position. In arguing that a claimant’s submission is not truly “false” if the government knows it to be untrue, the Defendants are actually arguing that when the government remits payment on a claim knowing that a certification contained therein is false, the government waives its right to pursue a cause of action under the civil FCA. We find this position untenable for a number of reasons. Initially, we note that the falsity of a claim is determined at the time of submission. If a claimant has submitted a claim (i.e., a request or demand for money or property) to the government and the claimant knows that he or she is not actually entitled to the funds or property in question, the claimant has asserted a false claim. Fortuities in th y, 82 F.3d 624, 633 n. 11 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the Defendants’ position is
holding that all claims submitted by defendant were false because they were acquired by kickback holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for making false claims against the government under either the false claims statute 18 usc  287 or the mail and wire fraud statutes 18 usc  1341 1343 holding that the defendant contractor violated 18 usc  286  a companion statute to the criminal fca  because his claims were false when submitted even though the false claims were ultimately irrelevant to the total amount paid by the government to the contractor holding that the government could not charge contractor excess cost of relet contract where government caused a delay in contract performance in which contractor was to use his own equipment original contractors costs increased and government refused to allow original contractor to perform at cost but allowed new contractor to use government equipment and paid new contractor a different rate holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act