Qui tam (from Latin "qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso" — "who as well for the king as for himself") is a provision in the False Claims Act allowing any private citizen with original evidence of fraud against the federal government to file a lawsuit on the government's behalf. The private filer, called a relator, typically receives between 15% and 30% of any damages the government recovers, whether or not the government chooses to intervene in the case.
In the customs enforcement context, qui tam actions allow competitors, trade associations, and employees to file FCA suits alleging that importers submitted false customs entries to evade tariffs. The Perfectus Aluminum settlement of $549.5 million in May 2026 was initiated by qui tam relators from a competing trade association and a rival company CEO, not by government investigators. In FY2025, qui tam relators filed 1,297 new FCA suits and their cases generated $5.3 billion of the $6.8 billion total FCA recovery.
The qui tam mechanism has significant limits: relators must have original information not already in the public domain; the government can decline to intervene (though the relator can still proceed); and the first-to-file rule bars duplicative suits.
Citizens don't have to wait for the government to discover and prosecute fraud. Qui tam provisions give private parties — including competitors with inside knowledge — financial incentives to bring fraud to light, effectively deputizing market participants as enforcement agents.
People often assume only government investigators can bring customs fraud cases. In practice, competing businesses frequently identify and document evasion schemes, because they operate in the same market and notice competitive anomalies.
Citizens don't have to wait for the government to discover and prosecute fraud. Qui tam provisions give private parties — including competitors with inside knowledge — financial incentives to bring fraud to light, effectively deputizing market participants as enforcement agents.
People often assume only government investigators can bring customs fraud cases. In practice, competing businesses frequently identify and document evasion schemes, because they operate in the same market and notice competitive anomalies.