Five Defendants Convicted in $40 Million Feeding Our Future Fraud Scheme: False Documents and Stolen Millions During COVID-19 Pandemic

Minneapolis, Minnesota United States of America
Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson expressed satisfaction with verdict, confirming defendants' guilt
Defendants falsified documents and lied about feeding millions of meals to children in Minnesota during COVID-19 pandemic
Defendants stole tens of millions of dollars from the state through fraudulent means
Five defendants convicted in Feeding Our Future fraud scheme
Investigation ongoing for potential bribery scheme involving jurors
Five Defendants Convicted in $40 Million Feeding Our Future Fraud Scheme: False Documents and Stolen Millions During COVID-19 Pandemic

In a significant development, five defendants have been convicted in the first trial of the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme. Abdiaziz Farah, Mohamed Jama Ismail, Abdi Aftin, Said Farah, and Abdimajid Mohamed Nur were charged with falsifying documents and lying about feeding millions of meals to children in Minnesota during the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendants stole tens of millions of dollars from the state through fraudulent means.

The trial revealed that Farah and Ismail were found guilty on all but one count, while Aftin and Said Farah were acquitted on all charges. Nur was found guilty on 10 counts and not guilty on three counts. Hayat Nur was found guilty on three counts and not guilty on two counts, while Mukhtar Sharif was convicted on four counts and not guilty on two.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson expressed his satisfaction with the verdict, stating that it confirmed what they had known all along: the defendants falsified documents and lied about feeding millions of meals to children in Minnesota during COVID-19.

The defense presented closing statements on Monday after a juror was dismissed due to unlawful contact. Six men and one woman were charged in this first case, which is part of the largest pandemic relief fraud investigation in the country worth $40 million.

Thompson emphasized that the defendants took advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis to defraud Minnesota and steal tens of millions of dollars. The conduct was not just criminal but also depraved and brazen.

The FBI is currently investigating a potential bribery scheme, where a juror was offered $120,000 to acquit the defendants. One juror has already been dismissed from the trial due to unlawful contact, while another was dismissed after questioning whether the jury was being sequestered because of the bribe.

The judge seized the defendants' phones for investigators to look into this alleged bribery scheme.

This comes as Laurentian University in Sudbury is trying to rebuild trust with donors, who are unsure of what happened to thousands they donated for scholarships and bursaries. Approximately $2.5 million in non-endowed one-time donations was spent elsewhere on campus.

Retired professor Bill Crumplin is one of those donors who still does not know what happened to the thousands he and friends donated for a scholarship in honor of his late wife Donna Williams.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Exact amount stolen may be subject to change with ongoing investigation
  • Potential for juror bribery scheme not yet proven

Sources

83%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Jury convicts five of seven defendants in the Feeding Our Future trial

MPR News Matt Sepic Friday, 07 June 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • Abdiaziz S. Farah was convicted on 23 of 24 counts against him.
    • Mohamed J. Ismail was convicted on three of four counts.
    • Abdimajid M. Nur was found guilty on 10 of 13 counts, but he was acquitted on three money laundering charges.
    • Mukhtar M . Shariff was convicted on four of six counts, and Hayat M . Nur convicted on three of five counts.
    • An unknown woman drove to the north Twin Cities metro home of one of the jurors on Sunday evening, dropped off a Hallmark bag containing $120,000 in cash, and promised more in exchange for an acquittal vote.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (35%)
    The article contains clear examples of deceptive practices. The author presents the case as a wide-scale conspiracy to defraud the government of $250 million through fraudulent claims of having served 18 million meals during the COVID pandemic. However, no peer-reviewed studies or concrete evidence are provided to link these claims to facts. Instead, the article relies on quotes from prosecutors and bank statements among other documents that were submitted as evidence in court. These sources alone do not constitute sufficient proof of the allegations made in the article.
    • The government said the group spent their ill-gotten gains on real estate, vehicles, and travel and showed jurors photos of vehicles that the FBI seized, as well as images depicting luxury homes.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the defendants' conduct as 'depraved and brazen.' This is an appeal to emotion and can influence the reader's perception of the situation without providing any logical reasoning. Additionally, there are several instances where the author makes assumptions about the defendants' guilt based on circumstantial evidence, such as their connection to Empire Cuisine and Market or their involvement in a larger conspiracy. This is a form of hasty generalization and can lead to incorrect conclusions.
    • The defendants' conduct was not just criminal, it was depraved and brazen.
    • Throughout the trial and in their separate closing arguments on Friday and Monday, defense attorneys questioned investigators' techniques, but none visited any of the meal sites despite their concerns about fraud.
    • Shown a series of five and six figure checks paid to Afrique and Shariff's consulting company in 2021, Shariff claimed not to know what the money was for.
    • The woman specifically mentioned the juror's first name. Prosecutors said that one or more of the defendants was likely involved with the alleged bribery attempt because only they and the attorneys have access to the jurors' names.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

99%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Jurors convict 5, acquit 2 defendants in first Feeding Our Future trial

KSTP-TV News Krystal Frasier Friday, 07 June 2024 14:12
  • Unique Points
    • Five defendants, Abdiaziz Farah, Mohamed Jama Ismail, Abdi Aftin, Said Farah, and Abdimajid Mohamed Nur were charged in the first federal trial regarding the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme.
    • Abdiaziz Farah and Mohamed Jama Ismail were found guilty on all but one count.
    • The defendants falsified documents and lied about feeding millions of meals to children in Minnesota during COVID-19.
    • The defendants stole tens of millions of dollars from the state of Minnesota through fraudulent means.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The author makes several statements that are factual and do not contain any fallacies. However, there are a few instances of inflammatory rhetoric used by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson when describing the defendants' actions as 'depraved and brazen'. This is an appeal to emotion and can be considered a form of informal fallacy.
    • “The defendants falsified documents, they lied and they fraudulently claimed to be feeding millions of meals to children in Minnesota during COVID.”
    • “This conduct was not just criminal — it was depraved and brazen.”
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

85%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Five found guilty in $40 million scheme to steal from federal food aid program - Washington Examiner

Washington Examiner Elaine Mallon Friday, 07 June 2024 21:52
  • Unique Points
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Accuracy
    • Approximately $2.5 million in non-endowed one-time donations earmarked for scholarships was spent elsewhere on campus.
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

88%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

'It's definitely longer and tougher conversations,' Laurentian University trying to rebuilt trust with donors

CBC News Network (Canada) Friday, 07 June 2024 22:49
  • Unique Points
    • Approximately $2.5 million in non-endowed one-time donations earmarked for scholarships was spent elsewhere on campus.
    • Some donors are unsure of what happened to the thousands they donated to create a scholarship or bursary.
    • Retired professor Bill Crumplin is one of those donors who still does not know what happened to the thousands he and friends donated for a scholarship in honor of his late wife Donna Williams.
  • Accuracy
    • ] Laurentian University has taken steps to ensure donated money for scholarships and bursaries is not spent elsewhere.[
  • Deception (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Fallacies (95%)
    The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states 'Laurentian University says most of the money donated to the school is secure, but it is still contacting those who do not know what happened to the bursary or scholarship they created.' This statement implies that because Laurentian University claims that most of the money is secure, it must be true. However, this does not provide any evidence or proof of the security of the funds and relies solely on the authority of Laurentian University.
    • Laurentian University says most of the money donated to the school is secure, but it is still contacting those who do not know what happened to the bursary or scholarship they created.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication