Trial I · US v. Farah

Vol XXII

2024-05-23

Day Overview

Volume XXII is almost entirely composed of cross-examination of FBI forensic accountant Pauline Roase by six separate defense attorneys (Mohring for Shariff, Andrew Birrell for Abdiaziz Farah, Cotter for Ismail, Sapone for Abdimajid Nur, Garvis for Aftin, and Brandt for Hayat Nur), concluding with the jury being excused and a significant sidebar record about burden-shifting and the Fifth Amendment. The most significant moments were: (1) the defense establishing that over $1.59 million in Sysco food was purchased on the Afrique account and over $3.4 million in food was spent across Empire entities, directly rebutting government narrative about 'no food purchased'; (2) the revelation that the government's 1006 summary charts contained a 'hidden column' showing categorization decisions made entirely by Roase, which Mohring exposed and Birrell elaborated upon, generating a mistrial motion (denied) and a major Rule 1006 argument outside the presence of the jury; (3) Roase confirming that MDE's CLiCS system auto-approved sponsor claims without human review, echoing the Honer cross-examination concession; and (4) Brandt establishing for Hayat Nur that she had no entities, no foreign transfers, no seized assets, and no lavish spending pattern — none of the hallmarks the government had attributed to other defendants. Defense attorneys collectively established significant food-acquisition evidence, challenged the reliability and neutrality of the forensic accountant's summary work product, and successfully linked legitimate business infrastructure (warehouses, Ryder trucks, refrigerated vehicles, payroll) to the government's own financial summaries.

Government Strategy

The government's forensic accountant, Pauline Roase, remained on the stand for the entirety of this day under cross-examination by six different defense attorneys. The government's overarching strategy during this period was to weather cross-examination on its financial summary exhibits (the 'M series' pivot tables) without conceding that the exhibits were methodologically flawed or that the food-purchase evidence undermined the fraud theory. The government sought to preserve the 1006 summary charts as reliable condensations of voluminous bank records, and prosecutor Thompson repeatedly objected when defense counsel implied the charts were manipulated or that categorization choices were biased. The government also guarded against any inference that the absence of forfeiture activity against certain defendants — particularly Mukhtar Shariff — was exculpatory, successfully excluding that line of questioning as irrelevant.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The government's M-series summary charts are the spine of the financial case, but they were built by a single forensic accountant making unilateral categorization decisions without disclosed methodology, using a 'hidden column' never shown to the jury. Defense counsel must demand the full Excel files with the category column in discovery, engage a competing forensic accountant immediately, and challenge the 1006 summaries pre-trial. Alternative categorization of the same data (e.g., reclassifying Anza payments as 'Warehousing and Transportation' rather than 'Related Parties') can dramatically change the story the jury hears. - The food-quantity analysis is unfinished. The defense established that millions of dollars of food was purchased and documented it with Sysco, Upper Lakes Foods, Afro Produce, and other invoices; but no defense attorney or expert performed the critical analysis of how many meals that food would yield. A forensic nutritionist or food-program expert who testifies that X dollars of bulk food at wholesale prices yields Y individual servings would convert the abstract dollar figures into a concrete defense of the meal counts. - Kara Lomen (Partners in Nutrition Executive Director) appeared tangentially in this volume — Roase confirmed emails to 'Ms. Lomen' were business emails to a PIN employee during her work at the sponsor. The key Lomen text message ('I will turn off the errors so you can enter the meal counts... LOL') did not arise in this volume, but the forensic accountant's confirmation that PIN (Lomen's organization) was the second major sponsor and that its claims were auto-approved by MDE is foundational to the argument that sponsor-side actors controlled the submission process, not the defendants. - The COVID-19 waiver argument is largely absent from this volume's cross-examination but is critical. Garvis briefly referenced that 'waivers' changed the operating environment after March 2020, and the witness confirmed this, but no one explored with Roase whether the program rules she applied in her financial analysis assumed physical-presence requirements that were actually waived. When Roase confirms she never visited a site and that site monitors 'didn't see thousands of children,' these statements are meaningless under pandemic non-congregate waivers — and no attorney made this connection explicitly. - The MDE auto-approval concession (Roase confirming Honer's testimony that CLiCS auto-approved all sponsor claims) is now testified to by two separate government witnesses. Defense counsel should use this in closing to argue that the gatekeeping function for these claims rested entirely with the sponsors — not the vendors — and that the vendors had no visibility into the CLiCS approval process, which is inconsistent with the government's theory that vendors were engineering fraudulent approvals.

