How many defendants have pleaded guilty in the Feeding Our Future investigations and what sentences have they received?

1. How many defendants have pleaded guilty — the evolving totals and reporting gaps

Initial media reports flagged the first three guilty pleas in October 2022, when Bekam Addissu Merdassa, Hanna Marekegn and Hadith Yusuf Ahmed each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud ^{[6] [7] [8]}. By late January 2025 the Star Tribune reported 26 guilty pleas among the charged defendants (26 pleaded guilty, five jury convictions, two acquittals) in the sprawling case then involving about 70 charged people ^[1]. Other outlets and public releases documented continued guilty pleas through 2024 and 2025 and an August 2025 local report stated the case had “passed 50 convictions” with additional pleas that summer, indicating the number continued to climb beyond the earlier 26 figure ^{[9] [2]}. None of the supplied sources offers a single authoritative consolidated count current to January 18, 2026, so the exact cumulative number as of that date cannot be confirmed from this set of documents ^{[10] [2] [1]}.

2. What sentences have been imposed or forecast in plea deals

Sentencing outcomes documented in the sources vary: Bekam Merdassa agreed as part of his plea to a prison term between 24 and 30 months and to pay more than $343,000 in restitution and to testify for prosecutors ^[3]. Some plea agreements described far larger potential exposures and restitution amounts: one defendant’s plea agreement acknowledged responsibility for tens of millions in restitution and forecast a sentence range in years, although media summaries of that individual’s projected term differ across reports (a Jan 2025 piece cites one defendant facing 9–11 years while another line shows a proposed 21–27 month term in related reporting) ^{[4] [1]}. The IRS and DOJ summaries for several defendants list plea dates and the crimes admitted (conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering), and note forfeitures of homes, vehicles and bank funds, while indicating sentencing hearings were to be scheduled later — meaning many pleas recorded in these releases had not yet produced final prison terms at the time of those statements ^[5].

3. Which defendants and penalties are typical in the record so far

Public reporting highlights a mix: low‑level site operators and middlemen who confessed to fabricating meal counts and routing payments have taken guilty pleas with plea‑range prisons measured in months and restitution orders (example: Merdassa) ^{[3] [8]}. Higher‑exposure defendants — large distributors or those tied to alleged multi‑million dollar losses — appear in plea filings that allocate tens of millions in restitution or foresee multi‑year sentences and substantial forfeitures of property and bank assets ^{[4] [5]}. The IRS‑CI and DOJ communications emphasize forfeiture of property and seized bank funds in several pleas but often note that sentencing dates and final judgment amounts remain pending ^[5].

4. What this patchwork of reporting reveals about accountability and reporting agendas

Reporting across local outlets, federal press releases and policy blogs has tracked pleas incrementally, but coverage choices shape perceptions: local news focuses on individual defendants and immediate plea bargains ^{[6] [3]}, federal releases emphasize forfeiture and case scope ^[5], while advocacy or opinion outlets may count pleas as milestones in policy critique ^{[4] [2]}. Because many pleas include scheduled future sentencing hearings, and because different outlets updated at different times, any attempt to state a single final number or cumulative sentencing tally must rely on an authoritative, current court docket or U.S. Attorney’s consolidated release — documents not present among the provided sources ^{[10] [5]}.