Seven defendants in the Feeding Our Future fraud trial are in custody after juror was paid $120K cash

Joey Peters, Katrina Pross

03/06/2024

A federal judge has ordered the detention on Monday night of all seven defendants of the Feeding Our Future trial following accusations that a juror had been paid bribes with a purse filled with $120,000 cash.

“The truth that there’s just seven defendants, and just seven other people than their lawyers who have the information needed to go to a juror and then bribe the juror does not make me less accountable to protect the community,”” judged U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel.

A number of defendants among them Abdi Nur and Hayat Nur who wept, were detained by officers of the U.S. Marshals Service. Family members and friends embraced their loved ones in courtrooms, before they were taken away.

The incident occurred a few hours after an astonishing revelation that was announced in the courtroom earlier that day: a juror was dismissed following an unidentified woman showed up at the juror’s residence Sunday afternoon with $120,000 for an absolution. The news shocked law professors who couldn’t recall an incident similar to the one in Minnesota as well as resulted in the confiscation on Monday of the seven defendants’ cellphones.

Brasel wrote in her ruling she found the juror “terrified,” and “remains in danger of reprisal.” She also expressed her concern that “someone evidently knows the address of families of the jurors.”

The search warrant application submitted for defendants’ cell phones found that the defendants “have been granted access” to the information that identified the juror.

“It is extremely likely that someone who had knowledge of the juror’s private data was in league with at least the person who handed over the bribe of $120,000,” Wilmer wrote.

The bribe led U.S. Assistant Attorney Joe Thompson to ask for the defendants arrests. They were initially indicted, but released on on their own recognizance. Brasel heard argument late Monday by defense and prosecutors.

Thompson said that the circumstances caused the defendants to be an imminent flight risk and threat to the community, even though the defendants weren’t clear who was accountable for the corruption.

“Let’s be real there was no one outside of the room,” Thompson said.

Every defense team opposed this motion of detention in the belief that the evidence could not be directly linked to the defendants.

“There’s no evidence of individual guilt of any particular person,” said Michael Brandt the attorney representing Hayat.

The defense teams criticized the jury manipulation allegations.

“The allegations of a juror being questioned in this manner are shocking and un-American,” said Andrew Birrell who represents Abdiaziz Farah. “They are right at the core of the system we have. It’s extremely troubling.”

Arguments for closing, which began last Friday, ended on Monday, and the jury is now engaged in discussions.

The promise of more money as a the form of bribe

The jury tampering accusations were revealed early in the morning, outside of jurors’ presence.

Thompson informed Brasel of the woman who was the home of a juror on Sunday night and left behind a bag of cash and bills on rolls. Thompson has identified the victim as Somali and the seven defendants in the this trial come from East African.

“This is an outrageous act. This kind of behavior is seen in mob films,” he said. “It really gets at the root of the matter.”

The cell phones used by seven defendants were seized by federal authorities on Monday following the affidavit for a search warrant was issued in the afternoon.

In the statement of FBI Special Agent Travis Wilmer, a Black woman, “possibly Somali, with an accent, in long black dresses” entered the home of the juror about 8.50 p.m. the following Sunday. The juror’s relative, who Thompson has identified during the trial as her father-in law was at the door.

The woman presented him with an unmarked gift bag of white in accordance with Wilmer’s affidavit. She said it was a gift for the juror. She used the juror’s initials. Thompson as well as the document identify her as juror number 52. The name of the juror has not been made public. It’s not clear how the woman got the juror’s name.

“The woman instructed the family member to tell Juror #52 that she would not be guilty on the next day and that there was more to present later,” the affidavit reads. “After the woman had left the scene, the person who was left looked through the bag of gifts and discovered it was filled with a significant amount of money.”

The money was comprised of 100 dollars, $50 and $20 bills. When the juror returned home and found out that the bags were missing, she phoned 911, as per the statement. The juror spoke to the FBI who now have the money as of Monday morning.

Thompson admitted in court Tuesday that a juror wasn’t at home when she was at Spring Lake Park address in the north metro area.

