Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both perjury and fraud against the United States involve deception in official contexts, but they target different harms. Article 131 perjury addresses lying under oath in judicial or official proceedings. Article 132 fraud addresses schemes to obtain money, property, or benefits from the government through false claims or deceptive practices. One corrupts the judicial process; the other steals from the government. Understanding this distinction matters because the same deceptive conduct might violate one or both articles depending on its nature and context.
The Core Distinction
Article 131 Perjury applies when someone:
Takes a lawful oath in a competent proceeding
Makes a false statement
Knowing it to be false
The statement must be material to the proceeding
The focus is on lying under oath in proceedings where truth-telling is essential to justice.
Article 132 Fraud Against the United States applies when someone:
Makes or uses a false claim against the United States
Or makes or uses false documents or statements to defraud the United States
Or commits larceny of government property
The focus is on obtaining money or benefits from the government through deception.
Different Protected Interests
These articles protect different interests:
Perjury protects the integrity of judicial proceedings. Courts and official proceedings depend on witnesses telling the truth. Perjured testimony leads to unjust outcomes and undermines the legal system.
Fraud protects government resources. Taxpayers fund the military and government programs. Fraudulent claims and schemes steal from the public treasury and divert resources from legitimate needs.
A single deceptive act might harm both interests (lying under oath about fraudulent claims), potentially violating both articles.
Article 131: Perjury Elements
Perjury requires:
Lawful oath. The witness was properly sworn by someone authorized to administer oaths.
Competent tribunal or proceeding. The oath was taken in a proceeding where oaths are required or authorized.
False statement. The witness made a statement that was not true.
Knowledge of falsity. The witness knew the statement was false when making it.
Materiality. The false statement was relevant to the matter at hand and could have affected the outcome.
Perjury doesn’t require that the false statement actually changed the proceeding’s outcome, only that it could have.
Article 132: Fraud Elements
Fraud against the United States includes several forms:
False claims. Presenting claims for payment or benefits knowing they’re false or fraudulent.
False statements to obtain benefits. Making false statements to receive money, property, or other benefits from the government.
Fraud in connection with government property. Using deception to obtain government property or benefits.
Larceny of government funds or property. Stealing from the government (also chargeable under Article 121).
The common thread is obtaining something of value from the government through deception.
When Both Articles Apply
Some conduct might violate both articles:
False testimony about fraudulent claims. A service member commits benefits fraud (Article 132) and later lies under oath about it during an investigation (Article 131). Two separate offenses.
Fraudulent documents submitted under oath. A service member submits a sworn false claim for benefits. The fraud violates Article 132; the sworn false statements might also support Article 131 if the submission involved testimony in a proceeding.
Cover-up testimony. A service member commits fraud and then commits perjury when testifying about it in a court-martial.
Separate acts of deception can lead to charges under both articles.
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear perjury:
During a court-martial, a witness testifies under oath that she did not see the accused take property from the supply room. In fact, she watched the entire theft. Her false testimony, material to the case, constitutes perjury.
At an Article 32 hearing, a service member testifies falsely about his whereabouts on the night of an assault. The sworn false testimony is perjury.
Clear fraud:
A service member submits false travel vouchers claiming reimbursement for trips never taken. This is fraud against the United States: obtaining government money through false claims.
A service member falsely claims dependents on official documents to receive additional housing allowance. Obtaining BAH through false statements is fraud.
A service member uses a government credit card for personal purchases and falsifies receipts to show official use. Obtaining government benefits through deception is fraud.
Combined scenario:
A service member submits fraudulent travel vouchers over several months (Article 132). When investigated, she testifies under oath that all travel claimed was legitimate and she has no knowledge of any false claims (Article 131). She faces both fraud charges for the scheme and perjury charges for lying about it under oath.
The Materiality Requirement
Perjury requires that the false statement be “material” to the proceeding. This means:
The statement was relevant to an issue in the case
The statement could have influenced the proceeding
The statement wasn’t about a completely collateral matter
Lying about your breakfast isn’t perjury (not material). Lying about whether you witnessed the crime is perjury (directly material).
Fraud under Article 132 doesn’t have the same materiality requirement. Any false claim to obtain government benefits violates the article, regardless of how significant the amount.
