MINNEAPOLIS, MN — In a case that federal prosecutors described as a "direct attack on the heart of the American justice system," Abdulkarim Farah, 24, was sentenced on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, for his role in a daring and desperate attempt to bribe a juror during a high-profile welfare fraud trial.
Farah, one of several defendants involved in the massive $250 million Feeding Our Future scandal, was convicted of being a key player in the "delivery team" that dropped off a bag of cash at a juror's doorstep in a bid to buy an acquittal.
A Bag of Cash and a "Targeted" Juror
The bribery attempt occurred in June 2024, during the first of several scheduled trials for defendants accused of stealing federal funds meant to feed children during the pandemic.
- The Operation: Prosecutors detailed how Farah and his associates used high-tech surveillance and social media stalking to track down a 23-year-old juror to her home.
- The "Bribe": A woman, allegedly acting on behalf of the group, dropped a gift-wrapped bag containing $120,000 in cash at the juror’s house. The instructions were simple: return a "not guilty" verdict, and more cash would follow.
- The Whistleblower: The juror immediately reported the incident to the police. This led to her dismissal from the case and prompted the judge to sequester the remaining jurors for the duration of the trial.
A "Chilling Effect" on the Courtroom
The fallout from the bribery attempt sent shockwaves through the federal courthouse in Minneapolis, leading to unprecedented security measures.
- The Verdict: Despite the attempt to subvert the trial, five of the seven defendants in that specific case were ultimately convicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering.
- The Investigation: Following the report, the FBI launched an "all-hands" investigation, using GPS data from rental cars and cellular pings to link Farah and his co-conspirators to the juror's address.
- The "Incommunicado" Juries: Since this incident, federal judges in the district have frequently ordered "blind" jury selection or full sequestration in high-stakes fraud cases to prevent further tampering.
Jury Integrity v. Maximum Sentencing
During the sentencing hearing on March 4, the "Legal War" centered on whether the bribery attempt was a "youthful mistake" or a sophisticated criminal conspiracy.
- The Prosecution: Government attorneys argued for the maximum penalty, stating that Farah showed "total contempt for the law" and that a lenient sentence would encourage others to try to "buy" their way out of justice.
- The Defense: Farah’s legal team argued for leniency, claiming he was a "low-level operative" who had been pressured by older, more powerful figures within the fraud network.
- The Judge's Rebuke: The presiding judge described the scheme as "something out of a movie, but with real-world consequences for the integrity of our democracy," emphasizing that the court must protect the safety of those who serve on juries.
"You Can't Buy Justice"
Following the sentencing, U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota issued a stern warning to anyone considering similar tactics. "The message today is clear: our jury system is not for sale. If you attempt to bribe, intimidate, or influence a juror, we will find you, and you will go to prison."
For the residents of Minneapolis, the Farah sentencing marks a closing chapter in a scandal that has seen millions of dollars diverted from hungry children to luxury cars and international real estate. The goal of the Department of Justice remains the recovery of the stolen $250 million, but as Farah begins his prison term, the focus is on rebuilding trust in a judicial system that was pushed to its limit.