Full text
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Criminal No. 22-124(1) (NEB/DTS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) GOVERNMENT’S
v. ) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
) REGARDING SENTENCING
ABDIAZIZ SHAFII FARAH, )
)
Defendant. )
The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Joseph H.
Thompson, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Matthew
S. Ebert, Harry M. Jacobs, and Daniel W. Bobier, Assistant United States Attorneys,
submits this supplemental sentencing memorandum as a response to the sentencing
paper submitted by the defendant, Abdiaziz Shafii Farah. As stated in the
government’s original submission, the government recommends that the Court
impose a sentence of 30 years in prison.
To be clear, the government reaches this recommendation after a holistic
review of the 3553(a) factors. The government stands by that recommendation as the
sentence sufficient, but not more than necessary, to achieve justice even if the Court
ultimately decides upon a somewhat different Guidelines calculation than the one the
government and PSR both determined.
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 2 of 16
I. THE G OVERNMENT-RECOMMENDED, WITHIN-G UIDELINES SENTENCE IS
SUBSTANTIVELY REASONABLE AND N O D OWNWARD VARIANCE SHOULD BE
APPLIED
For all the reasons discussed in the government’s initial pleading paper, a
sentence for Mr. Farah of 30 years is appropriate. Farah was one of the early movers
in the Feeding Our Future scheme. He enrolled his company, Empire Cuisine, in
April 2020, and from there launched a booming business ripping off the Federal Child
Nutrition Program. He participated in every stage of the scheme: creating bogus
paperwork, submitting fraudulent claims, apportioning the fraud proceeds among his
confederates, paying kickbacks to sponsors, and spending—extravagantly—the
federal taxpayer dollars he stole. Through craft, diligence, and unrepentant artifice,
Farah and his coconspirators caused nearly $48 million in losses. Farah, personally,
pocketed more than $8 million of that sum.
In his sentencing position paper, Farah does not meaningfully contend with
those facts. Instead, he dedicates most of his brief to a discussion of out-of-circuit
cases that generally have nothing to do with benefit programs, nor with the unusually
susceptible era of Covid-19, nor with the state and people of Minnesota. He invokes,
for example, the Theranos case, Sam Bankman-Fried, a DOD scam from South
Carolina, and the Fyre Festival scheme. Differences between those cases and this one
abound. They arise from completely different facts, concern defendants whose
schemes in no way resemble the benefits fraud proved here, and they occurred out of
circuit, where different sentencing precedents control. 1
1 Farah’s invocation of the Minnesota State Court Sentencing Guidelines is even further
afield. State and federal sentences often diverge, sometimes materially, even for convictions
2
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 3 of 16
Section 3553 directs the Court to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. To
that end, a far better guide than Farah’s inapposite citations can be found in the
sentences already imposed by this Court in this scheme (and, indeed, upon Farah’s
co-indicted conspirators).
Mohamed Ismail received 144 months. Though Ismail began as a co-owner,
with Farah, of Empire Cuisine, he was an average scheme participant. He also did
not engage in sophisticated money laundering nor in parceling out the scheme’s
proceeds. See Dkt. 645 at 28 (Ismail PSR); Dkt. 691 (Ismail Statement of Reasons
(adopting PSR without change)); see also Dkt. 686 (Gov’t’s Ismail Sentencing
Position). And his take, certainly, was smaller: he took home about $2.2 million to
Farah’s $8.1 million. Ismail’s sentence also underscores the inaptness of Farah’s
comparator cases; he argues that Elizabeth Holmes’s conduct was worse than Farah’s
but notes that Ms. Holmes received 135 months. See Dkt. 825 at 2, 19-25. This Court
has already determined, correctly, that Mr. Ismail—a lesser participant in Farah’s
scheme—deserved a longer sentence.
