Permitting False Claims | Duluth Attorney

Fighting a Permitting False Claims Against Government Accusation in St. Louis County with a Dedicated Defense Attorney

When you’re a public officer or employee in Northern Minnesota, from the bustling city of Duluth to the close-knit communities of Two Harbors or Proctor, you are entrusted with safeguarding public funds. An accusation of permitting false claims against the government, however, can instantly shatter that trust and throw your entire world into disarray. This isn’t about mere administrative errors; it’s about allegations of knowingly allowing fraud against the state, carrying profound implications for your career, your reputation, and the very foundation of your public service. The fear of public humiliation, the potential loss of your job, and the devastating impact on your family can be overwhelming, leaving you feeling isolated and vulnerable against the immense power of the state.

This is not the end of your life; it is the beginning of a fight, and you cannot afford to face the power of the state alone. An accusation of permitting false claims is a severe criminal charge that demands immediate and assertive action. The state will leverage its significant resources to prove your knowledge and intent in allowing fraudulent claims to be audited, allowed, or paid. You need a formidable advocate who understands the intricate details of government claims processes, auditing procedures, and criminal defense. Your clear path forward, forged by strength, strategy, and an unwavering commitment to your defense, begins now, with a dedicated attorney ready to stand by your side in St. Louis County.

The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs

A conviction for permitting false claims against the government is not a minor financial infraction; it is a serious felony that can shatter your future and irrevocably damage your standing in society. The fight against this accusation is essential because the consequences extend far beyond any immediate penalties, fundamentally reshaping every aspect of your existence.

Your Permanent Criminal Record

A conviction for permitting false claims against the government will brand you with a permanent criminal record, an indelible mark that will follow you for the remainder of your life. As a felony offense, this is not something that fades with time or can be easily explained away; it’s a public record accessible to future employers, licensing boards, and anyone conducting a background check. In professional circles and close-knit communities across Northern Minnesota, from Duluth to Bemidji, a conviction for allowing fraud against the government will irrevocably damage your reputation. It signals to the world that you were found guilty of betraying public trust and facilitating the misuse of taxpayer dollars, a label that carries immense social and professional stigma. This record will constantly resurface, severely limiting opportunities and making it incredibly difficult to ever truly move past the accusation, even after your sentence is served.

Loss of Second Amendment Rights

As a felony offense in Minnesota, a conviction for permitting false claims against the government carries the permanent loss of your Second Amendment rights. This means you will be legally prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying firearms, a fundamental right for many law-abiding citizens. For individuals in rural communities like Cloquet or Two Harbors, where hunting, sport shooting, or personal protection are often integral to their lifestyle, this loss can be particularly devastating. It’s not just about a pastime; it’s about a deeply ingrained sense of self-reliance and personal liberty that will be stripped away for life, regardless of how much time passes or how much you change as a person. This prohibition serves as a constant and painful reminder of the conviction’s far-reaching impact.

Barriers to Employment and Housing

The devastating impact of a conviction for permitting false claims against the government extends directly into your ability to secure gainful employment and stable housing. Few employers, particularly those in government, finance, or any position of public trust, will consider hiring someone with such a grave criminal record. The stigma associated with public corruption and fraud is immense, making it nearly impossible to find a respectable job, regardless of your skills or experience. Similarly, landlords are increasingly scrutinizing applicants, and a felony conviction of this nature will often lead to immediate disqualification from desirable housing options, potentially forcing you into precarious or undesirable living situations. This creates a relentless cycle of hardship, making it incredibly challenging to rebuild your life, support yourself, or provide for your family in any community, including those in St. Louis County.

Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation

For those who hold professional licenses—whether as an accountant, auditor, public administrator, or in any other regulated profession—a conviction for permitting false claims against the government can mean the immediate and permanent revocation of your license. Your entire career, built on years of education, training, and hard work, could be destroyed in an instant, as such professions demand the highest ethical and financial standards. Beyond professional licenses, the damage to your personal and public reputation in communities like Two Harbors or Proctor is immeasurable. Your name will forever be associated with allowing fraud against the government, leading to widespread distrust, condemnation, and social ostracization. Your standing in the community, once built on integrity and service, will likely crumble, making it difficult to maintain existing relationships, form new ones, or engage in civic activities without constant judgment and suspicion, particularly in places where integrity is paramount, such as Proctor or Bemidji.

The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case

When facing a charge as severe as permitting false claims against the government, it is absolutely critical to understand the precise legal definitions and what the state must prove. This isn’t about minor bookkeeping errors; it’s about knowing fraud and allowing it to proceed.

What Does the State Allege? Permitting False Claims Against Government Explained in Plain English

When the state alleges “Permitting False Claims Against Government,” they are accusing you, as a public officer or employee, of auditing, allowing, or paying a claim or demand made against the state (or a local government entity within the state) that you knew was false or fraudulent, either entirely or in part. This is a very serious accusation because it implies you were actively complicit in allowing public funds to be defrauded.

The core of their case will revolve around proving your knowledge of the falsehood or fraud. They aren’t saying you created the false claim, but rather that you, in your official capacity, had a duty to scrutinize claims, and you deliberately ignored or overlooked their fraudulent nature. For example, if you are an auditor and approve an invoice you know is inflated, or a manager who signs off on a reimbursement request you know is fake, or a disbursing officer who issues payment for a service you know was never rendered. The prosecution must demonstrate that you consciously possessed information indicating the claim was false or fraudulent, and despite that knowledge, you proceeded to audit, allow, or pay it. This directly targets the integrity of financial oversight within public service in places like Duluth and St. Louis County.

The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.455

Minnesota Statute 609.455, specifically addressing “Permitting False Claims Against Government,” is a cornerstone of the state’s efforts to combat fraud and maintain accountability within its financial systems. This statute targets public officers and employees who betray public trust by knowingly allowing fraudulent claims against the state or its subdivisions to be processed.

609.455 PERMITTING FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT.

A public officer or employee who audits, allows, or pays any claim or demand made upon the state or subdivision thereof or other governmental instrumentality within the state which the public officer or employee knows is false or fraudulent in whole or in part, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.

History: 1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.455; 1984 c 628 art 3 s 11; 1986 c 444

The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Permitting False Claims Against Government

To secure a conviction for Permitting False Claims Against Government under Minnesota Statute 609.455, the prosecution bears the immense burden of proving every single element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to establish even one of these elements with sufficient evidence, their entire case against you collapses. This rigorous standard of proof is your constitutional safeguard and where a skilled defense attorney focuses their efforts, meticulously dissecting the state’s allegations.

Public Officer or Employee Status: The prosecution must first prove that you were, at the time of the alleged offense, a public officer or employee. This establishes the foundational element that the alleged actions occurred within the scope of public service, making the statute applicable. This typically involves presenting evidence of your employment or elected/appointed position within the state or a subdivision thereof.
Audits, Allows, or Pays Any Claim or Demand: The state must prove that you performed one of the specified actions regarding a claim or demand. This means you either audited (examined for accuracy), allowed (approved for payment), or paid (issued funds for) a claim or demand made upon the state or a subdivision thereof (like a county or city government) or other governmental instrumentality within the state. This establishes the physical act of processing the claim.
Claim or Demand Made Upon the State or Subdivision Thereof or Other Governmental Instrumentality: The prosecution must prove that the claim or demand in question was directed at and made against a specific governmental entity within Minnesota. This element identifies the victim of the alleged fraud, which must be a governmental body covered by the statute. This distinguishes it from claims against private entities.
Which the Public Officer or Employee Knows Is False or Fraudulent in Whole or in Part: This is the most critical and often the most challenging mental state element for the prosecution to prove. They must demonstrate that you, the public officer or employee, had actual knowledge that the claim or demand was false or fraudulent, either entirely or partially. This means you consciously possessed information indicating its deceptive nature. Mere negligence, suspicion, or a failure to investigate are typically insufficient to prove this “knowing” element.

