Plea Agreement — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 545, D. Minn.)

Summary

In this plea agreement filed 02/27/25 in the District of Minnesota (Criminal No. 22-223(9)), Abdikadir Ainanshe Mohamud, also known as "AK," agrees to plead guilty to Count 4 of the Indictment, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Mohamud admits running the Stigma-Free Willmar site under the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future and claiming approximately 1.6 million meals there from November 2020 to December 2021, and admits paying more than $225,000 in bribes and kickbacks to Feeding Our Future employee Abdikerm Eidleh. The agreement states that Mohamud transferred more than $2.5 million from the shell company Tunyar Trading and that the conspiracy caused the payout of $5,325,369 in fraudulent reimbursements. Mohamud agrees to owe restitution in the amount of $3,000,251.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 13 of 13 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Criminal No. 22-223(9) (NEB/DTS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, PLEA AGREEMENT AND

SENTENCING STIPULATIONS

V.

ABDIKADIR AINANSHE MOHAMUD,
also known as “AK,”

Defendant.

1. The United States of America and the defendant Abdikadir Ainanshe
Mohamud, also known as “AK,” agree to resolve this case on the terms and conditions
that follow. This plea agreement binds only the defendant and the United States
Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota. This agreement does not bind any
other United States Attorney’s Office or any other federal or state agency.

2. Charges. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count 4 of the
Indictment, which charges the defendant with wire fraud, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343. The defendant fully understands the nature and
elements of the crimes with which he has been charged. At the time of sentencing,
the United States agrees to move to dismiss the remaining charges against him in
the Indictment.

3. Factual Basis. The defendant is pleading guilty because he is in fact

guilty of Count 4 of the Indictment. In pleading guilty, the defendant admits the
following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and

constitute relevant conduct pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines:

SCANNED

FEB 28 20M
. UJ, DISTRICT COURT MPLS
5

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.545_ Filed 02/27/25 Page 2 of 13

From in or about April 2020 through in or about January 2022, the defendant
knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the federal child nutrition program, a
program designed to provide free meals to children in need. The defendant and his
co-conspirators obtained, misappropriated, and laundered millions of dollars in
program funds that were intended as reimbursements for the cost of serving meals to
children. The defendants exploited changes in the program intended to ensure
underserved children received adequate nutrition during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Rather than feed children, the defendants took advantage of the Covid-19 pandemic—
and the resulting program changes—to enrich themselves by fraudulently
misappropriating millions of dollars in federal child nutrition program funds.

As part of the scheme, the defendant purported to operate a federal child
nutrition program site in Willmar, Minnesota, a small town in west-central
Minnesota with a total population of approximately 21,000. The defendant ran his
food site through a non-profit entity, Stigma-Free International (the “Stigma-Free
Willmar site”). The defendant opened up the Stigma-Free Willmar site in October
2020 under the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future. As alleged in Count 4 of the
indictment, on October 19, 2020, Aimee Bock, Feeding Our Future’s executive
director, emailed the enrollment application to the Minnesota Department of
Education for the defendant’s Stigma-Free Willmar site, which traveled interstate.

By October 20, 2020, less than a month after creating the Stigma-Free Willmar
site, the defendant falsely claimed to be serving meals to 3,000 children a day, seven

days a week, from FaaFan restaurant, a small storefront restaurant in downtown
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 545 _ Filed 02/27/25 Page 3 of 13

Willmar. In or about October 2020, the defendant approached the owner of FaaFan

- Restaurant and offered to pay him monthly to give the appearance of legitimacy that

the small storefront restaurant was a food site for Stigma-Free Willmar. The
defendant also created a shell company called Tunyar Trading that purported to be a
meal vendor providing meals to be served at the Stigma-Free Willmar site.

During the one-year period from November 2020 to December 2021, the
defendant and his co-conspirators fraudulently claimed to have served approximately
1.6 million meals at the Stigma-Free Willmar site. In support of these claims, the

defendant prepared and submitted fraudulent meal count sheets and invoices. The

conspirators submitted a fake attendance roster purporting to list the names and ages

of approximately 2,000 children who attended the Stigma-Free Willmar site’s “after-
school program.” The list was fake and submitted to support their fraudulent claims.
More specifically, on November 3, 2021, the defendant emailed a fabricated invoice,
inflated meal counts, and a falsified attendance to a co-conspirator who then emailed
a corresponding fraudulent claim to Feeding Our Future for the defendant’s Stigma-
Free Willmar site.

