DME Straw-Owner Medicare Fraud: What Whistleblowers Should

How a DME Straw-Owner Scheme Defrauded Medicare Out of $3 Million

A DME straw owner Medicare fraud whistleblower case begins with understanding how these schemes are structured. According to the October 13, 2026 DOJ announcement, Advanced Medical Supply Corp. submitted more than $6 million in Medicare claims for durable medical equipment that beneficiaries did not need and that doctors did not prescribe, and Medicare paid more than $3 million on those false and fraudulent claims. The case illustrates how a straw-owner arrangement can serve as the structural foundation for large-scale Medicare billing fraud. Every False Claims Act matter is different; results depend on the specific facts of each case, and no similar outcome is implied.

The Guilty Plea and the Company at the Center

Leo Anzivino Jr., 35, of Falmouth, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty on October 13, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire to one count of money laundering conspiracy. Advanced Medical Supply Corp., a DME company located in Rochester, New Hampshire, submitted more than $6 million in Medicare claims; Medicare paid more than $3 million. Items billed included knee braces and back braces that beneficiaries did not need and physicians did not actually prescribe. Every False Claims Act matter is different; results depend on the specific facts of each case, and no similar outcome is implied.

• Sentencing is scheduled for January 21, 2027.
• Anzivino faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
• In 2024, the government seized approximately $353,768.29 from Advanced’s bank account.

What “Straw Owner” Means in Practice

According to court documents and statements made in court, Anzivino agreed to be the straw or nominee owner of Advanced while his co-conspirators were in fact the beneficial owners and managers. He was listed as owner on Medicare enrollment paperwork and submitted false bank account opening documents to a New Hampshire bank, falsely certifying he held 25 percent or more of the equity interests in Advanced when co-conspirators were the true owners. When a bank employee raised concerns about the legitimacy of affiliated companies to which Anzivino sought to wire more than $1 million, Anzivino opened a new account at a different bank with branches in Massachusetts rather than addressing those concerns.

The Mechanics of the Fraud: Fabricated Orders, Unwanted Shipments, and Hidden Money

The DOJ announcement describes a scheme built on three interlocking elements: physician orders that were never written, shipments sent to beneficiaries who did not want them, and money movement designed to obscure the fraud’s proceeds — including transfers that continued even after Anzivino learned Medicare billing privileges would be revoked.

Physician Orders That Were Never Written

Advanced supported its Medicare claims using fake orders from physicians who did not actually write or submit those orders. No patient contact or clinical evaluation supported the shipments. The orders bore doctors’ names, but those physicians played no role in generating the paperwork.

Beneficiaries Who Knew Something Was Wrong

Medicare beneficiaries returned boxes of DME to Advanced with handwritten notes stating they had not ordered the products. Notes described shipments sent without the consent of their physician or themselves, and characterized the situation as a “FRAUD!!” or “This Must Be Some Type of Medicare Scam.” These returns created a contemporaneous paper trail of beneficiary complaints that became part of the evidentiary record.

Money Movement After Revocation Notice

After learning that Advanced’s Medicare billing privileges would be revoked — in part because his claimed ownership could not be verified — Anzivino sent messages acknowledging the situation, stating “I ain’t wiring shit,” but nonetheless wired $1,494,938.09 across three separate transactions over the following five weeks, each in excess of $10,000. In 2024, the government seized approximately $353,768.29 from Advanced’s bank account.

Why This Pattern May Be Recognizable to Insiders — and Why It Matters

The Advanced Medical Supply case contains several red flags that a DME straw owner Medicare fraud whistleblower working inside a similar organization might recognize. The Health Care Fraud Strike Force Program has charged more than 6,200 defendants who collectively billed federal health care programs and private insurers more than $45 billion since 2007, reflecting sustained institutional attention on DME fraud and related money laundering.

