A federal judge has entered a final order taking more than $7 million and three vehicles linked to a Medicare genetic-testing scheme. The assets include money held in two accounts and a Range Rover, BMW and Ford F-150 bought with proceeds from the fraud. The order is a financial closeout step in a case that generated far more in false billing than the property ultimately seized.
The Final Order Covers Cash and Three Vehicles
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the court entered the final forfeiture order on August 21, 2026. It directs the forfeiture of approximately $7,051,089.08 from an investment account and a bank account associated with a company controlled by Jamie P. McNamara. The order also covers a Land Rover Range Rover, a BMW and a Ford F-150. Prosecutors said investigators seized the assets before the indictment because they had been acquired with criminal proceeds.
Free retirement updates: A quiet rule change can shrink your Social Security or Medicare check, and no one warns you. The free Retirement Shield newsletter catches these early and tells you what to do. Get it free.
Genetic Tests Were Ordered Through a Telemarketing Chain
Court records described laboratories in Louisiana and Texas that obtained doctors’ orders through telemarketers and call centers. The telemedicine physicians were not treating the Medicare beneficiaries, did not conduct consultations and did not follow up after testing. McNamara admitted paying kickbacks and bribes for the orders and disguising those payments through sham contracts. The scheme also shifted billing among laboratories and placed relatives’ names on Medicare records to hide who controlled the businesses. Those mechanics matter because they separated the clinician who supposedly ordered a test from the patient and laboratory that generated the claim.
False Claims Reached $174 Million
Over roughly a year and a half, the laboratories submitted more than $174 million in genetic-testing claims and received more than $55 million from Medicare. The forfeited amount is therefore only part of the money that moved through the operation. Forfeiture is not the same as a fine or a civil settlement; it removes property derived from the offense or used to facilitate it. When victims can be identified, forfeited assets may also become a source of compensation, although the final distribution depends on the case and the court’s orders.
The Legal Posture Is Final on the Assets
McNamara pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit health-care fraud and received a 10-year prison sentence. The September 9 announcement concerned a newer event: the final forfeiture order, not a new conviction or sentence. That distinction keeps the timing clear. The underlying misconduct stretched back years, but the court’s August 21 asset order was current and specific. It resolved ownership of the listed accounts and vehicles after the criminal judgment, making the headline’s use of “ordered” and “forfeited” supported by a completed judicial act.
Asset Recovery Is Only One Layer of Medicare Protection
The case illustrates why billing controls must examine relationships around a claim, not only the claim form itself. A laboratory can possess a physician order and still sit inside a corrupt referral chain. Medicare contractors, plan administrators and investigators each see different parts of that chain, which allows high-volume schemes to operate until data patterns or whistleblowers expose them. For beneficiaries, unsolicited testing offers remain a practical warning sign because personal insurance information can be used to build claims that look documented. The government’s recovery of visible assets sends a deterrent signal, but prevention would keep the false claim from being paid in the first place.
Forfeiture and Restitution Answer Different Questions
Forfeiture focuses on the defendant’s connection to property: whether cash, an account or a vehicle came from crime or facilitated it. Restitution focuses on the victim’s compensable loss. The two can overlap, but a forfeited dollar does not automatically become a dollar distributed to a particular beneficiary or to Medicare. Courts and agencies must identify ownership, resolve competing interests and determine the lawful destination of recovered assets. That is why the list of seized property is meaningful without being described as a completed refund to the program. The order secures assets and strips proceeds from the offender; later administration determines how those assets affect restitution and government loss.
Third parties can also petition a court if they claim a lawful interest in forfeited property. A final order indicates that process has advanced far enough for the judge to vest the listed assets in the government, subject to the order’s terms. It provides more certainty than an announcement that prosecutors merely intend to seek forfeiture.
Programs Outside the Fraud Case
Separately from criminal asset recovery, older households often miss legitimate assistance because enrollment is not automatic. Medicare Savings Programs, state drug assistance and LIHEAP each use their own application and income rules.
The Benefits Checklist gathers 11 programs in 69 pages, including the 2026 limits and the number to call in every state.
Open the program directory in The Benefits Checklist.
AI tools assisted in researching and drafting this article, which was reviewed prior to publication.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