Mukhtar Shariff received 210 months. That sentence came after Shariff
testified, falsely, in his defense, insisting that he served the food he claimed. Though
Farah did not so testify at trial, his conduct in this scheme is worse than Shariff’s,
including because Farah helmed the conspiracy, became the sole director of Empire
Cuisine and Market, and chose how the conspiracy’s profits would be divvied up
among its participants. Farah also involved himself in or directed the activities of
arising from the same conduct. This Court’s statutory duty, however, is to determine the just
federal sentence using the federal Guidelines and the federal precedents.
3
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 4 of 16
virtually all of this conspiracy’s fraudulent food sites. Shariff’s conduct was chiefly
limited to one. And as with Ismail, Shariff’s take is dwarfed by Farah’s: Shariff made
out with $1.4 million, Farah got over $8.1 million.
The government respectfully recommends a sentence of 30 years. Nothing in
the case evidence nor Farah’s submission justifies a downward variance here, let
alone the “major” one Farah suggests.
II. FARAH’S O BJECTIONS TO THE G OVERNMENT’S AND THE PSR’S SHARED
G UIDELINES CALCULATION SHOULD BE REJECTED
A. The Government and the PSR Correctly Determine the Loss
Amount Enhancement
Farah next contends the government and the PSR are wrong to use in their
shared Guidelines calculation a loss amount of about $40 million. Dkt. 825 at 10-12.
He maintains that figure is a “gross loss” calculation, failing to account for the food
Farah and his conspirators bought and distributed. From this premise he argues that
it would be legal error for the Court to adopt the government’s Guidelines calculation.
He is wrong.
First, the case evidence established an intended loss of more than $49 million.
Exs. N-3, N-5. Of this, MDE paid out approximately $47.9 million to the entities that
sponsored the defendants’ participation in the program, Partners in Nutrition and
Feeding Our Future. Those sponsors, in turn, retained approximately $5.6 million in
administrative fees. The sponsors then paid over $42.4 million to Empire Cuisine &
Market, ThinkTechAct, and other entities owned or controlled by Farah and his
conspirators, including more than $21 million to ThinkTechAct and more than $12
million to Empire Cuisine & Market.
4
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 5 of 16
Even so, Farah wants a discount because, like many of the fraudulent
operators charged in the broader scheme, he bought some real food in the course of
his fraud. The Court should not give him that credit. The government presented
evidence at trial that such purchases were window dressing—designed to help conceal
the fraud and make more plausible the defendants’ claims of serving thousands of
meals to children every day. The government submits that such purchases were made
in service of furthering the fraud and thus make Farah’s conduct worse, not better;
he should not receive a discount for trying to conceal his scheme.
5
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 6 of 16
Second, even if Farah were right or if the Court were inclined to discount the
loss amount by the quantity of food purchased, from a Guidelines perspective, it
wouldn’t matter.
Exhibit M-1. 2 Evidence presented at trial showed that, across Farah and his
conspirators’ four chief entities used in the scheme, the conspirators spent about $5.1
million on food. Even that amount, however, is a generous calculation. That figure
2 Exhibit M-1 summarizes the information from admitted Exhibits M-6, M-10, M-13a, and
M-30.
6
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 7 of 16
includes all food purchases by those entities, including a significant amount of money
spent on “food” that had nothing to do with the federal child nutrition program.
For example, Empire Cuisine & Market operated a small halal deli and market
located in a strip mall in Shakopee, Minnesota. As depicted in Exhibit M-1, the
market had more than $1 million in credit card receipts during the time of the fraud
scheme. In other words, regular customers spent more than $1 million buying food at
Empire Cuisine & Market. As FBI Forensic Accountant Pauline Roase testified at
trial, the funds credited to “food” on Exhibit M-1 included money spent to purchase
food and other items (such as halal meat and baby formula) for sale at the market.
And as the Court saw, many of the defendants’ food invoices were for the purchase of
these types of items unrelated to the food program. See, e.g., Ex. D-72 at 62-63, 82
(Lincoln Trading International invoices for the purchase of goat meat, lamb kidney,
and other halal meats to sell at Empire Cuisine & Market); Ex. D-73 (Gold Star
Distribution invoices for the purchase of non-food items to be sold at Empire Cuisine
& Market); Ex. Q-46 (Capital Imports invoices showing purchase of food unrelated to
the federal child nutrition program). Nevertheless, Ms. Roase testified that, to be
conservative in her calculations, she credited the purchases of such items, though
plainly unrelated to the food program, as “food expenses.”