Spring Lake Park police declined to address questions regarding the incident after being contacted via telephone and email on Monday. Responding to a voicemail that was left in the Sahan Journal Monday, Diana Freedman Communications staffer working at the FBI field office in Minneapolis sent a text message: “I don’t have additional details to provide at the moment.”

Thompson claimed that the bribe was applicable the bribe to “all participants.”

The defendants are awaiting trial on a variety of criminal charges that include corruption, wire fraud and money laundering. The defendants are charged with stealing a sum of $41 million in federal funds designed to provide meals for children in need. The joint trial is a part of a larger investigation that has 70 defendants are charged with taking $25 million in the Children’s Nutrition Program.

Defense lawyers have also said to Brasel that they are concerned by the accusations.

The jury member in question is a woman aged 23. It appears that she was the sole person of color in the jurors. She wasn’t in court on Monday morning. Brasel claimed she excused the juror.

Brasel spoke to the jurors individually on Monday morning in the presence of the defendants, asking them if they was any other unintentional contact with anyone else, including media. Jurors claimed that they’d never been contact by anyone.

Brasel assured jurors she would “reluctantly” to confine them in the course of their deliberations. She also acknowledged the weight it could be imposing. Sequestration usually involves separating jurors from any contact with outside parties except for security and court personnel until they have reached a verdict on the matter. It could also mean restricting or preventing the use of mobile phones and the Internet and other media, such as radio, TV and other forms of media.

Jurors who are fully sequestered are in a hotel during the deliberations. They cannot go back to their homes until they have handed out verdicts.

“You might be wondering why this is important,” Brasel told the jurors. “It is important to keep you away from the information.”

Brasel outlined her reasoning to lawyers earlier in the day.

“I am determined to ensure jurors are safe and can decide with unbiasedness in the future,” Brasel told attorneys earlier during the day.

She also said that sequestering the jury is the most difficult option a judge can make, however she was of the opinion that there was no other option to ensure fair trials.

As per the requests of defense lawyers Brasel told them she’d also often remind jurors not to watch news stories about the trial. She advised them to switch their phones in emergency mode to prevent seeing breaking news on the case.

In the early hours of Monday morning Brasel issued an order to the U.S. Marshals to offer additional security at the courthouse, and requested that they gather but not examine all the defendants cellphones.

Brasel informed the defendants just prior to a lunch break on Monday that they would not be able to leave the courthouse throughout the remainder of the day. This was in a change from the past which permitted the defendants to leave the courthouse during breaks.

Law professors claim that there aren’t many allegations

Joe Daly, a Mitchell Hamline School of Law professor retired, told the media that he was “shocked” when he learned about the allegations and they raise serious concerns.

“When someone tries to put a wrench in the entire system, it’s a problem,” he said.

Daly claimed that he’s never heard of jury manipulation in a trial, aside from in films.

“Jury manipulation is at the root of the concept of due procedure of law, which is fundamental fairness, the idea of what justice truly is in our society” Daly said. “If you can get bribes from jurors, what’s your benefit in having juries?”

If jurors are informed about the allegations of bribes, it could reflect a negative image on all jurors involved, Daly said, adding Brasel is likely to be wary of divulging any details about the events in juror 52’s case.

Daly said he does not think Brasel would declare an indictment of mistrial especially because the trial is close to its conclusion. However, if the defendants were in the process of being convicted, Daly said defense attorneys could use the jury’s manipulation as the basis for an appeal, asserting that fair trial is impossible due to the media coverage.

Then again, David Schultz, a professor who teaches constitutional state laws at the University of Minnesota Law School and political sciences in Hamline University, said he believes a mistrial could be likely.

“How can you ensure that even with thorough screening, that the jurors in the other cases are honest and haven’t been contacted?” He asked.

Schultz stated that this will probably affect future trials for the other defendants in the trial who are waiting for their trials. The federal government is likely to not wish to start further trial until the individual who was attempting to bribe jurors is identified, he stated.

“I believe it has an effect that cascades,” Schultz said. “It’s as if, right there’s an entire new criminal issue there.”

Daly and Schultz both agreed that someone could find a juror despite the fact that their name wasn’t made public.

“How did they manage to do it? Do they have a problem with our systems?” Daly stated.

