the other hand, contends that the cases equating violations of the antikickback law with a violation of the FCA are inapplicable where, as is the case here, the Defendant did not itself submit the allegedly “tainted” claim. Contrary to Relator’s argument, a violation of the federal antikickback provision is not a per se violation of the FCA. In order for the antikickback violation to be transformed into an actionable FCA claim, the government must have conditioned payment of a claim upon the claimant’s certification of compliance with the antik-ickback provision. See Thompson, 125 F.3d at 902. That certification may be proven by evidence showing the claimant expressly agreed to abide by the law as a condition of payment. See Gublo v. Novacare, Inc., 62 F.Supp.2d 347, 355 (D.Mass.1999) (<HOLDING>). In the absence of an affirmative
holding that an fca claim arose out of defendants failure to disclose in its form 2552 cost reports the existence of prohibited transactions with related health care organizations holding that the relator stated an fca claim where the contractor filed false  reports necessarily knowing that they were false because it in fact had no mechanism in place to identify covered individuals it did so in order to procure contracts and obtain payment under existing contracts as it could do neither without filing the reports recognizing that while not all breaches of contract or regulatory violations automatically give rise to liability under the fca the false certification of compliance  creates liability when certification is a prerequisite to obtaining a government benefit holding that rule 9b applies to fca holding relator stated fca claim where defendants submitted annual cost reports that included a certification of compliance