Regardless, even if the Court credited Farah that full amount, the intended
loss amount would drop from about $49 million to about $43.9 million—resulting in
a figure still well within the Guidelines loss range of $25 million to $65 million.
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1).
7
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 8 of 16
B. Farah’s Conduct Warrants the “Organizer or Leader”
Enhancement
Farah insists he was a “roughly co-equal participant” in this scheme with his
conspirators. The case evidence shows otherwise.
First and foremost, Farah received a much bigger cut of the spoils than anyone
else, personally pocketing more than $8.1 million. Mohamed Ismail pocketed about
$2.2 million. Abdimajid Nur got about $940,000. Hayat Nur only $31,000. 3
Second, Farah owned the Empire Cuisine and Market, which he used to chart
the course in the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme. His was one of the first entities
to enroll as a fraudulent food site. From his perch atop Empire, he decided how the
fraud proceeds would be distributed within the conspiracy. And the extreme claims
his for-profit business submitted were part of MDE’s rationale in changing the
3 This chart summarizes the information from some of the extensive bank account records
admitted at trial.
8
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 9 of 16
Program rules in autumn 2020 to (try to) force for-profit restaurants out of the
Program.
Third, Farah spent his proceeds like a kingpin. With the more than $8 million
Farah personally pocketed, he bought five luxury vehicles, including over $300,000
for a Porsche, a GMC truck, and a Tesla, he purchased real estate for over $4.2
million, and he diverted over $700,000 to a Kenyan real estate partnership.
Finally, the scheme Farah spearheaded was extensive, and it involved at least
five other participants—satisfying each of the independent grounds for application of
the leader/organizer enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The government introduced
ample evidence at trial of Farah’s coordination of his co-conspirators. That evidence
included communications in which Farah directed the flow of funds among the
scheme’s participants.
9
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 10 of 16
Trial evidence also included many examples of Farah effecting those intra-scheme
transfers himself, from accounts he controlled—as in the example below.
10
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 11 of 16
But Farah’s role in the scheme, and specifically in leading and directing it, was not
merely financial. Farah also instructed his co-conspirators in the creation of bogus
documentation, including fake invoices and fake rosters.
11
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 12 of 16
Ex. E-83. And, because Farah was involved in this scheme at every step, trial
evidence also showed that he personally submitted fraudulent claims.
12
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 13 of 16
Abdiaziz Farah led the defendants charged in this indictment. He directed the
scheme and his co-conspirators both logistically and financially. And when time came
to divide the spoils of their efforts, time and time again it was Farah who decided who
got what. His conduct meets the rule and spirit of the leader/organizer enhancement.
The government submits that a just sentence requires its application.
C. The “Major Disaster” Enhancement Applies
The Court has found in each of the four other sentences imposed so far in this
broader scheme that the “major disaster” enhancement applied. Indeed, at the May
5, 2025, sentencing of Sahra Mohamed Nur, the Court explained in detail how the at-
issue scheme—namely fraud upon the Federal Child Nutrition Program—qualifies
as offense conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 1040 and so requires application of the
enhancement. For the same reasons, the enhancement should be applied here, too.
D. The “Sophisticated Means” and “Sophisticated Laundering”
Enhancements Apply
The sophisticated means and sophisticated laundering enhancements apply.
Extensive case evidence chronicled how Farah and his conspirators used shell entities
to receive, launder, and spend the fraud proceeds. Though Farah is responsible for
the foreseeable acts of his coconspirators, his own actions subject him to this
enhancement, too, including because he created in April 2021 a shell called Empire
Enterprises which he used to receive and launder proceeds.
The Court rightly applied the sophisticated means enhancement when
sentencing Farah’s conspirator Mukhtar Shariff, including because Shariff used shell
companies to launder his fraud proceeds. The same should occur here.
