Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Crime, Law and Justice
Matt Sepic

4 things to know ahead of Feeding our Future fraud trial next month

People stand behind a podium
Minnesota U.S. Attorney Luger speaks during a press conference about the 10 new charges in the case against Feeding our Future at the United States District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota on March 13.
Stephen Maturen for MPR News

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

The first trial in an alleged conspiracy to defraud government child nutrition programs is set to begin in a little over a month. So far federal prosecutors have charged five dozen people, and 16 have pleaded guilty. Altogether the defendants are alleged to have stolen $250 million from taxpayers. This money was meant to pay for meals for children in need.

MPR News reporter Matt Sepic talked with All Things Considered guest host Nina Moini about the case. Here are four things you need to know:

1) Who’s going on trial first?

Sharon Ross operated a nonprofit in St. Paul called House of Refuge Twin Cities. Prosecutors contend that Ross, 53, took more than $2.4 million from federal child nutrition programs starting in late 2021.

House of Refuge was purportedly a food distribution site that was sponsored by two larger nonprofits, Feeding our Future and Partners in Nutrition.

The government alleges that Ross claimed to have served meals to thousands of children a day and submitted fraudulent reimbursement paperwork then spent the money on real estate, vehicles, and loan payments.

She also allegedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Minneapolis cafe owner Hanna Marakegn for non-existent food shipments. Marakegn pleaded guilty in October 2022.

2) Why is Ross the first defendant to face trial?

This investigation was so large that the U.S. Attorney’s Office charged the defendants in separate indictments. Prosecutors had hoped to try the big multi-defendant cases first in the hopes that others might plead guilty.

Ross was indicted alone, and attorneys on both sides say they’re ready for a Jan. 24 trial even though Ross was among the last to be charged.

Prosecutors told Judge Nancy Brasel they would like to try the first of the major cases in April. After that, they asked Brasel to set a June trial date for Feeding our Future founder Aimee Bock. Bock, 43, is the alleged architect of the overall scheme. Like Ross, Bock has pleaded not guilty.

3) We’ve heard quite a bit from the U.S. Attorney’s office over the past year — both in court filings and in news conferences. How are defense attorneys responding?

On Friday, attorney Kenneth Udoibok filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Aimee Bock. He argues that there’s nothing illegal about sponsorship organizations charging administrative fees to other nonprofits, it is incorrect for prosecutors to characterize the payments as kickbacks. Prosecutors contend in the original indictment that Bock organized and “operated a pay-to-play scheme.”

Also last week two other defendants — Asad Mohamed Abshir and Abdihakim Ali Ahmed —requested separate trials. Their attorneys argue that evidence against the others could prejudice the jury. Ahmed’s attorney JaneAnne Murray argues in a separate filing that the search of her client’s Gmail account was overly broad and unconstitutional.

4) Judges have been allowing some of the defendants to travel overseas while their cases are pending. Has that posed a problem for prosecutors?

Two of the 60 defendants did flee the United States after the investigation became public in early 2022, but before the government filed charges. Mail and wire fraud are serious crimes, but they’re not violent, so the defendants aren’t in pretrial detention.

In the last few months, a half-dozen have requested permission to travel abroad. And because they’ve complied with their release terms, judges have granted the requests. Prosecutors have opposed some over fears that the defendants might flee. But so far those who were due back in the United States have returned.

Judge Brasel allowed Sahra Nur to visit family in Somalia and make a pilgrimage to Mecca last fall even after she pleaded guilty. Others are overseas visiting sick relatives.

And Liban Alishire — who pleaded guilty in January — is being allowed to travel to Kenya to sell a luxury apartment and other property that he admitted buying with stolen money. Brasel ordered Alishire to pay restitution as part of his plea agreement. The itinerary Alishire filed with the court has him due back just after the New Year.  

Correction (Jan. 8, 2024): This story was updated to correct Ross’ age.