No. Most False Claims Act violations do not require proof of “intent to defraud,” but only require proof of a "knowing" violation. The 1986 False Claims Act Amendments specifically eliminated any more specific intent requirement, except as to several provisions not frequently used.

The False Claims Act defines “knowing” and “knowingly” as a person, who, with respect to information:

1) has actual knowledge of the information;

2) acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information or acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information; and,

3) no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.

The burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence (think of it as just a bit more than 50%, but not even 51% is required), just like any other civil lawsuit. No special amount of proof is required, such as might be required in a criminal case, where the proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt.”