The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Permitting False Claims Against Government Conviction

A conviction for Permitting False Claims Against Government under Minnesota Statute 609.455 carries exceptionally severe penalties, reflecting the state’s strong stance against corruption that defrauds public funds. This is a felony offense with profoundly life-altering consequences.

Whoever is found guilty of permitting false claims against the government may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years. This is a significant prison sentence, meaning a substantial portion of your life could be spent stripped of your freedom. In addition to potential incarceration, a conviction also carries the possibility of a substantial fine of not more than $10,000, or both. The combination of lengthy imprisonment and a hefty financial penalty underscores the extreme seriousness of this charge. Beyond these direct statutory punishments, a felony conviction for permitting false claims against the government will irrevocably alter your life, leading to the permanent loss of certain civil rights (such as the right to vote and own firearms), immense difficulty in securing future employment or housing, and an enduring stigma that will follow you in communities like Duluth, Bemidji, and across St. Louis County for the remainder of your life. This charge isn’t just about a legal outcome; it’s about the destruction of a public service career and a lasting stain on your reputation.

The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense

An accusation of permitting false claims against the government is a direct assault on your integrity, your career, and your freedom. But an accusation is not a conviction. This is the moment to unleash a powerful, strategic defense, understanding that a criminal charge is the beginning of a fight, not the end of your life.

An Accusation is Not a Conviction: The Fight Starts Now

Let’s be absolutely clear: an accusation of Permitting False Claims Against Government is not a conviction. When the state levels a charge as profound and damaging as this, especially given your position of trust in handling public funds, the weight of their allegations can feel suffocating. It’s easy to feel as if your guilt is a foregone conclusion. But the truth is, the state bears the immense and unyielding burden of proving every single element of their case against you beyond a reasonable doubt. In the American justice system, you are presumed innocent, and it is my relentless mission to ensure that presumption is upheld with every fiber of my being. This is not a time for passive acceptance, for hoping the situation will simply fade away, or for succumbing to the pressure. When facing a charge that can destroy your reputation, career, and freedom, you must meet the state’s power with an equally formidable, proactive, and strategic counter-offensive.

Your defense must be meticulously designed to dismantle the prosecution’s case from every conceivable angle. This means rigorously testing every piece of financial evidence they claim to possess, challenging their interpretations of complex financial data and government procedures, exposing any flaws in their investigation, and asserting your constitutional rights at every turn. We will demand full discovery, meticulously review all claims, payment records, audit trails, and communications, and, if necessary, bring in independent forensic accountants or other financial investigators to uncover the full truth that the state may be overlooking, misinterpreting, or even deliberately ignoring. The state’s case crucially relies on proving your knowledge of the falsehood; a robust defense will rip apart those assumptions and present the full, complex picture, forcing them to genuinely prove their claims rather than just present them. This is your fight, and it starts now, with an unwavering commitment to challenge everything.

How a Permitting False Claims Against Government Charge Can Be Challenged in Court

A charge of Permitting False Claims Against Government, while complex and serious, is not insurmountable. The most critical element the prosecution must prove is your knowledge that the claim was false or fraudulent. Every element they must prove presents a potential point of attack for a strategic defense. Identifying and relentlessly pursuing these avenues is critical to casting doubt on the state’s claims and asserting your innocence.

Lack of Knowledge of Falsity/Fraudulence

The cornerstone of this charge is the requirement that you knew the claim was false or fraudulent. If this knowledge cannot be proven, the case falls apart.