Punishment Comparison
Article 131 (Perjury):
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
Article 132 (Fraud Against the United States):
For fraud generally: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
For larceny of government funds: punishment varies by amount
Both carry serious maximum punishments reflecting the gravity of attacking judicial integrity and stealing from the government.
Types of Government Fraud
Article 132 covers a wide range of fraudulent conduct:
Pay and allowance fraud. False claims for BAH, BAS, travel, special pay, or other entitlements.
Benefits fraud. False claims for educational benefits, insurance, or other programs.
Contract fraud. False claims by contractors or collusion with contractors.
Time and attendance fraud. Falsely claiming hours worked or duties performed.
Medical fraud. False claims for medical reimbursement or disability.
Procurement fraud. Manipulating government purchases for personal gain.
Any scheme to obtain government money or property through deception falls under Article 132.
The Oath Requirement
Perjury specifically requires a lawful oath. Without an oath, a false statement might still be criminal (Article 107 false official statement, Article 134 false swearing), but it’s not perjury.
Fraud under Article 132 doesn’t require an oath. Written false claims, falsified documents, and verbal misrepresentations all support fraud charges regardless of whether they were made under oath.
This means:
False claims submitted without oath: Fraud (Article 132), not perjury
False claims submitted under oath: Potentially both fraud and perjury
False testimony unrelated to financial claims: Perjury (Article 131), not fraud
Defenses
For perjury:
The statement was true
No lawful oath was administered
The statement wasn’t material
The accused didn’t know the statement was false
The proceeding wasn’t competent to receive sworn testimony
For fraud:
The claim was accurate (not false)
No intent to defraud
The accused was entitled to what they claimed
Mistake or error (not knowing the claim was false)
Authorization for the claimed benefits
Investigation and Evidence
Perjury cases typically involve:
Transcript of the false testimony
Evidence showing what the truth actually was
Proof the accused knew the truth
Evidence of the proceeding’s validity
Fraud cases typically involve:
False documents or claims
Financial records
Evidence of what the accused actually did versus claimed
Pattern evidence of repeated false claims
Benefit of the fraud (what was obtained)
Both offenses often involve paper trails that document the deception.
Collateral Consequences
Both offenses involve dishonesty, carrying significant collateral consequences:
Security clearances. Fraud and perjury convictions typically result in clearance revocation.
Professional licensing. Many professions bar those convicted of dishonesty offenses.
Federal employment. Fraud against the government can bar future federal employment.
Trust issues. Both offenses mark someone as fundamentally untrustworthy.
The dishonesty element often causes more long-term harm than the immediate punishment.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I made an honest mistake on a travel voucher and received money I wasn’t entitled to, is that fraud?
Fraud requires intent to defraud. An honest mistake, without intent to deceive or obtain benefits you knew you weren’t entitled to, isn’t fraud. However, the government will examine whether the mistake was truly honest or whether you should have known the claim was false. Claiming reimbursement for a trip you never took isn’t an honest mistake. Misremembering exact mileage might be. If overpayment resulted from genuine error, repaying promptly and explaining the mistake helps demonstrate lack of fraudulent intent. But establishing that you had no intent to deceive is essential; the prosecution will scrutinize claims of innocent mistake, especially if patterns suggest otherwise.
Can I be charged with perjury if I gave testimony that I believed was true at the time, but turned out to be false?
Perjury requires that you knew the statement was false when you made it. If you genuinely believed your testimony was true, even if it later proved to be incorrect, you didn’t commit perjury. Honest mistakes, faulty memory, and good-faith errors aren’t perjury. However, prosecutors will examine whether you truly believed your testimony. If evidence shows you knew the truth and deliberately testified otherwise, claiming you believed the false version won’t be credible. The standard is subjective knowledge of falsity at the time of testimony, but that subjective claim is evaluated against objective evidence of what you actually knew.
What if I received benefits I wasn’t entitled to but never actively submitted false claims?
Article 132 fraud typically requires active deception: making false claims, submitting false documents, or affirmatively misrepresenting facts. Passively receiving benefits you weren’t entitled to, without any affirmative deception on your part, might not constitute fraud under Article 132. However, once you became aware you were receiving improper benefits, continuing to accept them could become fraudulent. Additionally, failing to correct known errors might violate other articles or regulations. The safest approach when you discover you’re receiving unentitled benefits is to immediately report the error and arrange repayment. Silence after discovering an error looks more culpable than an initial mistake.