Witnesses

Pauline Roase

FBI forensic accountant who served as the government's lead financial analyst in this case, responsible for creating all 'M series' pivot table summary exhibits tracing money flows through approximately 300 bank accounts over three years.

IRS/Forensic Government

Direct Examination

Direct examination occurred in a prior volume. This volume resumes with cross-examination. On direct, Roase had presented the M-series pivot table summary charts showing sources and uses of funds for all major defendants and entities, characterizing expenditures as misuse of program money, and identifying patterns of alleged fraud.

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination by six defense attorneys over the full day extracted major concessions undermining the government's 'no food purchased' narrative, revealed that Roase's categorization decisions were the product of personal judgment without formal protocol, established that the M-series summary charts contained a hidden category column suppressed from jury-facing exhibits, and demonstrated that for multiple defendants (especially Hayat Nur and Mukhtar Shariff) there was no financial trail connecting them to the hallmark indicia of fraud found in other defendants' records.

▸

Sysco invoices (D7-24, admitted) show $1.593 million of food purchased on the Afrique account from February 2021 through January 19, 2022 — the day before the search warrants. Roase confirmed this figure but stated 'In the grand scheme of things, no' when asked if $1.59 million was significant. — Directly rebuts government's narrative that defendants spent little or no money on food. The Sysco deliveries also continued through December 2021 and January 2022 — months after the government says fraud was occurring — with $245,095 in December and $102,454 in January deliveries to the Grand Avenue warehouse alone. [p. 5290-5293]

▸

Payments from the Afrique checking account to Empire Cuisine totaling $1.2 million (the largest single use of funds) were NOT categorized as food expenses in M-6, even though a $200,000 check from Empire to Afrique stated 'shares purchased' in the memo line and was not credited as investment income. — The government's own summary charts excluded from the 'food' category over $1.2 million in payments between related entities, one of which bore a memo line of 'shares purchased' — showing the categorization was selectively applied in the government's favor. [p. 5297-5303]

▸

The M-series summary exhibits contain a 'hidden column' — a category column that determined how each transaction was classified — that was hidden in the exhibits shown to the jury. Roase confirmed the column was hidden and that she personally made all categorization decisions. Mohring stated: 'The news that there was a hidden column, I learned of first from this testimony. We were not given the spreadsheets to even know that.' — This is a major credibility and methodology challenge. The exhibits were admitted under Rule 1006 without objection, but the categorization methodology was never disclosed to the jury or apparently to all defense counsel. Future defense teams should demand the full Excel files with the category column before trial, and should challenge the exhibits pre-trial on the ground that the underlying categorization decisions are not reflected in the face of the exhibit. [p. 5309-5310, 5383]

▸

Roase confirmed that MDE's CLiCS system automatically approved sponsor claims without human review: 'based on Emily Honer's testimony, it's just an automatic approval process. It is not reviewed ahead of time. It just automatically gets approved.' — Reinforces the Honer cross-examination concession. The government's own forensic accountant confirms that MDE bore primary responsibility for approving claims and that the system was designed without pre-payment scrutiny, undermining the theory that the defendants were exploiting a closely supervised system. [p. 5376-5377]

▸

The M-series exhibits underwent page resequencing before being presented as trial exhibits. Roase admitted the O-series bank record exhibits and the email exhibit C-337 had pages shuffled from their original production order 'to make them easier to understand.' Birrell argued this constituted work product infused into the exhibits. — Defense successfully established that exhibit presentation reflects prosecutorial judgment about document ordering — a credibility attack on the foundation of the financial case. The court ruled the cross was permissible but limited to categorization rather than implying the defense lacked the documents. [p. 5309-5312, 5338-5343]

