Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 3. Actions » Article 19.1. Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-216.1 (2026)

Citation

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article may be cited as the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.

2002, c. 842.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Ligon v. Cnty. of Goochland, 689 S.E.2d 666 (Va. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ligon v. Cnty. of Goochland, 689 S.E.2d 666 (Va. 2010). · cites it 2× “In this question of first impression involving the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (VFATA), Code §§ 8.01-216.1 through -216.19, we consider whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars a retaliatory discharge claim against a County filed under the "whistleblower…”
United States ex rel. Wood v. Allergan, Inc., 246 F. Supp. 3d 772 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). “Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-216.1 et seq. Finally, Allergan challenges Wood’s claims under the laws of twenty-one states on timeliness grounds.”
Commonwealth ex rel. FX Analytics v. Bank of New York Mellon, 84 Va. Cir. 473 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2012). · cites it 5× “Facts The Second Amended Complaint-in-Intervention alleges that BNYM violated the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“VFATA”), Va. Code § 8.01-216.1 et seq., through the manner in which it executed certain foreign exchange transactions, known as standing instruction…”
Marshall v. Commonwealth, 708 S.E.2d 253 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” The term is also similarly defined under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (Code §§ 8.01-216.1 to 8.01-216.19) at Code § 8.”
United States Ex Rel. Rost v. Pfizer Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D. Mass. 2006). “; Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Va.Code Ann. §§ 8.01-216.1 et seq. 3 . The following background facts are drawn from the Pl.”
United States ex rel. Johnson v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 791 (W.D. Va. 2012). · cites it 2× “2012), and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“VFATA”), Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-216.1 -216.19 (2007 & Supp.”
Commonwealth v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hunter Labs., LLC, 817 S.E.2d 318 (Va. 2018). · cites it 2× “The Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act ("VFATA"), Code §§ 8.01-216.1 through -216.19, which is modeled after the FCA, seeks to encourage whistleblowers to identify fraud against the government and permits the whistleblower to retain a portion of any recovery.”
United States of Am. v. NDUTIME Youth & Fam. Servs., Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00653 (E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2020). · cites it 4× “§§ 3729 through 3733, and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Virginia Code §§ 8.01-216.1 through 8.01-216.19. (Fortunaté Compl.”
Virginia ex rel. Hunter Labs LLC v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 100 F. Supp. 3d 542 (E.D. Va. 2015). · cites it 6× “1 (collectively “Quest”), defrauded the Commonwealth by submitting false Medicaid claims in violation of the VFATA, Va.Code § 8.01-216.1 et seq. (Doc. 108 at 1).”
Newberry Station Homeowners Ass'n v. Bd. of Supervisors, 285 Va. 604 (2013). · cites it 2× “2d 626 (2012), we were called upon to determine whether the University of Virginia, which like WMATA is a governmental agency in corporate form, 8 was a “person” for the purposes of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Code § 8.01-216.1 et seq. We noted that a 8 The…”
Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Joshua M. Harman v. Trinity Indus., Inc., No. 1264242 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2026). · cites it 3× “No Error in Granting Summary Judgment On appeal, Harman argues, “The trial court reversibly erred by granting summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees with respect to the Commonwealth and Relator’s claim under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, Va. Code § 8.01-216.1 et…”
Carter v. Hunt, 83 Va. Cir. 265 (Franklin Cir. Ct. 2011). · cites it 5× “2. Plaintiffs complied with their duty under Va.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.