In the Matter of the Complaint Against     )
                                                                 )
MARLENE PAOLETTI                                )
582 Braund Street #5                               )
                                                                 )
               at                                               )
                                                                 )
Onalaska, WI 54605                                 )  P.S. Docket No. PF-56

APPEARANCE FOR POSTAL SERVICE:   Nan K. McKenzie, Esq.
                                                                 Enforcement Division
                                                                 United States Postal Service

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:          Michael J. Devanie, Esq.
                                                                 115 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 301
                                                                  P.O. Box 2255
                                                                  La Crosse, WI 54602-2255

This proceeding arises out of a Complaint issued by the Reviewing Official of the United States Postal Service under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-509, 31 U.S.C. §§3801-3812, and 39 C.F.R. Parts 273 and 962. Subsequently, the Postal Service, without objection by Respondent, amended the Complaint on November 2, 1993 (Tr. 7-8).⁽¹⁾ In the Amended Complaint, the Postal Service alleges that Marlene Paoletti ("Respondent") violated 31 U.S.C. §3802 by submitting three false claims within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. §3801(a)(3)(C) and that she is liable for an assessment of $824.74 (twice the amount of the permanent loss claimed by the Postal Service), plus civil penalties of $6,000 ($2,000 for each claim), for a total liability of $ 6,824.74.

On June 28, 1993, Respondent timely filed a Hearing Petition denying all of the allegations of liability in the Complaint and requesting a hearing before an administrative law judge. A hearing was held by the undersigned on November 5,1993, in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Both parties were represented by counsel, who introduced documentary evidence, presented oral argument, and examined and cross-examined witnesses. The Postal Service called as witnesses Postal Inspector Jean Rosandich, Patricia Berge, Judith Azmitia, and James Regent. Respondent testified on her own behalf and called Gene Tyler and Judith Jensen as witnesses.

Both parties timely filed Proposed Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law and Respondent also filed an "Argument On The Evidence". Subsequently, both parties filed a response to each other's submissions. Based on the entire record herein, including the testimony adduced at the hearing, observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, and the documentary evidence admitted as exhibits during the hearing, the following is found and concluded:

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Background

1. Respondent is an individual who resides at 582 Braund Street #5, Onalaska, Wisconsin ( Ad. No.1).

2. Respondent was employed as a clerk at the West Salem, Wisconsin Post Office until 1987 ( Ad. No.2). As a clerk at the West Salem Post Office, Respondent's duties included issuing money orders to customers ( Ad. No.4).

B. Postal Money Orders

3. Postal money orders are negotiable instruments that the Postal Service sells to customers in exchange for cash (Tr.14).

4. A postal money order form has three parts. One is the actual money order, the negotiable instrument. The second is a voucher, which is the Postal Service's receipt for the transaction, and the third is the customer's receipt. Between each part is a carbon, so that information imprinted or written on the top will be copied below. (CX-C, Tr. 24, 27.)

5. On a blank money order form (one that has not yet been sold), the top line farthest to the left has the money order's 10-digit serial number and space for three more sets of numbers (CX-C). Reading from the left on the top line of the money order, the first 10 digits are the serial number of the money order. The 11th digit is for control purposes only and is called a check digit. (Tr. 20-21.)

6. The postmaster or supervisor issues sequentially numbered money order forms to window clerks, in blocks of 100 (Tr. 29, Ad. No. 5).

7. When a postal customer purchases a money order, the clerk is required to take the next ascending sequential money order form from his or her block of 100. The clerk then uses a money order imprinting machine to imprint on the top line a six digit number showing the date the money order was issued, a six digit number identifying the post office issuing the money order, and the amount of the money order. (Tr. 22-23, 26, RX-5 §542.22, Ad. No. 9C.

8. The clerk then removes the voucher from the money order and gives the money order and customer receipt to the customer. The voucher is retained by the clerk until the end of the day, when he or she accounts for all daily financial transactions to a supervisor or postmaster. (Tr. 27.)