▸

Empire Cuisine & Market spent $658,316.71 on Transportation and Logistics (M-13a), and separately $1.3 million to Anza International LLC (a related party) for warehousing and transportation — which Roase confirmed was for those legitimate business functions. The categorization labeled Anza as 'Related Parties' rather than 'Operating Expenses.' — Cotter demonstrated that over $2 million in the government's summary charts was spent on legitimate food-delivery infrastructure (warehouses, Ryder trucks, refrigerated vehicles, fuel). The 'Related Parties' categorization obscured these legitimate operating costs from the jury. [p. 5408-5415]

▸

Roase confirmed Empire Gas & Grocery (M-48) — a precursor food market business incorporated before the relevant time period — spent $242,559.54 on food in 2021 alone. She also confirmed that Empire entities had $1,062,943.76 in credit card sales during the fraud period, suggesting a legitimate grocery market operation with real sales. — Establishes a years-long legitimate food business predating the alleged fraud, with substantial credit card sales revenue from real customers — consistent with a functioning market and restaurant, not a shell operation. [p. 5429, 5560, 5576-5598]

▸

Roase confirmed Mohamed Ismail was not a signatory on any Empire Cuisine & Market bank accounts after June 2020 — meaning he had no authority to write checks on those accounts during the primary fraud period. — Critical for Ismail's defense. If he couldn't sign checks on the accounts, his involvement in any financial misconduct through those accounts requires more attenuated proof. The government must prove he directed or controlled the accounts through others. [p. 5613-5622]

▸

Regarding Hayat Nur: no entities created by her, no foreign wire transfers linked to her, no seized assets, no lavish personal expenditures (no first-class flights, no jewelry, no real estate purchases), no pattern of creating LLCs and opening large bank accounts. The emails shown (E-83, E-86, E-90, E-91, E-92, E-93) involved forwarded operational emails, not origination of fraud schemes. — Brandt effectively isolated Hayat Nur from all the hallmarks the government used to define the fraud pattern. Future defense teams facing similar peripheral-actor clients should catalog what the forensic accountant did NOT find, which can be as powerful as what they found. [p. 5734-6009]

▸

Roase admitted she did not go to a single site to determine how many meals were actually delivered — 'it wasn't my role.' She also admitted no unpaid food invoices (post-search-warrant demands for payment from food suppliers) were reflected in the government's summary charts, and did not investigate Wadani Consulting's Washington state history. — The forensic accountant's testimony is bounded by the bank records and documents provided to her — she cannot affirmatively testify that meals were not served. Separately, her failure to investigate Washington state Wadani activity leaves a gap that defense could exploit to show pre-existing legitimate business. [p. 5437, 5519-5523, 5319-5340]

▸

Prosecutor Thompson, objecting to Birrell's cross on Roase's sole decision-making authority over the summaries, stated: 'They can call a forensic accountant if they want to.' This triggered a mistrial motion by all defendants, a Rule 611(b) and burden-shifting argument, and an instruction to the jury to disregard the statement along with a reiteration of the presumption of innocence. — The government's speaking objection was widely viewed as burden-shifting. The court denied mistrial but struck the comment and re-instructed. This incident — and the preserved objections by all defendants — is a preserved appellate issue. Future defense teams should be alert to similar speaking objections from this prosecution team. [p. 5380-5392]

▸

Roase confirmed that Kara Lomen was a Partners in Nutrition (a/k/a Partners in Quality Care) employee — the sponsor — and that emails from Abdimajid Nur to Lomen were business emails, not personal. She also confirmed that Christine Twait (from PIN) had already contacted the FBI before MDE did. — The transcript confirms Lomen's correct identity as a private sponsor executive, not an MDE employee. The Sapone cross also established that Abdi Nur's communications with Lomen were business-context and that no witness told Roase that Nur personally altered any invoices. [p. 5106-5110, 5442]

