Bay Area Indian Kush Ghanshyam Patel Indicted for Allegedly Stealing from His Former Employer

February 21, 2020 - A former technology company employee and San Francisco, CA Indian Kush Ghanshyam Patel (28) is indicted today by a federal grand jury in connection with an alleged scheme to defraud his former employer of more than $350,000.

According to the indictment filed on January 9, 2020:
...Patel, 28, of San Francisco, Calif., worked as an event coordinator from 2013 to 2016 at a streaming-video company headquartered in San Francisco. During his time at the company, and continuing for two years afterward, Patel engaged in a scheme to steal from his former employer. In 2014, the company’s Corporate Controller authorized Patel to make a single purchase with the company’s corporate credit card for a company marketing event. Beginning around March 2015, however, Patel started making additional unauthorized purchases. As alleged in the indictment, Patel used the corporate card to make a number of fraudulent purchases, including roundtrip international airline tickets to Milan, Italy, and high-end Air Jordan and Yeezy footwear. Patel’s unauthorized purchases allegedly continued until about August 2018—years after he left the company in 2016. According to information presented to the court at Patel’s initial appearance, the proceeds from Patel’s fraudulent scheme totaled more than $350,000.
Patel Arrested
Kush Ghanshyam Patel was arrested on January 30, 2020 in Munster, IN.

Bay area Indian Kush Ghanshyam Patel was released on $100,000 bond after his initial court appearance in San Francisco on February 14, 2020.

Charges & Potential Penalty
The charges against Kush Ghanshyam Patel include:
On each count of mail fraud, if convicted, Kush Ghanshyam Patel faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, a fine of $250,000, plus restitution.

The mail fraud charges are mere allegations and Kush Ghanshyam Patel must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And, any sentence following a conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.