C. Postal Service Accounting Procedures Regarding

Sales of Money Orders; Postal Service Forms 1412

9. The clerk is required to account for the sale of a money order on the day it is sold (Tr. 35; Ad. No. 9E, 9F). Accounting procedures for sales of money orders are as follows:

10. At the end of the day, the clerk, using the vouchers as the record of money order receipts, prepares an adding machine tape of money order sales. Postal Service procedures require that the tapes show the amounts and appropriate fees in serial number sequence, the first and last serial numbers of the money orders issued, the clerk's signature, and the date of the tape. (RX-5 §543.1, Tr. 27, 38, 40.)

11. The clerk accounts for the sale of money orders and all other financial transactions handled for the day on a Daily Financial Report, Postal Service Form 1412 (Tr.35). The clerk places the total value of the money orders sold as computed on the adding machine tape on the Form 1412 in block no.100. ( RX-5 §543.12, Tr. 36).

12. The clerk then submits the Form 1412 with the adding machine tape and the vouchers for all money orders sold that day to the supervisor or the postmaster (RX-5 § 543.13, Tr. 43, Ad. No. 9F).

13. The Form 1412 is completed in duplicate. One copy of the Form 1412 is retained by the post office and the other is kept by the clerk for his or her own records (Tr. 43).

14. Every Monday, each post office submits the vouchers from the previous week's sale of money orders to the Management Sectional Center ("MSC") (RX-5 §545.21, Tr. 43, 44-45). The MSC then forwards the vouchers to the St. Louis Postal Data Center ("PDC") which enters information from the vouchers into a computer that will be used to reconcile accounts once the money order is presented for payment. ( RX-5 §545.21, Tr. 43, 44-45.)

D. Payment and Clearance Procedures

15. A postal customer who purchases a money order makes it payable to a third party (payee). The payee negotiates the money order by, for example, depositing it in his account at a bank or cashing it at a post office. (Tr. 14, 47.) Subsequently, the money order is presented for payment at the Postal Service's bank, which is the Federal Reserve Bank ("FRB") in St. Louis, Missouri (Tr. 47).

16. Once the FRB receives the money order, it subtracts the amount of the money order from the Postal Service's account, also known as "clearing the account" (Tr.47). The FRB also stamps the back of the money order with the date it cleared (Tr. 48).

17. The FRB then sends the money order and statement to the PDC which attempts to reconcile the FRB date with the issue date on the money order (Tr. 50).

18. The date the money order was accounted for on a Form 1412 should always precede the date it was presented for payment at the FRB (Tr. 53). If the money order cleared the FRB before the date it was accounted for on a Form 1412, the money order must have been sold prior to the date of the Form 1412 (Tr. 48-49).

E. Facts Relating to This Case

19. During the period of time relevant here--from June 20, 1987 to July 9, 1987--the postmaster at West Salem, Wisconsin, Judith Azmitia, was on leave from the post office. From June 20 to July 6 she was out of the La Crosse area visiting family members in Superior, Wisconsin and from July 6-9, she was attending a postmasters' convention in La Crosse. (Tr. 355-358.) During the entire period Judith Azmitia was on leave, Respondent was the acting postmaster at the West Salem Post Office (Tr. 315).

20. In July 1987, the PDC discovered that a large number of money orders issued at the West Salem Post Office had cleared the FRB prior to the issue dates indicated on the Forms 1412. The Postal Service also found that all such money orders bore numbers that had been assigned to Respondent. (Tr. (Tr.409-416.) Among the blank money orders assigned to Respondent were those numbered 3749361900 to 3749361999 (Tr. 32, CX-1).

Respondent's Form 1412 for June 30, 1987

a. false reporting to conceal use of Postal Service funds

21. Money order no. 3749361949 was among the money order forms assigned to Respondent for issue (sale) to customers (CX-1, Tr. 30-32). On June 12, 1987, Respondent issued money order no. 3749361949 out of sequence, in the amount of $64.03. Respondent failed to account for the proceeds of the sale on that date, although she was required by the Postal Service to do so. (CX-2, p.10; CX-10.)