Rather than use fraudulently obtained money to serve meals or feed children,
the defendant and his conspirators fraudulently misappropriated much of it. The
defendant transferred more than $2.5 million from Tunyar Trading to himself and
other co-conspirators. Also, the defendant and other co-conspirators created another
shell company called Five A’s Projects LLC. The defendant and other co-conspirators

together transferred more than $1 million in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds
Ww

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.545_ Filed 02/27/25 Page 4 of 13

to Five A’s Projects LLC, which they used to purchase the former location of Kelly’s
19th Hole, a bar and restaurant in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota.

The defendant also paid more than $225,000 in bribes and kickbacks from
Tunyar Trading LLC to Abdikerm Eidleh, the Feeding Our Future employee who
served as the site support manager for the Stigma-Free Willmar site, in exchange for
sponsoring and facilitating Stigma-Free Willmar’s fraudulent participation in the
Federal Child Nutrition Program. Feeding Our Future received nearly $500,000 in
administrative fees for sponsoring the Stigma-Free Willmar site’s fraudulent
participation in the program. In December 2021, the defendant also paid $5,750 to a
GoFundMe account for Feeding Our Future created by Aimee Bock.

Ultimately, based on fraudulent claims throughout the conspiracy, the
defendant and his co-conspirators caused the payout of $5,325,369 in fraudulent
Federal Child Nutrition Program reimbursements for meals purportedly served to
children at the Stigma-Free Willmar site.

4. Waiver of Pretrial Motions. The defendant understands and agrees

that he has certain rights to file pre-trial motions in this case. As part of the plea
agreement, and based upon concessions of the United States within this plea
agreement, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily gives up the right to
file any pre-trial motions in this case. The defendant agrees that, by pleading guilty,
he is withdrawing any motions previously filed.

5. Waiver of Constitutional Trial Rights. The defendant understands

that he has the right to go to trial. At trial, the defendant would be presumed
innocent, have the right to trial by jury or, with the consent of the United States and
of the Court, to trial by the Court, the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses to
testify for the defense, the right to testify and present evidence, and the right to be
protected from compelled self-incrimination. The defendant understands that he has
the right to an attorney at every stage of these proceedings and, if necessary, one will
be appointed to represent him. The defendant understands that he has the right to
persist in a plea of not guilty and, if he does so, he would have the right to a public
and speedy trial. By pleading guilty, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and
voluntarily waives each of these trial rights, except the right to counsel. The
defendant understands that a guilty plea is a complete and final admission of guilt
and, if the Court accepts the guilty plea, the Court will adjudge the defendant guilty
without a trial.

6. Additional Consequences. The defendant understands that as a

result of his conviction, he could experience additional consequences, such as the loss
of the right to carry firearms, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

7. Statutory Penalties. The parties agree that wire fraud, as charged in

Count 4 of the Indictment, carries statutory penalties of:

a. a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years in prison;
b. a supervised release term of up to three years;
c. a fine of up to $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss from the

offense, whichever is greater;
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 545 _ Filed 02/27/25 Page 6 of 13

d. assessment to the defendant of the costs of prosecution as
authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1918(b) and 1920; and

e. a mandatory special assessment of $100 under 18 U.S.C.
- § 8018(a)(2)(A).

8. Revocation of Supervised Release. The defendant understands that

if he were to violate any supervised release condition while on supervised release, the
Court could revoke his supervised release, and the defendant could be sentenced to
an additional term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3583(e)(8). See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.4, 7B1.5. The defendant also understands
that as part of any revocation, the Court may include a requirement that he be placed
on an additional term of supervised release after imprisonment, as set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 8583(h).

9. Guidelines Calculations. The parties acknowledge that the defendant

will be sentenced in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3551, et seq. Nothing in this plea
agreement should be construed to limit the parties from presenting any and all
relevant evidence to the Court at sentencing. The parties also acknowledge that the
Court will consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines in determining the
appropriate sentence and stipulate to the following guideline calculations:

a. Base Offense Level. The parties agree that the base offense level
for wire fraud is 7. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1).

b. Specific Offense Characteristics. The parties agree that an 18-
level enhancement applies pursuant to Guidelines
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) because the loss was more than $3.5 million but
not more than $9.5 million. The parties agree that the offense
level should be increased by 2 levels because the offense involved
a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a
charitable organization. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(A). The parties
agree that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels

6
NY

CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.545_ Filed 02/27/25 Page/7of13

because the offense involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. §
1040 (Fraud in Connection with a Major Disaster or Emergency
Benefits). The parties agree that no other specific offense
adjustments apply.