Mere Negligence or Error: The prosecution must prove “knowledge,” not just carelessness. If the alleged oversight was due to mere negligence or error in a complex system, an overwhelming workload, or an honest mistake, it does not meet the “knowing” element. You cannot be convicted for simply failing to catch a fraudulent claim if you didn’t know it was fraudulent.
Insufficient Information to Know: You may have processed a claim based on the information available to you at the time, which did not clearly indicate its falsity. If you had insufficient information to know the claim was false or fraudulent, then the element of knowledge is missing. The state must prove what you knew, not what you should have known.
Reliance on Subordinates/Systems: In many public roles, you rely on the work of subordinates or automated systems for initial review. If you reasonably relied on subordinates/systems and they failed to identify the fraud, and you had no independent reason to know, then your personal knowledge of the falsity is absent.
Complexity of Claims/Audits: Government claims can be incredibly complex. If the alleged fraud was deeply buried within intricate documentation, a defense can argue that due to the complexity of claims/audits, it was not reasonably discoverable, and therefore you lacked the requisite knowledge of its falsity during your review.

Claim Was Not False or Fraudulent

A direct defense is to challenge the state’s assertion that the claim itself was actually false or fraudulent.

Claim Was Legitimate: Despite the state’s allegations, the claim was legitimate and accurate. The defense would present evidence (e.g., invoices, service records, expert testimony) to demonstrate the validity of the claim as originally submitted, challenging the very premise of the fraud.
Disputed Interpretation of Rules: The “falsity” of a claim may stem from a disputed interpretation of rules or regulations. If the claimant or the public officer had a reasonable, good-faith interpretation of complex rules that led to the claim, then it may not be considered “false or fraudulent” in a criminal sense.
Minor Inaccuracy, Not Fraud: The claim may have contained a minor inaccuracy, not fraud, an inconsequential error that does not rise to the level of criminal fraud or falsity. The state must prove it was false or fraudulent “in whole or in part,” implying a material misrepresentation.
Rectified Claim: If the claimant subsequently rectified claim or corrected any error in the claim before it was fully processed or paid, or before the “knowing” action by the public officer, then the claim may no longer be considered “false or fraudulent” for the purpose of the statute.

No “Auditing, Allowing, or Paying” Function

The state must prove you were directly involved in the process of auditing, allowing, or paying the specific claim.

Not Responsible for Claim: You may have had no direct responsibility for the specific claim in question, or your role was purely administrative without the authority to audit, allow, or pay it. This challenges the “not responsible for claim” element by delineating your actual duties.
Ministerial Processing, No Discretion: Your role might have been limited to ministerial processing, no discretion, simply forwarding documents without the authority to approve or deny. If you were merely a conduit, with no discretionary power over the claim’s validity, you cannot be found guilty of “permitting” it.
Claim Already Approved/Paid by Others: If the claim had already been claim already approved/paid by others at a higher level or by a different department before it reached you, and your action was merely a final, rubber-stamp step, it challenges your role in “permitting” the false claim knowingly.

Constitutional Violations

Even in complex white-collar cases involving public integrity, your constitutional rights are paramount. Any violation by law enforcement or prosecutors can lead to the suppression of critical evidence or even the dismissal of your case.

Illegal Search and Seizure: Evidence (e.g., financial documents, computer data, internal communications) obtained through an illegal search and seizure, conducted without a valid warrant or probable cause, is generally inadmissible in court. Challenging the legality of how evidence was collected can severely weaken the prosecution’s case.
Miranda Rights Violations: If you were questioned while in custody regarding alleged false claims without being properly advised of your Miranda rights (right to remain silent, right to an attorney), any statements you made could be suppressed. This is crucial if the prosecution relies heavily on your alleged admissions.
Due Process Violations: Any fundamental unfairness in the legal process, such as the deliberate destruction of exculpatory evidence, prosecutorial misconduct (e.g., withholding favorable evidence), or significant delays that prejudice your ability to defend yourself, could constitute a due process violation, potentially leading to dismissal of charges.
Vagueness of Fraudulent Conduct Definition: If the definition of “false or fraudulent” as applied to your specific case is so vague that it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, it could be challenged as a vagueness of fraudulent conduct definition violation of due process.

Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota

Applying legal defenses to real-world scenarios helps illuminate their effectiveness. These examples demonstrate how a strategic defense can be mounted against a Permitting False Claims Against Government charge in communities across Northern Minnesota.