Vulnerabilities Roase's primary vulnerability is that her financial analysis is entirely a product of her own subjective categorization decisions, which she admitted were not standardized or formally reviewed. The 'hidden column' issue — where categorization was suppressed from jury exhibits — is a legitimate credibility problem: the jury sees the conclusions (food expense: $X) but cannot evaluate the basis for categorization. She also admitted she (a) did not visit any food sites, (b) is not a food expert, nutritionist, or program expert, (c) did not investigate the Washington state history of Wadani Consulting, (d) could not confirm that payments between related entities were or were not for legitimate business services without reviewing memo lines she did not recall, and (e) confirmed that MDE auto-approved claims without human review — undercutting the idea that the defendants exploited a controlled system. She is also a member of the prosecution 'team' (she sat between the case agent and an AUSA throughout trial and discussed her testimony during breaks), which creates bias arguments. On regulatory characterization, she made no materially erroneous statements about program rules in this volume, but her confirmation that MDE auto-approved claims is consistent with the broader defense theory. The unpaid food invoice exclusion (Thompson blocked this as hearsay) is a gap that future defense teams should pursue through independent discovery.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should demand the full Excel files with the category column before trial and challenge the 1006 summaries pre-trial as containing undisclosed categorization methodology. He should retain a competing forensic accountant to perform alternative categorization of the same bank records and present alternative summary charts under Rule 1006 — the government cannot prevent this. The food-quantity analysis (breaking invoiced bulk quantities into individual meal servings) was started by defense but never completed; a defense expert who calculates how many meals could be made from the documented food purchases would be powerful. The 'hidden column' issue is preserved for appeal on all defendants who made mistrial/objection motions. The government's speaking objection about calling a forensic accountant should be cited as a pattern of burden-shifting if it recurs.

Key Evidence

Type	Exhibit	Description	Page	Challenge Opportunity
Document	D7-24	Sysco summary document (admitted through Roase on cross) showing total food deliveries to four Afrique locations from February 2021 through January 19, 2022. Grand total: $1,593,000+ of food on the Afrique account. December and January totals after the last MDE payment were $348,000+ across two warehouses.	[p. 5285-5295]	Government will argue this is the Afrique account, not proof the food was served in the program — but the defense successfully established the food was real and delivered to real locations.
Document	D7-198	Email to Mahad Ibrahim (October 15, 2020) with attachments including 'Eat Afrique Hospitality Management Group' LLC agreement listing ownership shares. Mukhtar Shariff not listed as an owner. Shows Afrique as a real multi-party hospitality business.	[p. 5324-5520]	Government can argue the LLC structure itself was part of the scheme.
Data/Summary	M-48	Roase's summary exhibit (admitted on cross by Birrell) covering Empire Gas & Grocery LLC bank accounts from 2018 through 2022, broken down by year. Shows over $242,000 in food expenditures for 2021 and substantial credit card/EBT income consistent with a functioning grocery market.	[p. 5361-5364, 5421-5425]	Government will argue this is a separate entity from Empire Cuisine and that the grocery market income does not explain the program reimbursement claims.
Data/Summary	M-13a (and sub-charts M-13am, M-13al)	Government's primary summary exhibit for Empire Cuisine & Market combined bank accounts. Shows $3.1 million in sources and uses. Cross-examination established the exhibit contains a hidden category column, $658,316 in transportation/logistics, $1.3 million to Anza (warehousing/transportation), and $1.062 million in legitimate credit card sales.	[p. 5337-5383, 5408-5415]	The hidden category column and the absence of any disclosed methodology for categorization decisions are the primary challenges. The government did not provide the Excel spreadsheet — only PDFs — to at least some defense counsel. Rule 1006 challenge should have been made pre-trial.
Document	H-50a, H-59 (partial)	H-50a page 2 is a photograph of a $200,000 check from Empire Cuisine to Afrique with 'shares purchased' in the memo line. H-59 page 33 is a text chain where Said Farah lists Bushra business costs including payroll payments by Said and Abdiwahab.	[p. 5302-5303, 5452-5454]	Government will argue the 'shares purchased' label is fabricated and the Bushra payroll records are cover for kickbacks.
Document	O-240 (Sysco invoices for Empire)	Sysco invoices showing deliveries to Empire Cuisine & Market and Empire Gas & Grocery at multiple locations. One invoice alone showed 450 cases of milk (1,800 gallons) delivered on February 27, 2021.	[p. 5415-5418]	Government argues the volume of food purchased does not prove it was served in the program rather than sold through the grocery market.