Chapter 3 Adjustments. The parties agree that no Chapter 3
adjustments apply.

Acceptance of Responsibility. The government agrees to
recommend that the defendant receive a 2-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). As
the defendant has timely notified the government of his intention
to enter a plea of guilty, the government agrees to recommend
that the defendant receive an additional 1-level reduction
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). Whether these reductions will be
imposed shall be determined by the Court in its discretion.
However, the defendant understands and agrees that the
government's recommendations are conditioned upon the
following: (1) the defendant testifies truthfully during the change
of plea and sentencing hearings; (2) the defendant provides full,
complete and truthful information to the United States Probation
Office in the pre-sentence investigation; and (8) the defendant
engages in no conduct inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility before the time of sentencing, including frivolously
denying facts in the Presentence Report. Nothing in this
agreement limits the right of the government, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and/or § 3C1.1 to seek denial of a reduction for
acceptance of responsibility or an enhancement for obstruction of
justice should the defendant engage in any conduct inconsistent
with acceptance of responsibility, including moving to withdraw
his guilty plea after it is entered.

Criminal History Category. The parties believe that, at the time
of sentencing, the defendant will fall into Criminal History
Category I. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. This does not constitute a
stipulation, but a belief based on an assessment of the
information currently known. The defendant’s actual criminal
history and related status will be determined by the Court based
on the information presented in the Presentence Report and by
the parties at the time of sentencing. The defendant understands
that if the presentence investigation reveals any prior adult or
juvenile sentence which should be included within his criminal
history under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant will
be sentenced based on his true criminal history category, and he
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 545 _ Filed 02/27/25 Page 8 of 13

will not be permitted to withdraw from this Plea Agreement.
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.

f. Zero-Point Offender Adjustment. Because the defendant has zero
criminal-history points and no disqualifying conduct, the parties
agree the defendant qualifies for a 2-level adjustment under
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.

g. Guidelines Range. If the adjusted offense level is 24, and the
criminal history category is I, the Sentencing Guidelines range is
51-63 months of imprisonment.

h. Fine Range. If the adjusted offense level is 20, the Sentencing
Guidelines fine range is $15,000 to 150,000. U.S.S.G.
§ 5E1.2(c)(8).

h. Supervised Release. If the adjusted offense level is 24, the
Sentencing Guidelines fine range is $20,000 to $200,000.
U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(8).

10. Discretion of the Court. The foregoing stipulations are binding on

the parties, but do not bind the Court. The parties understand that the Sentencing
Guidelines are advisory and their application is a matter that falls solely within the
Court’s discretion. The Court may make its own determination regarding the
applicable guideline factors and the applicable criminal history category. The Court
may also depart from the applicable Guidelines. If the Court determines that the
applicable guideline calculations or the defendant’s criminal history category are
different from that stated above, such a determination shall not provide a basis for
the parties to withdraw from this agreement, and the defendant will be sentenced
pursuant to the Court’s determinations.

11. Agreements as to Sentencing Recommendation. The parties are

free to recommend whatever sentence they deem appropriate. The parties reserve the

right to make a motion for departures from the applicable Guidelines range pursuant

8
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 545 Filed 02/27/25 Page 9of13

to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to oppose any such motion made by the opposing party, and to
argue for a sentence outside the applicable Guidelines range. If the Court does not
accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, the defendant will have no right
to withdraw his guilty plea.

12. Special Assessment. The Sentencing Guidelines require payment of a

special assessment in the amount of $100 for each felony count of which the defendant
is convicted. U.S.S.G. § 51.3. The defendant agrees that the special assessment is
due and payable at the time of sentencing.

13. Restitution Agreement. The defendant understands and agrees that

the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, applies and that the Court
is required to order the defendant to make restitution to the victims of his crime. The
defendant understands and agrees the Court may order the defendant to make
restitution to any victim of the scheme regardless of whether the victim was named
in the Indictment. The defendant agrees that he owes restitution in the amount of
$3,000,251.