Duluth Scenario: Negligent Oversight in a High-Volume Audit Department

A seasoned auditor in Duluth works in a department that processes thousands of government claims annually. Due to an overwhelming workload and a temporary staffing shortage, a complex invoice with a subtle, partially fraudulent detail slips through their review process without being identified. The auditor signs off on it, genuinely unaware of the fraud. The state later brings charges, alleging the auditor knew it was false.

In this scenario, the defense would focus heavily on lack of knowledge of falsity/fraudulence, specifically arguing mere negligence or error and the complexity of claims/audits. The attorney would present evidence of the auditor’s immense workload, the high volume of claims, and the subtle nature of the fraud. They would also call other auditors or supervisors to testify about the inherent challenges of detecting every nuance in such a high-pressure environment, demonstrating that the failure was an oversight, not a knowing allowance of fraud. The defense would emphasize that the auditor did not possess actual knowledge of the fraud at the time of approval.

Bemidji Scenario: Reliance on Flawed Information from Subordinates

A public agency director in Bemidji is responsible for approving payment for grants based on summaries provided by a team of subordinates. One of the subordinates, unknown to the director, fabricates some details in a grant report, making it partially fraudulent. The director reviews the summary, which appears sound, and authorizes payment based on that information. The state charges the director, claiming they permitted a false claim.

Here, the defense would center on lack of knowledge of falsity/fraudulence, specifically reliance on subordinates/systems and insufficient information to know. The attorney would present evidence of the director’s reliance on their team’s vetted reports and the lack of any red flags that would have prompted an independent, deeper investigation by the director. They would argue that the director approved the claim based on the information provided, and genuinely did not have actual knowledge that the underlying report contained fraudulent elements. The focus would be on demonstrating that the fraud originated with the subordinate, and the director was an unwitting victim of that deception.

Cloquet Scenario: Dispute Over the Legitimacy of a Complex Vendor Claim

A procurement officer in Cloquet allows payment for a technologically advanced piece of equipment purchased for a public project. A disgruntled former vendor later alleges that parts of the claim were fraudulent because the equipment did not meet every single specification perfectly, despite functioning adequately and being broadly compliant with the contract. The state charges the procurement officer, alleging they permitted a false claim.

This defense would rely on the argument that the claim was not false or fraudulent, specifically that the claim was legitimate or that there was a disputed interpretation of rules. The attorney would present the contract, the equipment specifications, and expert testimony from engineers or technical specialists to demonstrate that the equipment, while perhaps not meeting every minor detail, was substantially compliant or that any perceived “falsity” was a matter of subjective interpretation of complex technical requirements, not outright fraud. The defense would contend that the procurement officer acted in good faith, believing the claim to be legitimate based on their understanding and the equipment’s functionality, and therefore lacked knowledge of any criminal falsity.

Proctor Scenario: Ministerial Role with No Authority to Deny Payments

A low-level clerk in Proctor’s finance department is responsible for issuing checks for claims that have already been fully approved by higher authorities. One day, they are instructed to issue a check for a claim that was rubber-stamped by a corrupt supervisor, a claim that the clerk had a personal suspicion was fraudulent due to past interactions with the claimant, but had no authority to audit, question, or deny. The state later charges the clerk for “permitting” the false claim by paying it.

The defense here would focus intensely on no “auditing, allowing, or paying” function, specifically arguing a ministerial processing, no discretion role. The attorney would present the clerk’s job description and departmental hierarchy, showing they lacked the authority to audit or deny approved claims. While the clerk may have had a suspicion, the defense would argue that they lacked the official capacity and discretion to “permit” the claim in the way the statute intends. Their action was a purely ministerial function, and they had no legal power to stop a claim that had already been “allowed” by a superior, thus lacking the necessary “knowledge” in the context of their specific duty to audit, allow, or pay.

