[elliekelly]

It’s been a few years since I’ve done anything related to qui tam suits but IIRC the whistleblower only gets 30% when the government declines to take up the case and the whistleblower (now plaintiff) decides to continue the suit anyway. These are the “long shot” whistleblower cases where the recovery is nominal (to the government at least) or the evidence immediately available before discovery is weak. Medicare and health insurance fraud is a common area where you’ll see this happen because it’s not infrequent but the fraudulent billing of one chiropractor isn’t enough to get it to the top of the prosecutor’s pile.

When the whistleblower provides compelling evidence and/or the amount at issue is significant the government will prosecute the case and the whistleblower will receive (I think) 10% of the recovery.

The major difference between the two situations is the time, effort, and legal fees required to be covered by the whistleblower vs the government. When the government declines the case the whistleblower’s attorney does all of the work and the government just gets the check. When the government takes the case the prosecutor does all of the work and the whistleblower just gets the check.