Table Content
Under the current Manual for Courts-Martial, conduct commonly described as “fraud against the United States” is addressed in Article 132, although some older references and informal materials occasionally mislabel it as Article 124. The substance of the offense remains the same: it criminalizes deceptive conduct by servicemembers intended to obtain money, property, or benefits from the United States through fraudulent means. This overview explains the core elements and legal standards governing fraud offenses under the UCMJ.
Fraud against the United States covers any scheme or representation intended to wrongfully obtain something of value from the federal government. The statute reaches both affirmative misrepresentations and deliberate concealment of material facts when used to secure unlawful payment or advantage. The offense also includes presenting false claims, false statements, or forged documents in connection with government funds or property.
Only persons subject to the UCMJ may be charged, including active-duty servicemembers, certain reservists, and others lawfully placed under military jurisdiction. Civilians are not charged under Article 132 but may face federal criminal liability under separate statutes. Liability attaches regardless of rank or position.
The offense requires knowing and intentional conduct. The government must prove the accused acted with the specific intent to defraud the United States or to obtain something of value through deceit. Negligent or mistaken submissions ordinarily do not satisfy the mental state requirement.
Attempt, conspiracy, solicitation, and aiding or abetting may be charged under Articles 80, 81, 82, and 77 when the underlying conduct involves fraud against the United States. These derivative offenses apply even when the fraudulent scheme is not completed. Participation at any stage of the fraudulent plan may be sufficient to establish accomplice liability.
The government must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements identify the specific conduct and mental state required to establish liability for fraud against the United States under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The mens rea requires that the accused act knowingly and with the specific intent to defraud. Knowledge means the accused was aware of the falsity of the representation, and specific intent requires a deliberate purpose to cause the United States to rely on that falsity to its detriment.
The actus reus consists of making, presenting, or using a materially false or fraudulent claim, statement, or writing. Materiality requires that the falsehood have the natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, an official action or decision.
“Claim” and “statement” include any request, demand, or representation made to the United States or its agents for money, property, approval, or other benefit. A “fraudulent” act entails deception designed to secure an unauthorized advantage. These definitional components guide courts in determining whether the government has met its burden of proof.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice depends on the date the alleged offense occurred. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023, are sentenced under the traditional maximum_punishment model, while offenses on or after that date are sentenced under the revised sentencing_category framework. The offense commonly known as “Fraud Against the United States” is codified at Article 132, UCMJ.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 sentencing system, Article 132 carried specific maximum punishments established in the Manual for Courts_Martial. These included:
The traditional model set a single maximum punishment per offense and allowed the sentencing authority to impose any lawful sentence up to that ceiling.
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 132 falls within the sentencing_category system established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 and implemented in the Manual for Courts_Martial. Fraud against the United States is placed in a category that authorizes:
Sentencing categories establish standardized confinement ranges rather than a single maximum punishment. This differs from the earlier model by placing offenses into structured bands, providing more uniformity across cases while still allowing the sentencing authority to select a sentence within the category’s prescribed limits.
Charging decisions under Article 124 typically follow identifiable fact patterns, the trajectory of preliminary inquiries, and the discretion of commanders who evaluate the impact of suspected fraud on government operations. While the statute covers a broad range of fraudulent conduct, real-world prosecutions tend to focus on recurring scenarios where financial loss, misuse of government resources, or falsified documentation become clear through established investigative channels.
Article 124 charges often arise from routine administrative or financial processes where discrepancies become noticeable. Common situations include:
Cases typically begin with a detected irregularity—finance discrepancies, supervisor_identified anomalies, or automated oversight tools flagging unusual activity. Initial fact-finding commonly occurs through command-directed inquiries or audits before referral to military law-enforcement agencies. CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS become involved when the suspected fraud exceeds administrative thresholds, involves significant financial loss, or indicates deliberate misconduct rather than clerical error. Investigators frequently gather documentary evidence, digital records, interview witnesses, and coordinate with finance or logistics offices to establish the scope and intent of the conduct.
