<P> The writ fell into disuse in England and Wales following the Common Informers Act 1951 but remains current in the United States under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., which allows a private individual, or "whistleblower," with knowledge of past or present fraud committed against the federal government to bring suit on its behalf . There are also qui tam provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 962 regarding arming vessels against friendly nations; 25 U.S.C. § 201 regarding violating Indian protection laws; 46a U.S.C. 723 regarding the removal of undersea treasure from the Florida coast to foreign nations; and 35 U.S.C. § 292 regarding false marking . In February 2011, the qui tam provision regarding false marking was held to be unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court, and in September of that year, the enactment of the Leahy - Smith America Invents Act effectively removed qui tam remedies from § 292 . </P> <P> The historical antecedents of qui tam statutes lie in Roman and Anglo - Saxon law . Roman criminal prosecutions were typically initiated by private citizens (delatores) and beginning no later than the Lex Pedia, it became common for Roman criminal statutes to offer a portion of the defendant's forfeited property to the initiator of the prosecution as a reward . Forerunners of qui tam actions also occurred in Anglo - Saxon England; in the year 656, Wihtred of Kent issued a decree that a Sabbath - breaker would "forfeit his healsfang, and the man who informs against him shall have half the fine, and (the profits arising from) the labour ." </P> <P> The first qui tam statutes were enacted by the English Parliament in the fourteenth century, some 250 years after the Norman Conquest . Such qui tam enforcement allowed enforcement of the legislative priorities of the king, especially in areas where and at times when such legislation "undermined local officials' interests ." </P> <P> The 1318 Statute of York, which set uniform prices for certain consumer goods, was an early English qui tam provision . The act prohibited city and borough officers from selling the regulated commodities (specifically, "wine and victuals"), and provided for forfeiture to the king of any prohibited merchandise . To ensure enforcement, the act provided that one - third of the forfeited merchandise "shall be delivered to the Party that sued the Offender, as the King's Gift . And in such Case he that will sue (for a thing so forfeited,) shall be received ." </P>

In a qui tam action who brings the suit on behalf of the federal government