Anti-Kickback Act (Procurement) Defenses

Most procurement kickback allegations are built from ordinary commercial records: expense reports, supplier correspondence, award histories, and pricing files. The same records that support the government theory also support the defense, because they show what a relationship actually looked like over time rather than at the moment the government chose to freeze it.

A defense under 41 U.S.C. § 8702 works element by element. The statute has a purpose requirement and, for criminal liability, a demanding mental state requirement. Both are proved by inference, which means both can be met with contrary inference drawn from the same documents.

On this page

Attacking Improper Purpose

The statute reaches value provided for the purpose of improperly obtaining or rewarding favorable treatment on a prime contract or a related subcontract. Value alone is not enough. Industrial purchasing is full of value moving between companies, and the question is always why it moved.

The defense evidence is usually comparative and chronological. Award share that was stable before and after the relationship formed, pricing consistent with other buys, entertainment that tracked trade show calendars rather than award dates, and hospitality extended to the whole market rather than to one decision maker all cut against improper purpose. So does evidence that the recipient had no authority over the award, or recused from it.

Ordinary commercial arrangements are the other half of the answer. Volume rebates, negotiated discounts, sales commissions to representatives, referral fees paid under written agreements, and consulting arrangements for services actually performed are lawful. What makes them defensible is documentation created before anyone was under scrutiny.

The Knowing and Willful Standard

Criminal liability under this chapter requires that the person acted knowingly and willfully. That is a higher bar than a policy violation, a reporting failure, or a lapse in record keeping, and it is frequently where a criminal case cannot be made even though a civil or administrative claim survives.

Evidence that a person followed an established internal process, obtained approval, disclosed a relationship on a conflicts form, relied on advice from company counsel or compliance staff, or behaved consistently with practice across the company all bear on the mental state. So does the absence of concealment. Arrangements that were routed through normal accounting, described accurately on invoices, and visible to people who had no reason to hide anything look different from arrangements that were not.

Where the individual is junior, the argument is often that they executed a structure set by others. Where the individual is senior, the argument is more often about the volume of decisions and the reasonableness of reliance on the people who prepared them.

Pricing, Scope, and Structural Defenses

The pricing prohibition covers including the amount of a kickback, directly or indirectly, in the price charged to a higher tier or to the United States. That element requires proof that the cost was actually passed through. Where a payment was absorbed as a selling expense, where the contract was firm fixed price set by competition, or where the pricing history shows no movement, the pass-through is contestable on the contractor’s own cost records.

Scope defenses matter too. The statute is framed around prime contracts with the United States and subcontracts relating to them. Commercial work, foreign work, and internal transactions that do not relate to a federal prime contract sit outside it, and in a diversified business the allocation is not always as the indictment describes.

Structural defenses are available as in any federal case: charging defects such as duplicity or multiplicity, a variance between the indictment and the proof, venue in the district of prosecution, and the applicable limitations period, whose length and tolling rules should be confirmed against current statutory text with counsel. Suppression can remove device extractions taken under a defective warrant, and statement suppression arises where questioning was custodial without warnings.

Reliance on advice is a related line. Where a compliance function, in-house counsel, or outside counsel reviewed an arrangement and did not object, that history is admissible on state of mind, though asserting it has privilege consequences that need to be weighed before the assertion is made.

Company and Individual Interests Diverge

In these matters the company and the employee are rarely aligned for long. A company under disclosure obligations has reasons to characterize conduct as the act of an individual; an individual has reasons to describe a structure that was approved above them. Whether one lawyer can represent both, who controls the privilege over an internal investigation, and what employees are told before they are interviewed all need to be settled early.

That sequencing is itself a defense issue. Internal investigation material can be sought by the government, and an employee who spoke to company counsel without understanding whose lawyer was in the room may have made statements that later appear in a criminal file. Warnings given at the start of an internal interview are therefore consequential for both sides, and how they were delivered is itself a subject of later dispute.

Timing compounds the problem. Companies are often asked to investigate quickly so that a disclosure can be made, while individuals need time to understand their own exposure before speaking to anyone. Reconciling those pressures is part of what counsel does in the first weeks.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are gifts and entertainment automatically kickbacks?

No. The statute requires that value was provided for the purpose of improperly obtaining or rewarding favorable treatment. Meals, trade show hospitality, plant tours, and promotional items are ordinary in industrial purchasing. Whether a particular pattern crosses the line depends on timing, value, concealment, who received it, and whether the company’s own policy was followed.

Is it a defense that the government paid a fair price?

It is relevant rather than dispositive. The prohibitions on giving and receiving do not require a pricing effect. The separate pricing prohibition does, so evidence that the cost was never passed through, or that price was set by competition, goes directly to that element and also to the valuation that drives any sentencing calculation.

Does approval by a supervisor protect an employee?

It does not create immunity, but it bears heavily on the knowing and willful element. A person who disclosed a relationship, sought approval, and followed the process is behaving inconsistently with a wrongful purpose. Where approval came from someone who was themselves involved, the picture is more complicated and needs to be reconstructed from the approval records.

What if the payment went to someone else?

The statute reaches value provided indirectly, so routing through a spouse, a consulting entity, a charity, or a future job offer does not by itself take conduct outside it. The defense in those cases usually focuses on purpose and on whether the arrangement had an independent commercial basis, supported by evidence of services actually performed at ordinary rates.

Can the company and the employee use the same lawyer?

Often they should not. Their interests diverge quickly, particularly where the company has disclosure obligations and the employee has personal exposure. Separate counsel protects both and avoids later disqualification. It also clarifies who controls the privilege over internal investigation material that the government may seek.

When should a defense begin?

As early as the first subpoena, audit referral, or agent contact. The pre-charge period is when preservation is done properly, when status as a target, subject, or witness is established, and when a presentation to the prosecutor can still affect the shape of the case. It is also when disclosure decisions with consequences on all three enforcement tracks are made.

Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys

Procurement kickback cases are argued out of the contractor’s own records, and the records that show a relationship over time are usually more informative than the ones the government selected.

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor and founded the firm in 1997. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. His background at George Mason University in accounting and information systems is applied to complex financial and technology-related cases, which is the category most federal procurement and public-integrity matters fall into. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys, who contract directly with the firm, work on federal criminal matters together.

The firm represents contractors, subcontractors, purchasing and sales personnel, and company officers in these matters, including at the pre-indictment stage. To discuss an Anti-Kickback Act matter, call (888) 437-7747 to request a consultation.

Disclaimers

This page describes defenses to a procurement kickback charge under 41 U.S.C. § 8702 in general terms for people trying to understand a federal process. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship with Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. Federal statutes and the decisions interpreting them change over time, so confirm anything stated here against the current statutory text with counsel before acting on it.

Every federal matter turns on facts that belong to that matter alone. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney responsible for this advertising: Mr. Sris. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. Call (888) 437-7747 to request a consultation; the firm’s intake line is staffed 24/7.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

These defences apply to one offence. Our page on anti kickback act procurement charges sets out that offence from start to finish.