Prosecutors often employ overlapping charges to reflect distinct aspects of the alleged conduct—for example, pairing fraud with larceny to capture both the deceptive mechanism and the resulting financial gain. Charge-stacking also occurs when each document or instance of submission constitutes a separate act. Alternative theories are sometimes included to account for varying levels of intent or to ensure all applicable statutory avenues are preserved as the case develops.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 124, Fraud Against the United States, often turn on the government’s ability to establish each element of the offense, as well as on the credibility of witnesses, the admissibility of key evidence, and the interpretation of statutory or regulatory provisions that define fraudulent conduct. Litigation frequently focuses on whether the factual and legal predicates for criminal liability have been satisfied.
Controversies commonly arise over whether the government has proven each required element beyond a reasonable doubt. Parties may dispute the existence of a false claim or representation, the materiality of the alleged misstatement, or the nexus between the accused’s conduct and government property or funds. Questions may also surface regarding whether the accused’s actions constituted a “claim” within applicable definitions, particularly where administrative or procedural submissions are involved. These disputes typically center on the sufficiency, reliability, and interpretation of the evidence rather than on arguments about how to litigate the case.
The mental state required for liability under Article 124 is often a focal point. Litigation may address whether the accused possessed the requisite knowledge that a statement was false, or whether the action was taken with an intent to deceive or defraud the United States. In some contexts, the distinction between intentional misconduct and administrative error becomes significant. Contested issues may include evidence of the accused’s understanding of procedures, the foreseeability of consequences, and whether the conduct reflects purposeful deception as opposed to negligence or misunderstanding.
Credibility assessments can significantly influence the evaluation of evidence in Article 124 cases. Investigators, administrative personnel, and other witnesses often provide testimony regarding records, procedures, or financial transactions. Discrepancies in recollection, documentation, or timelines may lead to contested factual narratives. These issues typically require the trier of fact to compare testimonial accounts with available records to determine which version of events is more consistent with the evidence.
Evidentiary disputes may arise regarding the admissibility of statements made during interviews, the scope and legality of searches, or the handling of digital or financial data. Questions may involve compliance with rights advisements, the reliability of electronic records, or chain-of-custody documentation. Documentary evidence, such as vouchers or reimbursement forms, may also prompt litigation over authenticity, completeness, or interpretive context.
Contested legal questions can stem from ambiguous statutory terms or cross-referenced definitions within financial, procurement, or administrative regulations. Parties may disagree about the scope of terms such as “fraud,” “claim,” or “property of the United States.” These disputes often require close reading of statutory language, regulatory frameworks, and historical practice to determine how broadly or narrowly the provisions should apply.
Bribery offenses that often accompany government fraud allegations
Graft charges that relate to improper financial gain
Forgery allegations that frequently arise in fraud investigations
False official statements commonly charged alongside fraudulent claims
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence imposed by a court_martial. For a conviction under UCMJ Article 124: Fraud Against the United States, these consequences can extend into various aspects of a service member’s military career, post-service opportunities, and legal status. They are typically governed by military regulations, federal law, or state authorities rather than the sentencing authority itself.
A conviction for fraud may prompt administrative separation proceedings, even if the member remains on active duty after sentencing. The characterization of discharge may be affected, with misconduct of this nature commonly considered in determining whether a general or other-than-honorable characterization is appropriate. Promotion eligibility may be suspended or terminated, and adverse findings can influence continuation on active duty or reserve status. Retirement eligibility may also be impacted through loss of favorable personnel actions or administrative review of service suitability.
A fraud-related conviction can affect eligibility to hold or maintain a security clearance due to concerns about trustworthiness, reliability, and financial responsibility. Loss or suspension of clearance may limit access to classified information and, in some cases, restrict assignment options. After separation, former service members may encounter challenges obtaining employment in fields that require clearance eligibility or public_trust positions.
Convictions under Article 124 generally do not trigger sex offender registration. However, fraud-related convictions may still require reporting to certain federal databases or financial regulatory authorities, depending on the nature of the conduct. Registration and reporting obligations are governed by federal and state law.
The same conduct underlying an Article 124 conviction may expose the individual to federal or state criminal prosecution for fraud, theft, or false claims. Civil liability, such as restitution or damages, may also arise under applicable statutes.
For non_citizens, fraud offenses may affect immigration status, admissibility, or future naturalization because some fraud-related convictions can be considered crimes involving moral turpitude under immigration law. Consequences vary based on federal immigration regulations.
During investigations under UCMJ Article 124: Fraud Against the United States, decisions made in the initial stages often shape the trajectory of the case. Actions taken before charges are preferred—such as providing statements or responding to preliminary inquiries—can influence how evidence is developed and interpreted throughout the process.