22. Money order no. 3749361949 cleared the FRB on June 22, 1987 (CX-2, p.10, CX-10, Tr.112).

23. Respondent finally accounted for the proceeds from the sale of money order no. 3749361949 when she submitted her Form 1412 on June 30, 1987. Respondent listed it in numerical sequence among the money orders she had issued that date(CX-5 & 5(a)).⁽²⁾

24. Respondent's Form 1412 for June 30, 1987 is materially false because it indicates that she sold money order no. 3749361949 on that date when, in fact, she had sold it on June 12, 1987. By means of this false statement on her Form 1412 for June 30, 1987, Respondent delayed her accountability for the proceeds of the money order from June 12 to June 30, 1987, during which time Respondent had private use of the funds.

b. false reporting to conceal wrongful taking of Postal Service funds

25. Money order no. 3749361974 was among the money order forms assigned to Respondent for issue to customers (CX-1, Tr. 30-32). This money order bears an issue date of June 22, 1987 (CX-9). The sale of money order no. 3749361974 was not accounted for on Respondent's Form 1412 for June 22, 1987 (CX-24 & 24(a)).

26. As far as Postal Service records show, Respondent never accounted for the sale of money order no. 3749361974 or submitted $412.37 in cash received for the money order (CX-3, p. 29; Tr. 85).

27. The evidence shows that no one having the name of the alleged purchaser of money order no. 3749361974--Mary Ellen Hansen, Route 1, La Crosse, Wisconsin--could be located by the Postal Service (Tr. 85, CX-25). The evidence further shows that no voucher for money order no. 3749361974 had been processed by the Postal Service more than a year after it allegedly had been sold (CX-3, p. 29).

28. On her Form 1412 for June 30, 1987, Respondent reported cash receipts totalling $998.77 in cash in the lower right column of the form, box 752 (CX-5, Tr. 65-67). Respondent prepared a bank deposit slip as supporting documentation for the amount of cash shown on the Form 1412. Respondent's deposit slip shows $195 in currency, money order no. 3749361974 in the amount of $412.37, and seven checks totalling $391.40 (CX-8, Ad. No.16).

29. By including money order no. 3749361974 with her deposits on June 30, 1987, Respondent represented that she had previously received currency in the amount of $412.37 in exchange for this money order (Tr. 76). The deposit slip is false because Respondent never received $412.37 from a Postal Service customer in payment for the money order. (CX-8,Tr. 77).

30. By including money order no. 3749361974 as part of her cash deposit, Respondent was able to permanently retain $412.37 of Postal Service funds for her own use. Respondent's Form 1412 for June 30, 1987 and its supporting documentation are materially false. As a result of this falsity, the Postal Service suffered a loss of $412.37

Respondent's Form 1412 for July 3, 1987

31. Money order no. 3749361955 was among the money order forms assigned to Respondent for issue to customers (CX-1, Tr. 30-32). On June 12, 1987, Respondent issued money order no. 3749361955 out of sequence, in the amount of $400. Respondent failed to account for the proceeds of the sale on her Form 1412 for that date, although she was required by the Postal Service to do so. (CX-12; CX-2, p.10.)

32. Money order no. 3749361955 cleared the FRB on June 22,1987 (CX-12; CX-2, p.10; Tr.114).

33. Respondent finally accounted for the proceeds from the sale of money order no. 3749361955 when she submitted her Form 1412 for July 3,

1987. Respondent listed it in numerical sequence among the money orders she had issued that date. (CX-11& 11(a)).

34. Respondent's Form 1412 for July 3, 1987 is materially false because it indicated that she issued money order No. 3749361955 on that date when, in fact, she had issued it on June 12, 1987. By means of this false statement on her Form 1412 for July 3, 1987 Respondent delayed her accountability for the proceeds of the money order from June 12 to July 3, 1987, during which time Respondent had private use of the funds.

Respondent's Form 1412 for July 7, 1987

35. Money order nos. 3749361960, 3749361961, and 3749361973 were among the money order forms assigned to Respondent for issue to customers (CX-1, Tr. 30-32). All three money orders were issued out of sequence on dates shown below:

36. Money order nos. 3749361960 and 3749361961 were issued on May 28, 1987, in the amount of $7.00 and $23.88, respectively (CX-14, CX-15). Money order no. 3749361973 was issued on June 12, 1987 in the amount of $144.00 (CX-16).

