of the revised title (except as noted in section 111 of the revised title and the accompanying revision note). The words “or engage in”, “or engaged in”, “securing or”, and “secure or” are omitted as unnecessary. The word “money” is substituted for “payment” for consistency in the section.

In subsection (a)(1)(B), the words “because of each act” are substituted for “by reason thereof” for clarity.

In subsection (a)(2), the words “or any Federal agency” and “or any Federal agency, as the case may be” are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (a)(3), the words “fraudulently obtained” are substituted for “thus secured and obtained” for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (d)(1), the word “several” is omitted as unnecessary. The words “the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia” in section 209(c) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 are omitted as included in “a district court of the United States” because of sections 88 and 132(a) of title 28.

Subsection (d)(2) is substituted for “[D]istrict courts . . . within whose jurisdictional limits the person, or persons, doing or committing such act, or any one of them, resides or shall be found, shall wheresoever such act may have been done or committed, have full power and jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine such suit” for clarity and to use terminology consistent with title 28, especially 28:1331 and 1391(b).

In subsection (d)(3), the words “A defendant that does not reside and may not be found in the court’s judicial district” are substituted for “and such person or persons as are not inhabitants of or found within the district in which suit is brought” for clarity and to use terminology consistent with title 28, especially 28:1331 and 1391(b).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2019). “§ 1370 (c) ; 40 U.S.C. § 123 (d). 2 Indeed, Congress appears to have added the disputed language in 1996 in response to the fact that the circuit courts of appeal that had explicitly decided the issue had treated the jurisdictional provisions of the MDLEA as creating a…”

United States v. Luis Munoz Miranda, 780 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “§ 1370 ; 40 U.S.C. § 123 . Congress did the same in § 70504.”

N'jai v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (D.D.C. 2021). · cites it 3× “For loans disbursed prior to July 1, 2017, a 9 N’Jai’s amended complaint suggests that Count VIII is also being brought pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 123 , but there is no reference to this statute aside from the heading for this count.”

Knox v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (D. Me. 2020). “§ 1001 and 40 U.S.C. § 123 , as bases of liability. Plaintiffs, therefore, arguably seek to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.”

Sam v. BancFirst (W.D. Okla. 2023). “13] that identifies 40 U.S.C. § 123 , 18 U.S.C. § 1001 , and 18 U.”

Baker v. Avenue5 Residential (W.D. Wash. 2025). “Fraud 15 Baker does not have a cause of action under 40 U.S.C. § 123 . Sam v. BancFirst, 2023 16 WL 4921525 , at *1 (W.”

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.