41 U.S.C. § 8702
Prohibited conduct
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
8702 | 41:53. | Mar. 8, 1946, ch. 80, § 3, 60 Stat. 37; Pub. L. 86–695, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 99–634, § 2(a), Nov. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 3524. |
In paragraph (3), before subparagraph (A), the words “directly or indirectly” are omitted as unnecessary.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Enhanced Vets. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 565 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
Enhanced Vets. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 565 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Plaintiff miseharacterizes the lawsuit, suggesting that one of the parties sued by FCi was a “subcontractor” on a federal contract and suggesting that a potential violation of the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986, 41 U.S.C. § 8702 , was involved. Pl.’s Mot.”
United States Ex Rel. Vavra v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 848 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2017). “41 U.S.C. § 8702 . Most relevant here, a “kickback” is “any .”
In re the Search of Info. Associated with [redacted]@mac.com that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 157 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “com, and involved alleged violations of 41 U.S.C. § 8702 (kickbacks) and 18 U.S.C.”
In re the Search of Info. Associated with [redacted]@mac.com that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2014). “Background As part of an investigation of a possible violation of 41 U.S.C. § 8702 (Solicitation and Receipt of Kickbacks) and 18 U.”
In re the Search of the Info. Associated with [redacted]@mac.com that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “Background This is the government’s second attempt to obtain a search and seizure warrant for a specific Apple e-mail address as part of its investigation of a possible violation of 41 U.S.C. § 8702 (Solicitation and Receipt of Kickbacks) and 18 U.”
Haight v. RRSA (Com.) LLC (N.D. Tex. 2020). “41 U.S.C.A. § 8702 (Westlaw current through Pub.”
United States v. Mission Support All. LLC (E.D. Wash. 2020). “41 U.S.C. § 8702 . The AKA defines a “kickback” as: 11 any money, fee, commission, credit, gift, gratuity, thing of value, or compensation of any kind that is provided to a prime contractor, prime 12 contractor employee, subcontractor, or subcontractor employee to improperly…”
United States of Am. v. The Boeing Co. (W.D. Wash. 2023). “1 Aircraft and using funds received under the Air Force One Subcontracts to complete the Saudis’ 787-8 and 777ER Aircraft”; and 2 • “Defendants’ conduct constituted violations of the Anti-Kickback Statutes [sic] 3 under 41 U.S.C. § 8702 , 48 C.F.R. § 3.502-2 and 48 C.”
United States v. Gordon McDonald, 654 F. App'x 118 (3rd Cir. 2016). “41 U.S.C. § 8702 . 6 . 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (1).”
Maxwell v. Advanced Sterilization Prods. Inc. (D. Colo. 2023). “20, 2020) (“The Anti-Kickback Act, 41 U.S.C. § 8702 et seq., must be distinguished from the Anti-Kickback Statute (‘AKS’), 42 U.”
United States of Am.,ex rel Bud Conyers v. Halliburton Co. (S.D. Tex. 2021). “41 U.S.C. § 8702 . Under the AKA, the term “person” includes “a corporation, partnership, business association of any kind, trust, joint-stock company, or individual.”
United States v. Mgmt. Consulting, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2022). “41 U.S.C.§ 8702 (3). The Anti-Kickback Act includes two provisions that are significant to this case.”
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.