The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential

When facing an accusation of Permitting False Claims Against Government, you are not simply dealing with a financial dispute; you are confronting a criminal charge that questions your professional integrity, your loyalty, and could jeopardize your entire career in public service. This is a moment that demands immediate, assertive, and uncompromising advocacy.

Countering the Resources of the State

The state of Minnesota, through its various agencies, including law enforcement, specialized fraud investigation units, forensic accountants, and seasoned prosecutors, possesses a formidable and seemingly limitless arsenal of resources to investigate and prosecute charges like Permitting False Claims Against Government. They have vast investigative powers, access to all government records, sophisticated financial analysis capabilities, and prosecutors highly skilled in presenting complex fraud cases. Their objective is to secure a conviction, and they will deploy every tool at their disposal to achieve it. As an individual, particularly one in public service, you cannot possibly match this power alone. A dedicated defense attorney is your essential equalizer, your unyielding shield against this formidable adversary. This attorney possesses the knowledge and strategic acumen to meticulously dissect every piece of financial evidence the state presents, to identify and exploit weaknesses in their audit or investigation process, and to relentlessly challenge every assertion they make about your knowledge and intent. They will scrutinize public records, audit trails, and internal communications, engaging with forensic accountants and fraud investigators if necessary, and relentlessly push back against the state’s narrative, ensuring that your rights are vigorously protected and that the state is truly forced to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in St. Louis County.

Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts

Navigating the intricate and often intimidating legal landscape of the St. Louis County court system, particularly with a charge like Permitting False Claims Against Government which involves complex financial fraud and public accountability, requires more than just a basic understanding of criminal law. It demands a profound, intimate knowledge of the local rules, the specific procedural nuances, and the unwritten customs that can significantly influence the trajectory and outcome of your case. Each judge, each prosecutor, and even the administrative staff in Duluth, Two Harbors, or Cloquet, operates within a unique framework that only an attorney with extensive local experience truly commands. This means knowing precisely which motions to file, when to challenge the interpretation of accounting standards or the accuracy of an auditor’s report, and how to effectively present your defense in a way that resonates with local judges and juries. A dedicated defense attorney understands the intricacies of the local legal community, anticipates the prosecution’s strategies, and leverages every procedural advantage available to you, ensuring that your case is presented with the strongest possible strategic foundation within the specific context of Northern Minnesota’s judicial system.

Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Audit Report

When an accusation of Permitting False Claims Against Government is leveled against you, the initial audit reports, fraud investigation summaries, and financial discrepancies often become the dominant narrative. These documents, however, are mere snapshots, frequently incomplete and inherently biased, failing to capture the full truth of your situation or the nuances of your intentions within the complexities of governmental finance. Investigating bodies and law enforcement are focused on identifying fraud and establishing a case for criminal misconduct, not on understanding your complete efforts, the information available to you at the time, or the pressures you faced in your role. A dedicated defense attorney recognizes that your professional future and freedom hinge on your story being heard, understood, and believed, not simply dismissed as a convenient facilitator of fraud. They will tirelessly investigate every aspect of the alleged claim, interview relevant colleagues and administrative staff, uncover evidence that corroborates your version of events, and work to construct a comprehensive, compelling narrative that goes far beyond the narrow, often misleading, scope of a fraud audit or investigative report. This is about humanizing you to the court and to a potential jury, ensuring that your life, your motivations, and your character are not reduced to a few lines in a prosecutor’s file.

An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result

Facing an accusation of Permitting False Claims Against Government is a deeply stressful, professionally devastating, and isolating experience. What you need most in this moment is an unwavering commitment from your legal advocate – a commitment not just to provide a defense, but to relentlessly fight for a winning result. This means exploring every possible avenue for dismissal, pursuing an acquittal, or securing the most favorable outcome possible given the unique and often complex facts of your case. It goes far beyond simply appearing for court dates; it involves countless hours of meticulous preparation, aggressive negotiation with prosecutors who will be under intense pressure to secure a conviction in public fraud cases, and a profound willingness to take your case to trial if that is what it takes to protect your freedom and your future. An attorney dedicated to your cause understands that your world has been violently disrupted, and they will pour their expertise, their strategic acumen, and their relentless energy into ensuring that this accusation does not become the defining event of your life in Northern Minnesota, but rather a battle you bravely fought and ultimately overcame.