14. Disclosure of Assets. The defendant will fully and completely disclose

to the United States Attorney’s Office the existence and location of any assets in
which the Defendant has any right, title, or interest, or over which the defendant
exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those assets held by a spouse,
nominee or other third party, or any business owned or controlled by the defendant.
The defendant agrees to assist the United States in identifying, locating, returning,

and transferring assets for use in payment of fines and/or forfeiture ordered by the
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 545 _ Filed 02/27/25 Page 10 of 13

Court. The Defendant agrees to complete a financial statement within two weeks of
the entry of his guilty plea. The defendant further agrees to execute any releases that
may be necessary for the United States to obtain information concerning the
defendant’s assets and expressly authorizes the United States to obtain a credit
report on the defendant to evaluate his ability to satisfy financial obligations imposed
by the Court. If requested by the United States, the defendant agrees to submit to
one or more asset interviews or depositions under oath.

15. Forfeiture. The defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), all property, real or
personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to wire fraud, as
charged in Count 4 of the Indictment, including but not limited to:

a. $378,207.20 seized from JPMorgan Chase Bank account No. x0061 held

in the name of Tunyar Trading LLC; and

b. the real property located at 8432 Noble Avenue, North Brooklyn Park,

Minnesota, known previously as Kelly’s 19th Hole.

The defendant admits that this property is subject to forfeiture because it
constitutes or is traceable to the wire fraud conspiracy alleged in Count 4 of the
Indictment.

The Defendant agrees that the United States may, at its option, forfeit the
Property through civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, waives any deadline
or statute of limitations for the initiation of any such proceedings, and abandons any

interest he may have in the property. The Defendant waives all statutory and

10
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.545-_ Filed 02/27/25 Page 11 of 13

constitutional defenses to the forfeiture and waives any right to contest or challenge
(including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other means) such forfeiture, directly
or through any company he owns or controls, on any grounds.

The Defendant consents to the entry of a money judgment forfeiture in the
amount of $3,000,251, which represents the amount of proceeds he obtained from the
wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 4 of the Indictment. The defendant will receive a
credit against the money judgment forfeiture for the net value of all property that is
forfeited from him in this matter. The United States reserves the right to seek
forfeiture of substitute assets and any additional directly forfeitable property.

16. Waivers of Appeal and Collateral Attack. The parties hereby waive

the right to appeal any non-jurisdictional issues. This appeal waiver includes, but is
not limited to: the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal guilt or innocence, any
issues relating to the negotiation, taking or acceptance of the guilty plea, the sentence
imposed or any issues that relate to the calculation of the Guidelines range, the
supervised-release term and conditions imposed, any restitution obligations, and the
constitutionality of the statutes to which the defendant is pleading guilty. The
parties agree, however, that excluded from this waiver is an appeal by defendant of
the substantive reasonableness of a term of imprisonment above the top of the
Guidelines range, and an appeal by the government of the substantive
reasonableness of a term of imprisonment below the bottom of the Guidelines range.

The defendant also waives the right to collaterally attack his conviction and

sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except based upon a claim of ineffective assistance

11
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc.545_ Filed 02/27/25 Page 12 of 13

of counsel. This collateral-review waiver does not operate to waive a collateral
challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 based on new legal principles enunciated in
Supreme Court case law decided after the date of this Plea Agreement that are both
substantive and have retroactive effect. For purposes of this provision, legal
principles that are substantive and retroactive are those that narrow the reach of the
offense of conviction and render the defendant’s conduct non-criminal or that render
the sentence imposed illegal.

17. The defendant has discussed these rights with the defendant’s attorney.
The defendant understands the rights being waived, and the defendant waives these
rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

18. FOIA Requests. The defendant waives all rights to obtain, directly or

through others, information about the investigation and prosecution of this case
under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552,
552A.

19. Complete Agreement. This, along with any agreement signed by the

parties before entry of plea, is the entire agreement and understanding between the
United States and the defendant. By signing this plea agreement, the defendant
acknowledges: (a) that the defendant has read the entire agreement and has reviewed
every part of it with the defendant’s counsel; (b) that the defendant fully understands
this plea agreement; (c) that no promises, agreements, understandings, or conditions
have been made or entered into in connection with her decision to plead guilty, except

those set forth in this plea agreement; (d) that the defendant is satisfied with the

12


File and source

File

545-plea-agreement-as-to-abdikadir-ainanshe-mohamud.pdf

Size

9,030,909 bytes

SHA-256

9e513dd53317aa3d095c5c1e97de736615c3ee68e5f58badea2259a2e88e7460

Our copy

545-plea-agreement-as-to-abdikadir-ainanshe-mohamud.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)