37. Money order nos. 3749361960 and 3749361961 cleared the FRB on June 9, 1987 (CX-14; CX-15; CX-2, p.10). Money order no. 3749361973 cleared the FRB on June 22, 1987 (CX-16; CX-2, p.10).

38. Respondent finally accounted for the proceeds of the sale of all three money orders when she submitted her Form 1412 for July 7, 1987. Respondent listed the three money orders in numerical sequence among the money orders she had issued that date. (CX-13 & 13(a).)

39. Respondent's Form 1412 for July 7, 1987 is materially false because it indicated that she issued money order nos. 3749361960, 3749361961, and 3749361973 on that date when, in fact, she had issued them on earlier dates. By means of this false information on her Form 1412 for July 7, 1987 Respondent delayed her accountability for the proceeds of the three money orders from May 28 and June 12, 1987 to July 7, 1987, during which time Respondent had private use of the funds.

F. Respondent's Contentions

40. Respondent contends in her Argument on the Evidence ( "Arg." 1-7), that the Forms 1412 at issue here do not constitute a "claim" under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act ("PFCR") because they were not used to solicit payment or benefits from the government, but are merely accounting forms. Contrary to Respondent's contention, each of the Forms 1412 at issue here constitutes a "claim" as defined in the PFCR. The term "claim" is defined in the PFCR to include "any request, demand, or submission--made to an authority which has the effect of decreasing an obligation to pay or account for property, services, or money". 31 U.S.C.§3801(3)(C). Here, Respondent submitted three Forms 1412 which indicated, in pertinent part, that she had sold money orders on the date the form was submitted when, in fact, the sale had occurred days or weeks earlier. As a result of the false information on her Forms 1412, Respondent decreased her accountability for Postal Service funds by delaying her obligation to remit the proceeds of the sale of these money orders. During the period after the sale and prior to her actual reporting of the transaction and submission of the proceeds, Respondent had personal use of the cash from the sale of the money orders. ⁽³⁾

41. Respondent also contends (Arg. 3-6) that the Postal Service failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the Forms 1412 and that therefore they were inadmissible as evidence because they were not properly authenticated. The Forms 1412 that are the subject of the Complaint are exhibits CX-5, CX-11, and CX-13. Respondent stipulated to the admissibility of CX-11 (Tr. 35, 41-42), which narrows the admissibility issue to CX-5 and CX-13.⁽⁴⁾

Although a chain of custody must be established with respect to evidence that has no distinguishing characteristics, such as narcotics, it is not a universal requirement to establish authenticity. See, e.g., U.S. v. Hernandez-Herrera, 952 F. 2d 342 (10th Cir. 1991). Here, CX-5 shows the signature "M. Paoletti" as does the supporting adding machine tape (CX-5(a)). CX-13 has the name "Marlene" printed on it and the accompanying adding machine tape bears the initials "M.P.". Record evidence shows that Respondent was the only clerk working at the West Salem Post Office during the relevant period here with the name Marlene and the initials "M.P.". ⁽⁵⁾ Moreover, the Forms 1412 at issue here were authenticated as business records under Rule 901(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, by Postmaster Judith Azmitia. Ms. Azmitia testified that CX-5 and CX-13 were required by law to be recorded, that the Postal Service relies on these documents, that they were prepared close in time to the dates of the transactions reported, and that they were kept in her custody at the West Salem Post Office (Tr. 214-217). Ms. Azmitia's testimony was supplemented by that of Inspector Jean Rosendich, who testified that she had retrieved CX-5 and CX-13 from the files of the Postal Inspection Service which had previously obtained them from the West Salem Post Office (Tr. 56-61, 106-108). Accordingly, I find that the Forms 1412 were sufficiently authenticated under Rule 901(b)(7) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

42. Respondent further contends (Arg. 7-16) that the Inspection Service failed to properly investigate Postmaster Judith Azmitia as a possible suspect in the money order irregularities and that the postmaster had both motive and opportunity to create the Forms 1412 imputed to Respondent. Respondent's claim that the Postal Inspection Service's investigation unfairly focused on her rather than Postmaster Azmitia is totally without merit. The evidence shows that the Postal Service began an investigation of money order irregularities at the West Salem Post Office because a number of money orders were found to have cleared the FRB before the dates of issue shown on the money orders themselves and on the corresponding Forms 1412 (Tr. 173-175, 409-416). All of the money orders found to have cleared before their issue dates had been assigned to Respondent (Tr. 409-416).

