A former senior federal prosecutor in California faces a Justice Department criminal referral after a defense lawyer alleged she misled FBI agents about her role in a fraud case.
A lawyer retained by defendant Abraham Shafi sent a criminal investigation referral to the Justice Department on Tuesday, asking federal authorities to examine whether former prosecutor Jina Choi made false statements about her involvement in the probe of Shafi and the social-media startup IRL. Fox News Digital reported the referral and the surrounding court record.
Choi joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California in late 2023. Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey soon tapped her to lead the Corporate and Securities Fraud Section, which handles major corporate and securities cases across the Bay Area, including Silicon Valley.
Before that appointment, Choi had worked as outside counsel for IRL. Prosecutors said she was screened off the federal investigation into the company and its co-founder for that reason. The referral turns on whether she stayed involved anyway and then understated that role when the FBI interviewed her in July.
Shafi’s separately retained lawyer argues internal communications and the FBI interview report contradict Choi’s account to agents. The referral states Choi told agents she did “not have any kind of role in the investigation.” It also says she claimed she was not aware “who was assigned to the case team.”
The same referral material says Choi “admitted keeping a written case tracker on which ‘the SHAFI investigation was listed.’” The U.S. Attorney’s Office, per the defense claim, described that tracker as “privileged and internal work product” and did not turn it over.
An internal message purportedly quoting Choi reads: “I talked to [her predecessor] and I wanted to see if it would be ok to add [him] to the IRL team to help move it along.” Defense filings also claim she inquired about the name of the FBI agent on the IRL case and sent press coverage of the Shafi matter to other prosecutors. Underlying email exhibits were filed under seal or as sealed exhibit slip sheets.
Federal agents in the region have pursued a wide range of cases, from corporate fraud to street-level schemes, including work that later produced an FBI arrest in a major fraud and identity-theft scheme elsewhere in California.
As of publishing, no judge has ruled that Choi operated under a conflict of interest severe enough to warrant dismissal of the Shafi case. Choi has not been charged with any crime or disciplined for professional misconduct tied to that prosecution. She did not respond to a request for comment. The FBI declined to comment.
Shafi co-founded IRL, a social-media startup built around organizing people through events. The company shut down in 2023 after a board-directed investigation concluded that 95% of its users were likely bots, a finding Shafi disputed.
He was indicted in 2025 on federal fraud and obstruction charges. Prosecutors charged him with wire fraud, securities fraud, and obstruction. They allege he misled investors about user growth, passed paid advertising off as organic activity, and raised about $170 million. They also accuse him of misusing investor funds for clothing, home furnishings, travel, hotels, and wedding-related costs.
Shafi was charged a few months after Choi left the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The federal investigation into IRL predated her arrival. His defense has an obvious incentive: if improper action by Choi can be proven, it could derail or damage the prosecution. The government has denied the defense claim that Choi tried to steer authorities toward Shafi to shield other stakeholders. Prosecutors acknowledged she advocated that the firm itself not be targeted, but disputed any claim that she wanted the government to go after Shafi personally.
Bay Area federal work often draws national attention when agents chase fugitives or complex financial crimes, as when the FBI sought a Bay Area firefighter in a separate disappearance case after prior charges.
Cully Stimson, a Heritage Foundation legal fellow and acting director of its Legal Policy Center, is a former federal prosecutor. He told Fox News Digital that resorting to a criminal investigation referral is rare. He also cautioned against pinning Choi’s alleged conduct on the broader Biden administration and noted that individual U.S. Attorneys’ Offices generally operate with significant independence.
Stimson still flagged the stakes if the defense account holds:
"Here, the defense's allegations are troubling if true, because if their allegations end up being true, there was spillage,"
He continued:
"And that would mean some other members of that office are therefore conflicted, and it could result in the entire office being conflicted if a judge found that the taint was so bad that it permeated the whole office."
The Justice Department generally has no obligation to respond to referrals of this kind. The public record does not show whether DOJ has accepted, declined, or answered this one.
Accountability questions around federal investigations surface often, including when the FBI captured a fraud suspect who fled the country after charges, or when agents run long extradition efforts such as the return of a Honduran fugitive after 25 years on the run.
Absolute calendar dates for the Tuesday referral and the exact year of the July FBI interview are not fixed in the available reporting. The full name of the lawyer who sent the referral is not stated. Case numbers and the unredacted sealed emails and interview memoranda are not public. Choi’s full statements to agents beyond the quoted fragments are not laid out in open filings.
Those gaps matter because false statements to federal agents are a serious charge when proven, and conflict rules exist to keep prosecutors from working matters they previously handled as private counsel. Screening walls only work if people honor them. When internal trackers, staffing notes, and press forwards appear in the same file as denials of any role, the public is entitled to a clear accounting, not sealed slip sheets and silence.
Federal agents continue to open new probes across the country, including recent work on a suspected ricin exposure at a Michigan apartment complex and hospital, while older cases like Shafi’s still turn on whether the government’s own house kept clean lines.
Taxpayers fund these offices to prosecute fraud and protect the integrity of the courts. They also fund the rules that bar prosecutors from blurring private loyalty and public power. If the referral’s claims are empty, DOJ can say so. If they are not, the public deserves more than a screened-off shrug.