Military investigators typically begin collecting evidence immediately after an allegation surfaces. Statements from witnesses, financial records, and digital materials are often secured early. Legal involvement at this stage can help ensure that the service member’s interactions with investigators are accurately documented and that the handling of documents or electronic data is properly understood within the investigative context.
Command or law-enforcement interviews may occur before the service member is fully aware of the scope of the allegations or the specific elements of Article 124 being examined. Without guidance, a service member may provide incomplete or unclear information, consent to questioning without understanding potential implications, or inadvertently address topics investigators were not originally pursuing.
Administrative inquiries and command-directed investigations can proceed independently from criminal processes. Early determinations made by commanders—such as credibility assessments or preliminary factual findings—may later influence decisions about adverse administrative action, even if no court-martial charges follow.
Choices made early in an investigation, including statements, search consents, or responses to administrative requests, often carry forward into later proceedings. These materials may be referenced in Article 32 hearings, court-martial preparation, or administrative boards. Guidance from qualified civilian military defense lawyers can help ensure that these early actions are considered within their proper legal context.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that focuses on representing service members facing allegations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm assists clients across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces and handles a wide range of military criminal and administrative matters, including complex financial offenses such as those charged under UCMJ Article 124. Their work centers on helping service members navigate the military justice system and understand the legal processes that affect their careers and futures.
If you are facing an allegation under UCMJ Article 124 or have been contacted by investigators, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide information about your options and discuss the steps involved in your case. To learn more or to request a consultation, you may contact the firm directly for guidance tailored to your situation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 124: Fraud Against the United States cover?
A: UCMJ Article 124 addresses conduct involving knowingly submitting false claims, using falsified documents, or engaging in schemes intended to obtain money, property, or services from the United States through deceptive means. It generally applies to acts such as dishonest reimbursement requests, manipulated official records, or fraudulent representations connected to military duties. The focus is on intentional misconduct designed to secure an unauthorized benefit at the government’s expense.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 124: Fraud Against the United States?
A: Maximum punishments vary based on the nature, scope, and dollar amount of the alleged fraud, but may include confinement, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and a punitive discharge. The specific sentence is determined by a court-martial after evaluating all evidence and circumstances. More aggravating conduct, such as large financial losses or a deliberate pattern of deceptive actions, generally increases the range of potential penalties available to the court.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders may initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct or a demonstrated loss of trust, even if no court_martial conviction occurs. Administrative actions are evaluated under a lower evidentiary threshold than judicial proceedings. Depending on the findings of an investigation and service regulations, the outcome can include retention, a rehabilitative measure, or separation with a characterization of service determined by the member’s overall record and the nature of the conduct.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are entitled to military defense counsel at no cost, but may also choose to hire a civilian attorney. The decision depends on the complexity of the case, the seriousness of potential consequences, and personal preference. Civilian counsel may provide additional time or specialized experience, while military counsel offers familiarity with the service’s procedures. Evaluating your situation early helps determine whether retaining outside representation is beneficial.
Q: Can a fraud allegation be handled without a court_martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Depending on the severity of the alleged misconduct, commanders may address the matter through nonjudicial punishment, administrative reprimands, financial recoupment processes, or separation actions rather than a court_martial. These alternatives are more likely when the suspected fraud involves smaller amounts or limited impact. However, more serious or intentional schemes may be referred to a court_martial for formal adjudication after a full investigation of the underlying conduct.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate suspected fraud against the United States within the military?
A: Investigations may involve military criminal investigative organizations such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the service branch. These agencies review financial records, official documents, communications, and witness statements to determine whether fraudulent activity occurred. In cases involving significant monetary losses or broader governmental impact, federal entities such as the Defense Criminal Investigative Service may also participate to ensure a comprehensive and coordinated inquiry.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly reviewed in fraud_related investigations?
A: Evidence often includes reimbursement claims, receipts, travel records, financial statements, emails, text messages, and official forms submitted by the service member. Investigators may also interview supervisors, finance personnel, and witnesses who can clarify how the documents were prepared or used. The goal is to determine whether inaccuracies resulted from intentional deception, oversight, or administrative error, which helps guide decisions about potential charges or administrative actions.
You can review the individual Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law by clicking here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You can also explore official military law guidance from the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps at jagcnet.army.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