Respondent's argument that Ms. Azmitia engaged in a systematic plan to misuse funds from the sale of money orders and make it appear that Respondent was guilty, does not withstand scrutiny. As counsel for the Postal Service cogently argued in "Complainant's Response To Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Facts and Conclusions Of Law", pp. 5-9, Ms. Azmitia would have had to regularly steal money orders out of Respondent's drawer with numbers substantially higher than the ones Respondent was issuing at the time, without Respondent realizing that money orders were missing. Ms. Azmitia would then have had to surreptitiously sell the stolen money orders to postal customers and keep the vouchers and the proceeds. At the exact time that the numbers on the stolen money orders were due to come up in sequence on Respondent's Form 1412, Ms. Azmitia would have had to forge a Form 1412, redo and change the adding machine tape, and submit the vouchers and the proceeds. Since Respondent would have also submitted a Form 1412 herself, it would have to be assumed that Respondent would not notice that certain money orders which should have followed in numerical sequence from the money orders she was reporting as sold, were missing altogether. Under the circumstances, Respondent's claim that Judith Azmitia misused the money orders at issue here and forged Forms 1412 in Respondent's name to cover her guilt is simply not credible.

43. Finally, Respondent asserts (Arg. 16-20) that no weight should be accorded to the testimony of James Regent, the handwriting expert called by the Postal Service, who testified that the signatures "M. Paoletti" on CX-5 and 5(a) and the printed name "Marlene" on CX-13 were written by Respondent. Specifically, Respondent contends that the expert witness' identification was not proper because the exemplars of Respondent's handwriting which he used for comparison to the questioned documents were never offered into evidence. Respondent cites no decisional support for this contention and I have found none. Moreover, counsel for the Postal Service produced the exemplars of Respondent's handwriting at the hearing and gave Respondent's counsel the opportunity to examine them (Tr. 398). If there was any real question as to whether the exemplars were actually written by Respondent she could have resumed the stand and denied the sample writings, but she did not chose to do so. Accordingly, I accept the opinion of the expert witness with respect to the signatures on CX-5 and 5(a) and the printed name on CX-13. Based on the expert witness' handwriting identification, as well as Respondent's unconvincing denial of the questioned documents and her inherently incredible attempt to accuse Postmaster Judith Azmitia of forging the Forms 1412, I find that these documents are attributable to Respondent. Cf., U. S. v. Whittington, 783 F.2d 1210, 1215 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 269 (October 14, 1986)("Proof that a document has been signed is sufficient to charge a signatory with its contents.")

II.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. Civil Penalties

1. Respondent violated 31 U.S.C. §3802 by submitting three false claims within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. §3801(a)(3)(C). Respondent is liable to the Postal Service under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act for both civil penalties and an assessment.

2. The first issue is whether Respondent is subject to civil penalties in the total amount of $6,000 under 31 U.S.C. §3802(a)(1). The Postal Service seeks a $2,000 penalty for each of the three Forms 1412 containing false information that were filed variously on June 30, 1987, July 3, 1987 and July 7, 1987. Each false Form 1412 constitutes a separate claim. 31 U.S.C. §3801(b)(1). On all three of these Forms 14212 Respondent provided false information with respect to her money order sales, which allowed Respondent to reduce her accountability for Postal Service funds.

3. Respondent submitted the Forms 1412 at issue here knowing, or having reason to know, that they were false.

4. Under these circumstances, Respondent is subject to, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each of the three false claims. Complainant requests a penalty of only $2,000 per false claim. The amount of the penalty must be determined by examining all of the circumstances surrounding the false claims, including all aggravating and mitigating factors. See, S. Resp. No. 99-212, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1985). Many government agencies have adopted a set of model regulations proposed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which contains a list of factors which may be considered as guidance. E.g., 45 C.F.R. §79.31 (1988); 52 Fed. Reg. 27423, 27432. Although the undersigned is not bound by the regulations of other agencies, they have been useful in assessing the appropriate penalty in these cases.

