Seven defendants should be convicted for taking advantage of the pandemic to steal millions of dollars in taxpayer money and enrich themselves instead of feeding children in need, a federal prosecutor told the jury Friday as closing arguments began in Feeding Our Future process.
“It wasn’t a get-rich-quick scheme … it was a scheme for children,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said in his two-hour summary of the case. “This program is not designed to make people rich.”
Four of the seven defense teams countered that the jury should find the six men and one woman innocent, arguing that the prosecution’s case lacked evidence and that the FBI investigation on which it was based was weak.
The closings, which will continue Monday before the case goes to the jury, include six weeks of testimony and evidence in the first trial in a broader case that prosecutors have called one of the nation’s largest pandemic fraud schemes.
Defense attorneys have spent the past month trying to cast doubt on what they say is sloppy FBI work, accusing investigators of not even visiting food warehouses or distribution sites to verify the meals. They turned around Friday to scrutinize the prosecution’s case, saying it told half the story with unreliable witnesses and selective data.
“The whole case is based on speculation,” said attorney Edward Sapone. “There is reasonable doubt everywhere.”
The twelve jurors and six alternates have completed a lengthy, complex trial, during which more than forty witnesses and 1,300 pieces of evidence were present. They heard closing arguments for seven hours on Friday.
The seven defendants are among 70 people charged in the broader case, all tied to U.S. Department of Agriculture programs that reimburse schools, daycares and nonprofits for feeding low-income children after school and during summer.
The seven defendants received more than $40 million in federal reimbursements for 18 million meals distributed at 50 food locations in Minnesota, from Rochester to St. Cloud. Prosecutors allege the defendants, tied to a Shakopee restaurant, ran a “brazen” fraud scheme that created numerous shell companies to launder money, submitted rosters of made-up children’s names and inflated meal claims, spending the money lavishly on themselves , including a $1 million Prior Lake lakefront property, luxury cars and gold jewelry.
During his closing arguments, Thompson summarized some of the text messages shown earlier in the trial between defendants bragging about becoming millionaires, and the testimony of FBI and IRS agents and accountants who investigated. An FBI forensic accountant testified that she traced the defendants’ 300 bank accounts and found that only about $3 million of the $30 million received by the restaurant at the center of the case — Empire Cuisine and Market — went to food purchases.
“Money was spent on everything but food,” Thompson told the jury.
He echoed testimony from witnesses, including apartment managers, parks maintenance workers and school administrators, who saw little to no meals being distributed at apartments and parks the defendants claimed to serve. He reiterated the implausibility of their claims: perfectly round numbers of children who came to eat day in and day out without being sick and making invoices.
“When you go to Target, you don’t make your own receipt,” he said.
Defense attorneys argued that investigators never visited all 50 locations or collected video surveillance. Some sites listed incorrect addresses, so the FBI was looking in the wrong places, she added. They argued that their clients provided real food to real children and used real bank accounts and other official documents using their real names, without hiding or concealing information.
“That’s completely over the top,” said attorney Andrew Birrell.
If defendants rushed to complete the paperwork, Sapone added, it was because of the struggle to comply with ever-changing rules during the pandemic, and “the most important thing is that the food was given.” He accused investigators of confusing suspects with immigrants connected to a Minneapolis restaurant also charged in the case.
“Big [numbers] does not equal fake,” he said of the major meal claims.
Defense attorneys have cited more than 100 USDA waivers approved during the pandemic, easing oversight and rules to get children food quickly when schools close. This allowed the defendants’ for-profit restaurants to temporarily participate in the meal programs and provide seven days’ worth of groceries at once, instead of the usual hot meals, quickly increasing their meal claims, they said.
“It’s been hard to keep track,” said attorney Patrick Cotter, adding that his client’s failure to understand the changing rules is not the same as deliberately defrauding the government. “We don’t judge people based on suspicions.”
Prosecutors argued that the waivers made the programs vulnerable to abuse. Thompson said in his closing argument that the question at the heart of the case is not whether the defendants fed children, but whether the meal claims were fraudulent. “And they absolutely were,” he said.
The defendants – Said Shafii Farah, Abdiaziz Shafii Farah, Mohamed Jama Ismail, Abdimajid Mohamed Nur, Abdiwahab Maalim Aftin, Mukhtar Mohamed Shariff and Hayat Mohamed Nur – were charged in 2022 with bank fraud, money laundering and other charges.
Their food locations were largely overseen by the St. Paul nonprofit Partners in Nutrition and the St. Anthony nonprofit Feeding Our Future, which is at the center of the expanded case.
A former Feeding Our Future employee has testified for the prosecution about a “growing” fraud scheme known for rampant kickbacks and kickbacks, including from some defendants. Defense attorneys said he lacked credibility as “an admitted fraudster” who is now cooperating with authorities to avoid jail time.
Six defense teams did not call any witnesses. Shariff, the only defendant to take this stand, said he distributed food and was not responsible for any financial paperwork. His lawyers also called nine witnesses, many of whom testified about long lines of people receiving meals in Bloomington and about business practices by East African immigrants that rely on informal transactions based on trust, rather than written agreements.
“The government drew an early, wrong conclusion and built a case around it,” Sapone said. He wondered aloud why there were so many holes in the investigation into the suspects: “Weren’t these seven people worth it?”