Red Flags an Insider Might Observe

The conduct described in court documents points to several observable warning signs that may appear in similar organizations:

• A nominal owner listed on government enrollment paperwork who has no real operational role while others control finances and decisions.
• DME orders not traceable to real physician prescriptions — orders generated without patient contact or clinical evaluation.
• Products shipped to Medicare beneficiaries who did not request them and who actively return them or complain.
• Wire transfers routed to affiliated companies whose legitimacy cannot be verified, or accounts opened at a new bank after a prior bank raises concerns.
• Billing privileges revoked for inability to verify ownership — a sign the enrollment structure was designed to obscure true control.

Who May Hold Material Information

The evidentiary record in this case suggests that multiple categories of insiders may possess information material to investigators. Employees who processed enrollment paperwork, banking documents, or billing records and know the true ownership structure could hold highly relevant information. Bank compliance personnel who observed suspicious wire transfer patterns — a bank employee’s concerns appear in the court record here — may also have actionable knowledge. Billing service employees who generated or reviewed claims lacking supporting physician orders represent a third category of potential witnesses.

The False Claims Act Framework for DME Fraud Whistleblowers

The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, imposes liability on any person who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the United States, and provides for treble damages and per-claim civil penalties. While the Advanced Medical Supply matter was prosecuted criminally, the underlying conduct — false claims to Medicare supported by fabricated physician orders — is the same type of conduct that civil FCA actions address.

How the False Claims Act Applies to Medicare DME Billing

The False Claims Act at 31 U.S.C. § 3729 covers false claims submitted to federal health care programs and provides for treble damages and per-claim civil penalties. The conduct at issue in the Advanced Medical Supply case — billing Medicare for DME using fabricated physician orders while concealing the true ownership of the billing entity — reflects the type of false and fraudulent claims the statute addresses. The DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Strike Force Program has charged more than 6,200 defendants billing more than $45 billion since 2007, reflecting the scale of enforcement activity in this area.

Qui Tam Relator Shares and Retaliation Protections

Under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions, a person may bring a civil action for a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 for the person and for the United States Government. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1), if the government proceeds with the action, the relator shall receive at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement. Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2), if the government does not proceed with the action, the relator shall receive an amount that the court decides is reasonable and shall be not less than 25 percent and not more than 30 percent of the proceeds. The statute also provides retaliation protections for employees who are discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against because of lawful acts taken in furtherance of an FCA action. Limitations periods under 31 U.S.C. § 3731 and the first-to-file rule under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5) can affect the viability of a claim, which is why early consultation with experienced qui tam counsel may be important.

If practices like these look familiar from your own workplace, you can discuss what you have seen with a Price Armstrong attorney confidentially and at no cost. Call (888) 670-9542 or use the secure evaluation form below.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a straw owner in a DME Medicare fraud scheme?

According to court documents in the Advanced Medical Supply case, a straw or nominee owner is a person listed on Medicare enrollment paperwork and bank account documents as the owner of a DME company while co-conspirators serve as the true beneficial owners and managers. The arrangement is designed to hide the identities of those actually controlling the company from Medicare and financial institutions. In this case, Anzivino falsely certified he held 25 percent or more of the equity in Advanced when co-conspirators were the true owners.

Can a bank employee or billing service worker be a False Claims Act whistleblower?

Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b), a person may bring a civil action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government. The statute does not limit qui tam relators to employees of the company that submitted the false claims. A bank compliance employee who observed suspicious wire transfers, or a billing service worker who processed claims lacking real physician orders, could potentially possess original information relevant to a civil FCA action, though whether any particular person’s information qualifies under the statute’s requirements is a fact-specific question that an attorney would need to evaluate.

What happens to money recovered in a DME Medicare fraud case?

In the Advanced Medical Supply matter, the government seized approximately $353,768.29 from Advanced’s bank account in 2024. In civil False Claims Act cases, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) provides that a relator who files a qui tam complaint may receive a share of the proceeds of the action or settlement — at least 15 percent but not more than 25 percent if the government proceeds, or not less than 25 percent and not more than 30 percent if the government does not proceed. No outcome in any future matter can be assured, and the share in any given case depends on the specific facts and the court’s determination. Every False Claims Act matter is different; results depend on the specific facts of each case, and no similar outcome is implied.