was to provide for restitution to the government of money taken from it by fraud, and that the device of [multiple] damages plus a specific sum was chosen to make sure that the government would be made completely whole.”). And even if the government could be said to have “sustain[ed]” the damage in some loose sense if it once possessed the funds but does no longer, to whom should the treble damages be paid? According to the statute, recovery would be paid to the government and to rela-tors, but not to Iraq. Yet, Iraq presumably would still have an independent claim against the defendants for which it coúld recover damages, resulting in a quadruple damages award. Cf. United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp. (Totten I), 286 F.3d 542, 553 (D.C.Cir.2002) (Randolph, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>). The more sensible interpretation, consistent
holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that plaintiffs negligence claims sounded in tort and thus could not be transferred to the united states court of federal claims recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states recognizing similar problem if fca is applied to claims presented to any federal grantee even if claims are not represented to united states holding it is reasonable for the plan proponent to classify claims separately only if these claims are not substantially similar