Your Questions Answered

What does “Permitting False Claims Against Government” mean?

It means a public officer or employee audits, allows, or pays a claim or demand made upon the state or a governmental entity within the state, knowing that the claim is false or fraudulent, either in whole or in part.

Is this a felony or a misdemeanor in Minnesota?

Under Minnesota Statute 609.455, Permitting False Claims Against Government is a felony offense. It carries significant penalties, including potential prison time and substantial fines, reflecting its seriousness as a crime against public trust and funds.

What does it mean to “know” a claim is false or fraudulent?

“Knowledge” means you had actual awareness that the claim was false or fraudulent. Mere negligence, suspicion, or a failure to investigate a claim that later turns out to be false is typically not enough to meet this criminal standard. The prosecution must prove you possessed that direct knowledge.

Can I be charged if I didn’t create the false claim, but approved it?

Yes, absolutely. This statute specifically targets public officers or employees who audit, allow, or pay a claim they know is false or fraudulent. You don’t have to be the one who originally created or submitted the false claim to be charged under this law.

What are the maximum penalties if convicted?

A conviction can lead to imprisonment for not more than five years, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. Additionally, as a felony, it carries severe collateral consequences, including loss of civil rights and significant career impacts.

Will a conviction affect my public employment and pension?

Yes, a felony conviction for permitting false claims will almost certainly lead to the termination of your public employment and can significantly impact or lead to the forfeiture of your public pension or retirement benefits. It is a fundamental breach of public trust.

What kind of “claims” are covered by this statute?

The statute refers to “any claim or demand made upon the state or subdivision thereof or other governmental instrumentality within the state.” This is broad and can include invoices, reimbursement requests, grant applications, contracts, or any financial demand for public funds.

What if I relied on information from subordinates that turned out to be false?

If you genuinely relied on information provided by subordinates and had no independent reason to know that the claim was false or fraudulent, then you would lack the required “knowledge” element for this crime. Your attorney would focus on proving your good-faith reliance.

How quickly should I contact an attorney if I’m under investigation?

You should contact an attorney immediately upon learning of an investigation or accusation related to permitting false claims. Do not speak with internal auditors, investigators, or law enforcement without legal counsel, as early intervention is critical to protect your rights.

What if the claim was only “partially” false?

The statute specifies “false or fraudulent in whole or in part.” This means even if only a portion of the claim was false or fraudulent, and you knew about that part, you could still be charged and convicted under this law.

Can civil False Claims Act lawsuits also be filed against me?

Yes, in addition to this criminal statute, civil False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuits (like the Minnesota False Claims Act) can also be filed. These civil actions can lead to substantial civil penalties, treble damages, and other financial recoveries, and they have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.

Does this apply to federal employees working in Minnesota?

No, this is a Minnesota state statute and applies to public officers and employees of the state of Minnesota or its political subdivisions (e.g., city, county, school district). Federal employees would be subject to federal false claims statutes.

What kind of evidence is typically used to prove “knowledge”?

Proving “knowledge” is often done through circumstantial evidence, such as emails, internal memos, witness testimony (e.g., from whistleblowers), audit trails that show red flags, or evidence that you deliberately avoided knowing about the fraud (reckless disregard).

Is there a statute of limitations for this offense?

Yes, as a felony, there is typically a statute of limitations for filing charges for Permitting False Claims Against Government. This usually means charges must be brought within a certain number of years (often three or more years for felonies) from the date of the alleged offense or discovery of the fraud.

Will a conviction prevent me from ever working in a financial role again?

A felony conviction for a financial crime like this will almost certainly prevent you from working in any financial role, whether in the public or private sector, that requires trust, handling of money, or adherence to financial regulations. It creates a lasting disqualification.