Have any defendants in the Minnesota fraud investigations been convicted specifically of tax evasion or related IRS charges?

1. What the public record shows now: convictions for fraud, bribery and money‑laundering, not tax evasion

Multiple national and federal press accounts summarize that scores of people have been indicted and many convicted in the Minnesota schemes, with headlines and court announcements emphasizing charges such as wire fraud, bribery and money‑laundering rather than tax evasion; for example, outlets report dozens of convictions and guilty pleas across Feeding Our Future and other probes (CBS: 62 convicted and counting; New York Times: at least 60 convicted; CNN: multiple convictions including bribery and money‑laundering) ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

2. What the IRS and Treasury have publicly said — involvement, investigations and civil audits, not recorded tax‑evasion convictions

The IRS Criminal Investigation division is publicly identified as an investigative partner in several cases and has posted press material about guilty pleas tied to Feeding Our Future and other schemes, demonstrating IRS‑CI investigative involvement ^{[5] [6]}. The Treasury’s FinCEN and IRS civil enforcement initiatives are active — including audits of financial institutions and promises of a task force to pursue pandemic‑era tax incentive abuse and misuse of tax‑exempt status — but those announcements describe investigative and civil enforcement steps rather than reporting concluded criminal tax‑evasion convictions ^[7].

3. Close reads of the IRS press releases and prosecutions cited reveal fraud and related counts, not explicit tax evasion convictions

The IRS Criminal Investigation press release highlighted in the reporting notes a Minneapolis woman pleaded guilty in the Feeding Our Future fraud scheme and that Evergreen Grocery and Deli received millions in fraudulent payments, but the public snippets emphasize fraud and false claims tied to the child nutrition program rather than listing a conviction for tax evasion under the Internal Revenue Code ^[5]. A separate IRS press item describes a Minneapolis nonprofit director charged with wire fraud and conspiracy; again, the cited charges are fraud‑related, not labeled as tax evasion convictions ^[6].

4. Why the distinction matters and how reporting sometimes blurs investigative agencies with charges

Because IRS Criminal Investigation frequently joins complex financial probes led by the DOJ and other agencies, press statements often reference IRS involvement even when prosecutions proceed on wire fraud, bribery, or money‑laundering statutes; such phrasing can create the impression of “IRS charges” where the specific criminal counts are not tax evasion ^{[5] [6]}. Treasury and oversight statements about audits, FinCEN notices, and future tax‑related task forces signal ongoing tax‑focused scrutiny, but those do not equate to finalized criminal tax convictions in the current public record ^{[7] [8]}.

5. Alternative possibilities and limits of the available reporting

It remains possible that some individual prosecutions include lesser‑publicized tax counts or that federal prosecutors may pursue tax evasion indictments later as investigations progress; the sources describe extensive ongoing investigations, audits and promises of further enforcement actions that could lead to tax charges ^{[7] [8]}. The present sourcing, however, does not document any defendant in these Minnesota fraud probes having been convicted specifically of tax evasion or related IRS criminal statutes — a factual gap that should temper claims that tax‑evasion convictions have already occurred ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}.

6. Bottom line

According to the cited reporting and government releases, defendants in the Minnesota fraud investigations have been convicted of numerous criminal offenses tied to fraudulent billing, bribery, money‑laundering and wire fraud, but the public sources provided do not show any defendant convicted specifically of tax evasion or a criminal IRS charge as of the cited coverage; ongoing IRS and Treasury actions could change that outcome, but that development is not yet documented in these sources ^{[2] [3] [7] [5]}.