What specific fraud cases and convictions have been prosecuted in Minnesota’s social‑services programs since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 federal and state prosecutors have pursued a string of cases alleging fraud across Minnesota’s pandemic‑era nutrition program and multiple Medicaid‑funded social‑services programs, producing dozens of indictments and convictions tied to schemes such as the Feeding Our Future nonprofit and multiple Medicaid provider schemes; precise counts and dollar totals remain contested as investigations and prosecutions continue [1] [2] [3].
1. Feeding Our Future — the headline case and its convictions
The largest and earliest scandal stemmed from Feeding Our Future, a nonprofit that ran pandemic meal distribution sites and was charged in a sprawling federal indictment that prosecutors say involved roughly $250 million in fraud; its founder Aimee Bock was convicted on multiple federal counts including bribery, and federal authorities have indicted scores of people in the scheme with conviction totals reported variably by outlets — “more than 50” (Wikipedia), at least 57 (Fox timeline), roughly 62 (CBS), and other outlets citing 59 or higher — reflecting an evolving prosecution tally [4] [5] [2] [3].
2. Medicaid provider fraud: HCBS, home‑health and the Yusuf/Promise Health case
Separate prosecutions have targeted Home and Community‑Based Services (HCBS) and home‑health providers; the Minnesota Attorney General’s office charged Abdifatah Yusuf and Lul Ahmed in mid‑2024 over an alleged $7.2 million HCBS scheme tied to a fake company called Promise Health Services LLC, with accusations of overbilling, billing for services not provided, forged documentation, and kickbacks — Yusuf was convicted by a jury in August 2025 according to the AG release, though reporting later indicates some judicial reversals in post‑trial rulings and continued litigation [1] [6].
3. Housing Stabilization Services (HSS), autism services (EIDBI) and new indictments
Investigations widened into other state programs: federal and state authorities announced indictments and charges against multiple principals accused of billing Minnesota’s Medicaid HSS program for services not delivered and separately pursued defendants tied to Early Intensive Developmental and Behavioral Intervention (EIDBI or “autism”) services; the Attorney General’s office publicly credited joint state‑federal work on new indictments in December 2025 alleging widespread billing fraud in HSS and EIDBI [7] [8].
4. The scale debate — convictions, restitution and estimates of loss
Prosecutors and news organizations offer differing tallies: federal prosecutors have described dozens to many dozens of convictions tied to the major schemes (reported figures include 57, 59, 62 and “more than 50”), while some outlets and officials have cited that more than $1 billion may have been stolen across multiple plots and U.S. prosecutors have warned preliminary audits suggest up to half or more of $18 billion spent across 14 “high‑risk” programs since 2018 could be suspect — language repeatedly noted as preliminary and under audit rather than finalized [3] [2] [4] [8].
5. Earlier and narrower prosecutions: AGO and MFCU work since 2020
Beyond the headline federal cases, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) has a record of charging provider fraud: in December 2023 the AGO announced charges in what it called its largest Medicaid prosecution — three people charged in a scheme alleging nearly $11 million in losses — and state releases note that Minnesota’s MFCU led the nation in convictions among similarly sized units for a 2020–22 period [9] [6].
6. Caveats, contested figures and the continuing investigations
Reporting across outlets shows evolving counts and contested numbers — local and national outlets cite conviction totals that differ by publication date and scope (some narrow to Feeding Our Future, others aggregate across multiple programs), prosecutors themselves emphasize the investigation is ongoing, and several convictions and charges remain subject to appeal or further legal action; authoritative, consolidated final figures are not yet publicly available [2] [3] [6].