Defense and prosecution end

The court proceedings went on according to the schedule Monday, after which judge and lawyers discussed the witness of tampering. Three defense teams presented their closing arguments, while prosecutor’s rebuttal was final.

Andrew Garvis, an attorney representing defendant Abdiwahab Aftin said that prosecutors started the trial by saying that no food items were purchased using federal funds, however they stressed that the trial showed the fact that billions of dollars have been spent on food items. Garvis also challenged the credibility of a former Feeding Our Future employee Hadith Ahmed, who pleaded for federal authorities that they was involved in the scheme. Hadith also stated that he had been cooperating with authorities in the hopes of getting a lesser sentence following a plea bargain for his part of the scam.

“Hadith Ahmed wasn’t convinced that it was blue sky,” Garvis said. “He is certain that the greater number of people he gets involved with receives a better deal.”

Andrew Mohring, an attorney representing the defendant Mukhtar Shariff, spent a large portion the last part of his argument arguing that his client’s check of $250,000 to the former Feeding Our Future employee Ikram Mohamed was not a kickback offered in exchange for the enrolment of one of the food sites in the federal program for food.

Defense attorney Hayat Nur’s lawyer, Nicole Kettwick, said in her closing argument she believes Hayat is a minor participant in the trial and didn’t make the same fortune as her co-defendants. The prosecution alleges that Hayat stole $30,000 of federal food funds.

“She was a hard-working worker caught in the guilt-ridden whirlwinds caused due to connections,” Kettwick said.

The fraud was alleged to involve that the Minnesota Department of Education distributing federal funds to sponsors such as Feeding Our Future, and Partners in Quality Care. The sponsoring organizations then disbursed the funds to food retailers and food stores, who were supposed to offer prepared meals for children in the area.

A number of organizations have reported serving thousands of meals more than they actually did, or did not serve meals in order to get additional federal funds according to prosecutors. They also it is believed that they used the funds for vehicles or property, holidays, and other things.

Thompson stated in his defense that there was a wealth of evidence to support the defendants.

“The truth is that you witnessed an overwhelming amount of evidence for the scam,” he said. “Thousands of proof pages. Fake invoices repeatedly and repeatedly.”

HTML0Who’s in the dock?

The defendants in the trial face a total of 41 charges, which include the bribery, wire fraud, as well as money laundering. The majority of them worked with corporations who employed Partners in Quality Care as an sponsor.

In the case of defendants, they are

• Abdiaziz Farah co-owned Empire Cuisine and Market. Federal prosecutors have claimed that the Shakopee-based restaurant and grocery store was allegedly an eatery for several food websites, and bilked the government about $28 million. Abdiaziz claimed to have taken home more than 8 million dollars for himself. He was also accused of falsifying the renewal application following federal agents seize his passport during their investigation.

• Mohamed Jama Ismail co-owned Empire Cuisine and Market. Mohamed is the uncle of Abdiziz. Mohamed is also the owner of MZ Market LLC, which investigators claim was a fake company that was used to launder stolen cash. Mohamed is believed to have pocketed $2.2 million. He has previously pleaded guilty to passport fraud.

• Abdimajid Nur allegedly established a shell company, Nur Consulting, and transferred stolen funds from Empire Cuisine and ThinkTechAct, others that were alleged shell corporations. Abdimajid aged 21, at the time of arrest was alleged to have pocketed $900,000.

• Hayat Nurallegedly provided false meals and invoices that were served on food websites. Court documents indicate Hayat as Abdimajid’s younger sister. Hayat is said to have raked in the sum of $30,000.

• Said Farah co-owned Bushra Wholesalers, which allegedly was a money-launderer by claiming it as a food seller which provided food to food outlets that later provided meals to children. Court documents reveal Said as the brother of Abdiaziz. Said is believed to have raked in greater than $1 million.

• Abdiwahab Aftin co-owned Bushra Wholesalers, and allegedly earned $435,000.

• Mukhtar Shariffserved as the CEO for Afrique Hospitality Group, and claimed to use the company to conceal stolen cash. Shariff allegedly raked in the sum of $1.3 million.

HTML0Correction the story is changed to show that the bag is currently in FBI in custody.