Have there been recent prosecutions in Minnesota for fraudulent autism treatment claims?

1. A landmark federal prosecution: first defendant charged

Federal authorities publicly charged Asha Farhan Hassan as the first criminal defendant in what prosecutors describe as a multi-year scheme to defraud Minnesota’s autism services program; court filings allege Smart Therapy obtained over $14 million from Medicaid between 2019 and 2024 and that Hassan and others “devised and carried out a scheme” against the EIDBI program ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Allegations: inflated billing, unqualified staff, and kickbacks

Justice Department and media accounts say the alleged scheme involved billing for one-on-one ABA-like services that were not provided or were provided by unqualified behavioral technicians — often 18- or 19-year-old relatives without relevant education or certification — and prosecutors later highlighted alleged kickbacks to families as part of the scheme ^{[1] [6] [7]}.

3. Connection to the Feeding Our Future food-aid case

Prosecutors and reporting link this autism fraud investigation to the earlier “Feeding Our Future” pandemic food-aid fraud probe: court documents allege Hassan also participated in the Federal Child Nutrition Program fraud, and prosecutors say some actors overlap between the two investigations ^{[8] [1] [2]}.

4. How widespread is the review of autism providers?

Reporting and advocacy sites indicate state and federal investigators have visited many provider locations and that dozens of investigations remain open: outlets reported 85 open investigations into autism clinics and that investigators had visited roughly 270 locations, while Minnesota officials urged caution that an “open investigation” does not equal a finding of fraud ^{[4] [3]}.

5. Law-enforcement footprint: raids, warrants and a slow build to charges

FBI search warrants were executed at multiple autism centers in December 2024 as part of a broad Medicaid fraud investigation, and those warrants — later unsealed — described concerns about billing for services not provided; the Hassan charge in September 2025 represents the first federal criminal filing emerging from that probe ^{[3] [6] [1]}.

6. State response: audits and payment pauses

In reaction to these and other fraud prosecutions, Minnesota ordered audits of Medicaid billing and hired an outside firm to look for suspicious patterns; the state also paused some payments and expanded reviews across multiple programs including EIDBI autism services to detect missing documentation or unusually high billing ^[5].

7. Competing narratives and caution about inference

Advocates, government officials and media offer different emphases: prosecutors underline the scale and alleged intentionality of fraud ^[1], while the Minnesota Department of Human Services has cautioned that an “open investigation” does not itself prove wrongdoing and that rapid program growth created oversight gaps ^{[4] [3]}. Some opinion pieces amplify ethnic or political angles, but reporting-level sources focus on evidence and charging documents rather than sweeping community characterizations (p1_s2 — note: this source contains partisan and inflammatory claims; mainstream outlets cited above do not).

8. What’s proven so far and what remains unknown

What is documented publicly: a federal information charging Hassan with wire fraud tied to alleged theft of about $14 million from EIDBI and links to Feeding Our Future ^{[1] [9]}. What’s not yet in public reporting from these sources: the number of additional people who will be indicted, final court outcomes (guilty pleas or convictions), and a full accounting of how widespread proven fraud may be across all providers — those details remain under investigation or unreported at this time ^{[1] [4]}.

9. Implications for families and policy

Reporting highlights immediate impacts: heightened scrutiny and payment delays may strain legitimate providers and families relying on services while authorities try to root out fraud, and state leaders have launched audits to strengthen oversight ^{[5] [3]}. That tension — protecting taxpayers and preserving access to needed autism services — is central to policy debate documented in the coverage ^[5].

Sources cited in this summary: U.S. Department of Justice release ^[1]; major local and national reporting including MPR News, USA Today, FOX 9, KARE11 ^{[10] [2] [6] [11]}; investigative reporting on warrants and probe scope ^[3]; counts of open investigations ^[4]; and state audit reporting ^[5].