13
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 14 of 16
E. The “Charitable Organization” Enhancement Applies
Farah contends the Guidelines’ “charitable organization” enhancement cannot
apply where, as here, the defendant uses a charitable organization in the commission
of the offense by “acting in a business capacity.” Dkt. 825 at 17. Put differently, Farah
argues that where a defendant “represent[s] [his] endeavor is profit-seeking”—even,
apparently, where that endeavor uses a charitable organization to acquire its fraud
proceeds—the enhancement is inapplicable. This makes no sense.
The enhancement applies whenever a defendant represents that he “was
acting to obtain a benefit” on behalf of a charitable or educational organization while
intending “to divert all or part” of that benefit to himself, for personal gain. U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1, App. Note. 8(B). That is what happened here. Farah and his conspirators
initially defrauded the food program through a for-profit business. When their
runaway claims, along with other fraudsters’, prompted MDE to constrain Program
participation to non-profits, Farah and his conspirators shifted their focus to using
them. Farah and his conspirators used ThinkTechAct Foundation, among other
nonprofits, to further bilk the system. They used ThinkTechAct to open numerous
fraudulent food sites and thereby received more than $21 million. Ex. M-30. More
than $12 million of those funds were sent from ThinkTechAct to Abdiaziz Farah’s
company, Empire Cuisine & Market, and another $3 million went to a related entity
created by Abdiaziz Farah, Empire Enterprises. 4
4 At trial,the government introduced records of the various bank accounts opened in the
name of Empire Cuisine & Market, Exs. O-7, O-8, O-9, as well as a chart summarizing all
the funds that flowed into, and out of, the account, Ex. M-13a. Financial records related to
14
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 15 of 16
Farah’s argument seemingly calls back to the defense he and some
codefendants deployed at trial: that the Program was poorly designed and that an
enterprising participant could lawfully and legitimately profit. The case evidence,
including testimony from MDE representative Emily Honer, showed otherwise. In
any event, Farah and his co-conspirators used nonprofits to participate in the
program and enlarge their fraudulent take. That is, they sought access to federal
benefits (i.e., federal food program reimbursements) available only to charitable
organizations. They did so intending to steal those funds for their personal gain. That
falls squarely within the enhancement language. It should be applied.
F. Farah Fails to Identify Any Impermissible Double Counting
Under the Guidelines
Farah does not identify any particular enhancements whose applications
would constitute double counting. He identifies none because there are none.
G. The Obstruction Enhancement Applies Because Farah
Attempted to Flee Prosecution and He Committed Passport
Fraud To Do So
Farah concedes that the obstruction of justice enhancement applies, but he
argues it applies because he tried to bribe a juror in this case and not because of his
attempted flight from prosecution and related passport fraud. Dkt. 825 at 9-10 & n.4.
To be clear, the government contends this enhancement applies solely because of that
earlier conduct—not because of Farah’s attempted bribery. The government intends
Empire Enterprise’s bank accounts were introduced at trial as Exhibits M-13z, O-11 and O-
12, as were records of ThinkTechAct’s bank account, as Exhibit O-17.
15
CASE 0:22-cr-00124-NEB-DTS Doc. 840 Filed 07/23/25 Page 16 of 16
to seek just punishment for Farah’s bribery separately, in his pending bribery
prosecution before Judge Doty.
Farah’s attempted flight from prosecution and passport fraud, however, is
more than enough to justify application of the obstruction enhancement. Indeed, the
Court applied the enhancement to Mohamed Ismail on the basis of substantially
identical conduct. Dkt. 645 at 28 (Ismail PSR); Dkt. 691 (Ismail Statement of Reasons
(adopting PSR without change)).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the government respectfully requests that the
Court impose upon Mr. Farah a sentence of 30 years in prison.
Dated: July 23, 2025 Respectfully Submitted,
JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
Acting United States Attorney
/s/ Daniel W. Bobier
BY: MATTHEW S. EBERT
HARRY M. JACOBS
DANIEL W. BOBIER
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
16