Assistant U. S. Attorney Michelle L. Wasserman (619) 546-8431
NEWS RELEASE SUMMARY – November 13, 2019
SAN DIEGO – Nimesh Shah, owner of Blue Star Learning, a technical training school located in San Diego, pleaded guilty today to defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs out of more than $29 million in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits.
The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill provides veterans and other eligible individuals with assistance for education-related expenses such as tuition and housing. The VA pays tuition and fees directly to the school where the veteran is enrolled, and if the veteran is enrolled on more than a half-time basis, the VA additionally provides a monthly housing allowance directly to the veteran, as well as money for books, supplies, equipment and other expenses.
In order to receive and maintain approval to receive funds from the VA under the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, Blue Star Learning was required to have at least 15% non-veterans for each course for which the VA was paying educational benefits under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, a rule called the “85/15 Rule.” Blue Star Learning was forbidden to engage in any erroneous or misleading advertising.
According to Shah’s plea agreement, from March 2016 to June 2019, he devised a scheme to defraud the VA with regards to Post 9/11 G.I. Bill benefits. Specifically, although Shah knew that close to 100 percent of students at Blue Star Learning were veterans receiving VA educational assistance, Shah repeatedly misrepresented to the California State Approving Agency for Veterans Education (CSAAVE) and the VA that Blue Star Learning was in compliance with the 85/15 Rule. In order to deceive CSAAVE and the VA, Shah created, and directed at least three other employees at Blue Star Learning to create, fake student files for the purported non-veterans in each program. Shah additionally emailed the VA 48 fraudulent enrollment agreements for fictitious people he represented were non-veteran students at Blue Star Learning, complete with fraudulent dates of birth, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers and emails for each fraudulent non-veteran student.
Blue Star Learning additionally had to provide vocational attainment data to CSAAVE on a yearly basis, as part of a required yearly approval process. According to Shah’s plea agreement, Shah knew that the vast majority of Blue Star Learning graduates did not obtain jobs in the fields in which they were purportedly receiving training, and that the employment statistics on Blue Star Learning’s website were fraudulent.
Shah nonetheless submitted fraudulent spreadsheets to CSAAVE claiming that all of the Blue Star Learning students listed were employed in the informational technology field. On these spreadsheets, Shah provided fraudulent phone numbers, email addresses, employers, and employer contact information for each student. Shah hired individuals to create the fraudulent email addresses for the Blue Star Learning students, and directed these individuals to answer emails received at the fraudulent email addresses pretending to be satisfied Blue Star Learning graduates working in the information technology field. Shah additionally created 30 fictitious companies that he listed as the employers on the fraudulent spreadsheets, and hired individuals to create fraudulent email addresses and domain names for each fictitious company. Shah directed a Blue Star Learning employee to purchase 30 cellular telephones, one for each fictitious employer, and had employees of Blue Star Learning create voicemails on each cellular telephone so that it would appear that the fraudulent businesses were legitimate if CSAAVE called to check.
“These funds were meant to provide educational benefits to veterans who served our country, not line the pockets of unscrupulous opportunists,” said U.S. Attorney Robert Brewer. “This defendant crafted an elaborate scheme to fleece the government and taxpayers, but this case put a stop to this significant fraud.” Brewer thanked prosecutor Michelle Wasserman and federal agents for excellent work on this case.
As a result of Shah’s fraud, the VA issued over $11 million in tuition payments to Blue Star Learning, and over $18 million in housing allowances and stipends. In total, the VA lost $29,350,999. Shah’s wife, Nidhi Shah, pleaded guilty at the same time to one count of False Statement, as a result of lies she told to agents at the time of her interview.
DEFENDANT Case Number 19CR4551-JAH; 19CR4550-JAH
Nimesh Shah Age: 36 San Diego, CA
Nidhi Shah Age: 34 San Diego, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES
Nimesh Shah: Wire Fraud – Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1343
Maximum penalty: Twenty years’ imprisonment and $250,000 fine
Nidhi Shah: False Statement – Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001
Maximum penalty: Five years’ imprisonment, and $250,000 fine
AGENCY
Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY
Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2
Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3
Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5
Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18
Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15
Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1
Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2
Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: A code indicating the event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2
Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2
Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20
Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2
Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4
Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3
Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5
Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8
Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1
Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1
Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10
Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2
Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD
Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year