American University of Beirut: USAID Grant Certifications and Prohibited Workshop Participants

American University of Beirut agreed to pay $700,000 to settle claims over USAID grant certifications and prohibited workshop participants, along with a public NGO database that listed a prohibited party. The government’s civil fraud allegations covered December 2007 through March 2016. The university admitted that the workshops and database entry conflicted with its certifications.

For a grant administrator, workshop organizer or academic employee, the case reaches into familiar work: who attended the training, which organizations appeared on the university’s website, and what the institution promised its funder.

The Beirut, Lebanon university had received grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development since at least 2007. The money supported university projects and programs, making this a civilian grant fraud case about assurances attached to federal assistance.

What Is a False Certification?

A false certification misrepresents something the government relies on when it pays. In the American University of Beirut case, the government alleged that annual promises about prohibited parties conflicted with the university’s training and database activities, inducing USAID to make grants it otherwise would not have made.

Each year, American University of Beirut certified that it had not provided material support or resources to people or entities involved in terrorist acts, and would take all reasonable steps to ensure it did not knowingly do so. It also promised to check the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List maintained by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control before providing material support to an individual or organization.

That promise reached the university’s ordinary work. The certifications expressly included training, expert advice or assistance, and personnel within material support. A journalism workshop could provide the training. A public directory could connect an organization with people willing to assist it.

The university’s own admission puts its classrooms on the wrong side of its annual assurance.

Prohibited Workshop Participants in the Journalism Program

The prohibited workshop participants were representatives of al Nour Radio and al Manar TV, according to the government’s account. The Justice Department identified both organizations as having been on the prohibited-party list since March 2006, before the workshops.

The university’s Journalism Training Program held on-campus events taught by experienced journalists, academics and representatives of government organizations. These were full-day workshops, typically running over several days. In its account of the settlement admissions, the Justice Department reproduced the university’s acknowledgment:

American University of Beirut’s settlement admission, reproduced in the Justice Department announcement, March 23, 2017

The government’s description of the Citizen/Online Journalism workshop makes the support concrete. Over five days in December 2007, attendees learned about creating blogs, editing and producing photos, audio and video, podcasting, and packaging stories for different platforms. One attendee represented al Nour Radio.

The government alleged that the workshops gave the listed organizations skills they could use to communicate their messages and reach their audiences. It also alleged that the university was on notice that representatives of the organizations were attending. The list check was supposed to happen before anyone sat down in the classroom.

The support, in this part of the case, was the lesson itself.

The NGO Database Connected Students With a Prohibited Party

The university’s public NGO database was intended to connect students interested in social work with relevant nongovernmental organizations. American University of Beirut admitted that it included a prohibited party and that entity’s contact information.

The government identified the listed organization as Jihad al-Binaa, which it said had been on the prohibited-party list since February 2007.

The database offered another kind of help. According to the government, including the organization gave it a way to recruit people interested in assisting it. The university supplied a connection between an organization and prospective helpers through a website intended to encourage social work.

That puts the website’s purpose at the center of the allegation. The government treated the contact information and the invitation to connect as a means of support. For the employee who maintained the directory, the entry was part of the same institutional promise that covered the classroom.

Why the Grant Certification Mattered to the Money

The government alleged that the false certifications caused the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide grants it would otherwise have withheld. That is the connection between the workshop and database activities and the False Claims Act case: the assurances were conditions of receiving federal money.

In its Columbia University settlement announcement, the Justice Department reported admissions of inaccurate effort reports and federal grants charged for work that did not belong to them. Different university, different promise, but the same comparison with what happened inside the institution. The assurance has to survive contact with the work it describes.

What the Settlement Changed Inside AUB

The settlement announced in March 2017 required changes to the university’s grant and sanctions compliance policies. The government joined a private whistleblower’s False Claims Act lawsuit against American University of Beirut. The U.S. Agency for International Development’s Office of Inspector General investigated, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York handled the case.

The changes called for additional training of administrative and academic staff, regular external audits of compliance with U.S. law and grant terms, and periodic reviews to update internal policies and procedures.

The university also had to give U.S. funding agencies its external audit results and an account of its response when asked.

We want the assurance connected to work someone can check. A signature is a poor substitute for that connection.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

For a grant-certification concern like this one, the useful evidence connects the assurance to the activity it covered and the funding it helped secure. The AUB case makes those connections tangible: the annual certification, the workshop’s subject and participants, the database entry and the institution’s knowledge of who was receiving support.

A workshop organizer may know which organization an attendee represented. A grant administrator may know what the university certified. Someone responsible for the website may know what an entry offered and when it appeared. We work with you to build a grant fraud whistleblower case from what you know about the promise, the funding and the people who received support.

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers.

You Know Who the Program Served

If the grant assurance and the activities you saw tell different stories, speak with our whistleblower experts. We bring in grant fraud whistleblower lawyers who understand federal funding conditions and stay alongside you to build your strongest case.