Score:   1
Docket Number:   WD-WA  2:18-cr-00214
Case Name:   USA v. Samal
  Press Releases:
          The former CEO of two Bellevue, Washington information-technology (IT) firms was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Seattle to 87 months in prison for mail fraud and tax crimes related to a multi-year visa-fraud scheme, announced U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran.  PRADYUMNA KUMAR SAMAL, 50, a citizen of India, was arrested in August 2018 when he arrived on an international flight at Sea-Tac Airport.  Prior to the arrest, SAMAL had fled the U.S. in the midst of the visa fraud investigation.  He has been in custody since his arrest last year.  At the sentencing hearing U.S. District Judge James L. Robart said “Based on your time in the U.S. you have basically defrauded everyone you could defraud…. It is clear you have not followed the law since you came to this country. You engaged in an extensive scheme…. This was driven by greed: nothing more, nothing less.” 

            “This was the largest and most sophisticated H-1B visa fraud scheme we have prosecuted in Western Washington,” said U.S. Attorney Brian Moran.  “The fraud harmed the workers who wound up far from home, essentially “benched” by the company, with no pay and no job.  It harmed foreign workers who legitimately sought, but could not get visas, and it harmed U.S. workers who were excluded from employment opportunities.”

          According to records filed in the case, two companies incorporated by SAMAL in 2010 and 2011, engaged in a scheme sometimes referred to as a “bench-and-switch” scheme, to exploit foreign-national workers, compete unlawfully in the market, and defraud the U.S. government.  According to the investigation that began in 2015, SAMAL served as the Chief Executive Officer of ‘Divensi’ and ‘Azimetry.’  Both companies were in the business of providing information-technology workers, such as Software Development Engineers, to major corporate clients.  SAMAL submitted, and directed his employees to submit, forged and false application materials to the United States government, making it appear as if foreign-national employees named in the petitions had been earmarked for projects contracted to SAMAL’s companies by end clients.  In fact, these project assignments were fictitious.  The forged documents included forged letters and fraudulent statements of work, which appeared as if they had been signed by senior executives at SAMAL’s clients.  After USCIS relied on the false representations and approved the applications, SAMAL’s companies “benched” the foreign nationals – i.e., the companies left those foreign nationals unpaid, and forced them to submit phony sick and annual leave requests – until and unless they were able to place those employees at actual end clients. 

          More than 250 workers were brought in under the phony applications.  The employees were forced to pay SAMAL’s companies a partially-refundable “security deposit” of as much as $5,000 for the visa filings, regardless of whether they were assigned to any projects that provided them with income.

                "This sentence punishes a sophisticated offender who fraudulently manipulated the U.S. visa process to exploit foreign-national workers, compete unlawfully in the market, and defraud the U.S. government,” said Matthew Perlman, Special Agent in Charge, U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, San Francisco Field Office.  “The Diplomatic Security Service is committed to ensuring the integrity of the visa process, securing the homeland, and protecting the American work force.”

          Not only did SAMAL’s companies fail to pay the clients, it failed to pay more than $1 million in employment taxes.  SAMAL has agreed to pay restitution of $1,119,867 for the tax loss.  In addition Judge Robart imposed a $10,000 fine.

            “Mr. Samal exploited foreign nationals for personal gain while also stealing $1.1 million from his employees' payroll withholdings to fund his luxury car, his mortgage, and his personal accounts in India,” said IRS-Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge Justin Campbell. “IRS-Criminal Investigation continues to prioritize employment tax fraud in order to protect hard-working employees and serve honest taxpayers.”

            The case was investigated by the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Siddharth Velamoor and Michael Dion.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZrUG52V72eg5M8qPI2qkS7ZkcuPmYMvoB6ccipG3EPc
  Last Updated: 2025-03-15 02:16:21 UTC
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: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
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 docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   WD-WA  2:18-mj-00190
Case Name:   USA v. Samal
  Press Releases:
The CEO of two Bellevue, Washington information-technology firms was arrested yesterday afternoon at Sea-Tac Airport on a charge relating to a multi-year visa-fraud scheme, announced U.S. Attorney Annette L. Hayes.  PRADYUMNA KUMAR SAMAL, 49, a citizen of India, was taken into custody as he arrived from an international flight.  The criminal complaint describing the visa-fraud scheme was filed under seal in April 2018, soon after SAMAL fled the United States while the investigation was ongoing.  SAMAL remained out of the country until yesterday when he was arrested by law enforcement.  SAMAL will make his initial appearance on the charges in U.S. District Court in Seattle at 2:00 PM today.

The criminal complaint describes how two companies incorporated by SAMAL in 2010 and 2011, engaged in a scheme sometimes referred to as a “bench-and-switch” scheme, to exploit foreign-national workers, compete unlawfully in the market, and defraud the U.S. government.  According to the investigation that began in 2015, SAMAL served as the Chief Executive Officer of ‘Divensi’ and ‘Azimetry.’  Both companies were in the business of providing information-technology workers, such as Software Development Engineers, to major corporate clients.  The complaint alleges that SAMAL submitted, and directed his employees to submit, forged and false application materials to the United States government, making it appear as if two corporate clients already had agreed to use several foreign-national employees named in the applications.  In fact, neither client had agreed to do so.  The forged documents included forged letters and fraudulent statements of work, which appeared as if they had been signed by senior executives at the two clients.  After USCIS relied on the false representations and approved the applications, SAMAL’s companies “benched” the foreign nationals – i.e., the companies left those foreign nationals unpaid – until and unless they were able to place those employees at actual end clients. 

Nearly 200 workers may have been brought in under the phony applications.  The employees were forced to pay SAMAL’s companies a partially-refundable “security deposit” of as much as $5,000 for the visa filings, regardless of whether they were assigned to any projects that provided them with income.

Visa Fraud is punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The charges contained in the complaint are only allegations.  A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The case is being investigated by the U.S. State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Siddharth Velamoor.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yyd6_FiGTYqwMCwVHShVzjBwENVanQlAgG49vULVEis
  Last Updated: 2025-02-26 01:47:22 UTC
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: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
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 docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E