of any recovery from a successful False Claims Act suit, depending upon whether the relator or the government conducts the action. See id. § 3730(d)(l)-(2). 2 . As we discuss in Part II.A.4, the statute further provides that whoever "willfully engages in the conduct constituting the offense” may be imprisoned for not more than five years. 18 U.S.C. § 216(a)(2) (emphasis added). 3 . See Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 605, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994) (“[S]ilence on this point by itself does not necessarily suggest that Congress intended to dispense with a conventional mens rea element, which would require that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal.”); Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 426, 105 S.C S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 361,
holding that ignorance or misunderstanding of the law would not toll the running of the statute of limitations holding that courts apply the procedural law of the forum and the substantive law of the jurisdiction originating the claim holding that proof of willfulness in criminal tax cases requires negating a defendants claim of ignorance of the law or a claim that because of a misunderstanding of the law he had a goodfaith belief that he was not violating the law holding that a defendants goodfaith belief that he intended to repay the loans he procured through misrepresentation was not a defense to wire fraud holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state