Legal Rulings & Objections

⚖

Court denied mistrial motion by all defendants based on prosecutor Thompson's speaking objection: 'They can call a forensic accountant if they want to.' Court struck the comment and re-instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and that defendants bear no burden. — All defendants preserved a burden-shifting / mistrial objection for appeal. The court did not grant a curative instruction beyond striking the comment and reiterating the presumption. The incident shows the prosecution team made multiple speaking objections during cross-examination of Roase that should be catalogued for appeal. [p. 5380-5392]

⚖

Court sustained Thompson's objection to cross-examination on whether the government had forfeited or seized assets belonging to Mukhtar Shariff, ruling the non-seizure of Shariff's assets was 'not relevant.' — The government successfully blocked an effective defense argument — that the government's own forfeiture apparatus had not identified Shariff's property as fraud proceeds. Future defense teams should consider pre-trial motions in limine to get this evidence in, framing it as part of the investigation's treatment of Shariff specifically. [p. 5332-5333]

⚖

Court ruled that cross-examination on the hidden category column and categorization methodology of Rule 1006 summaries was permissible, but ruled that no question could be asked in a way that implied defense counsel did not have the underlying documents — because they did. Court declined to give a jury instruction endorsing the accuracy of the exhibits. — A nuanced ruling that allows categorization attacks on 1006 summaries even after they've been admitted without objection. Future defense teams must challenge 1006 summaries pre-trial if they want a broader attack. However, categorization methodology cross remains available and potentially powerful. [p. 5382-5399]

⚖

Court sustained objection blocking introduction of post-search-warrant food invoices (unpaid bills from food suppliers) as hearsay, with prosecutor Thompson characterizing them as 'fake invoices' at sidebar. — Post-warrant unpaid invoices from legitimate food suppliers were excluded. Future defense teams should subpoena these suppliers pre-trial and potentially call them as witnesses to authenticate the invoices and testify about the food they actually supplied. [p. 5536-5560]

⚖

Court adjourned before Mr. Schleicher (for Said Farah) could cross-examine. After jury excused, all defendants joined the record regarding the burden-shifting pattern and preservation of Fifth Amendment / invocation-of-counsel issues raised by Mr. Garvis's question about whether anyone talked to anyone at Bushra. — Schleicher's client invoked his right to remain silent and hired counsel within days of the search warrants. That fact was flagged as a closed door — government agreed it would not exploit it. Future defense teams should get an order in limine protecting client invocation of rights from being used. [p. 5472-5478]

Prior Defense Performance

Overall this was a strong day for the defense, with individual attorneys identifying and pressing several important weaknesses in the government's financial case. Mohring's cross on food purchases was methodical and generated the most important single evidentiary concession of the volume — $1.593 million in Sysco food. Birrell's attack on the hidden category column was conceptually significant but could have been sharper: he raised the issue but allowed the sidebar to defuse it rather than pressing to show the jury specific examples of transactions that Roase miscategorized. Cotter demonstrated the legitimate logistics infrastructure of Empire well. Sapone effectively isolated Abdi Nur from the altered-invoice narrative. Garvis demonstrated Bushra's real payroll operations. Brandt's cross for Hayat Nur was brief but efficient and highly effective — a model for what defense counsel should do with a peripheral-actor client. The main missed opportunity was a failure to develop the COVID-19 waiver/non-congregate meal service argument in connection with Roase's testimony. When Roase confirmed she never visited a site and confirmed MDE auto-approved claims, no attorney followed up to explore whether the absence of children eating on-site during inspections was consistent with non-congregate pickup operations permitted under pandemic waivers. The defense also missed an opportunity to ask Roase whether her team reviewed the USDA waivers when characterizing what was required versus permitted during 2020-2021. The forfeiture argument (lack of seizure against Shariff) was a good idea that was properly raised but unfortunately blocked by the court; it should be preserved for appeal and brought as a pre-trial motion in future cases.