5. There is a high degree of culpability in this case because Respondent engaged in a deliberate scheme to wrongfully take Postal Service funds for her own use on a temporary or permanent basis. Respondent therefore abused the trust that was placed in her to carry out her duties with honesty and integrity.

6. The amount of money falsely claimed is also an important factor to consider. Here, Respondent permanently deprived the Postal Service of $412.37 and temporarily withheld a total of $638.91. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume from the facts in this case that the incidents charged in the Complaint were not the only occasions when Respondent withheld Postal Service funds. I therefore find that this is an aggravating circumstance.

7. An aggravating circumstance also exists where the false claims occur over a lengthy period of time or are large in number. There is no specific evidence in this case that Respondent engaged in submitting a large number of false Forms 1412 over a long period of time. While I have found, as noted above, that it is reasonable to infer that Respondent submitted more than the three false Forms 1412 at issue here, I decline to speculate as to the number of claims or the length of time that may have been involved. The small number of proven false claims filed over a short period of time is a mitigating factor.

8. Finally, in determining the amount of a penalty or assessment, the Administrative Law Judge must consider that the purposes of the statute are to recompense the government for losses resulting from false claims, to deter the making of such claims in the future, and protect the integrity of the government program in question. S. Rep. No. 99-212, 99th Cong. 1st Sess. 2 (1985).

9. After considering all of the circumstances of these claims, I conclude that the amount of civil penalties requested by the Postal Service is well justified and that Respondent is liable for civil penalties in the aggregate amount of $6,000.

B. Assessment

10. The next issue is the amount of the assessment to be imposed upon Respondent under §3802(a) (1) of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act. The statute provides, in pertinent part, that a person making such a false claim shall be subject to an assessment, in lieu of damages sustained by the United States because of such claim, of not more than twice the amount of such claim. However, the PFCRA does not contemplate the imposition of an assessment where no permanent loss to the government has been sustained. See, 31 U.S.C. §3802(a)(1) and (3). Since Respondent made only one false claim that resulted in a permanent loss of funds, she is liable for an assessment of no more than twice the amount of the $412.37 permanent loss sustained by the Postal Service. Considering all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances discussed above, I conclude that the maximum assessment is justified in this case and that Respondent is liable for an assessment equal to twice the amount of the Postal Service's permanent loss of funds, or $824.74.⁽⁶⁾

C. Conclusion

11. The findings and conclusions herein are based upon the preponderance of the evidence. 31 U.S.C. §3803(f). In summary Respondent is liable to the Postal Service under 31 U.S.C. §3802(a)(1) for a civil penalty of $6,000 plus an assessment of $824.74, for a total liability of $6,824.74.

Judith A. Dowd
Administrative Law Judge

1."Tr." references are to pages of the transcript of the hearing held in this matter. "CX" and "RX" refer to the exhibits submitted in evidence by the Postal Service and the Respondent, respectively. "Ad." refers to Respondent's Answers to Complainant's Requests for Admissions which are included as part of CX-A.

2. Although CX-5 is dated June 29, 1987 it is, in fact, Respondent's Form 1412 for June 30, 1987. See, Tr.60-65.

3. Respondent also contends (Arg. 3) that the PFCR is not applicable to the facts in this case because in most of the instances of false claims alleged in the Complaint, the Postal Service did not suffer a permanent loss of funds. Contrary to Respondent's contention, a permanent loss by the government need not be shown for a case to be brought under the PFCRA, but no assessment may be imposed under those circumstances. See, 31 U.S.C.§3802 (a)(1) and (3).

4. Respondent also stipulated to the admissibility of CX-24, Respondent's Form 1412 for June 22, 1987. While CX-24 is not itself alleged to constitute a false claim, this Form 1412 shows that Respondent failed to report the sale of money order no. 3749361974 on the issue date shown on that money order. See, Findings Of Fact ¶¶ 25-30.

5. The other two clerks at the West Salem Post Office were Rita Broughton and Gloria Chapiwiesky (Tr. 325-326).

6. Although not binding herein, it is noted that the model regulations state that "[b]ecause of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed." E.g., 45 C.F.R. §79.31 (1988).