A criminal referral asks the Justice Department to investigate whether former federal prosecutor Jina Choi misled the FBI about her role in a Silicon Valley fraud probe.
A lawyer retained by Abraham Shafi sent the referral to the Justice Department on Tuesday, pressing federal authorities to examine whether Choi made false statements about her involvement in the investigation tied to Shafi and the social-media startup IRL, Fox News Digital reported.
Choi had represented IRL as outside counsel before she joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California in late 2023. Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey later tapped her to lead the office’s Corporate and Securities Fraud Section, which handles major cases across the Bay Area and Silicon Valley.
Prosecutors have said Choi was screened and walled off from the federal investigation involving IRL and Shafi because of that prior representation. The referral disputes that account and argues internal communications and an FBI interview report show she stayed involved and understated her role.
The FBI interviewed Choi in July about her role in the IRL investigation. Per the referral, she told agents she did “not have any kind of role in the investigation.”
The same materials claim she also said she was not aware “who was assigned to the case team.” Defense lawyers say those statements clash with internal messages and other records.
One purported internal message attributed to 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.”
The referral further states Choi “admitted keeping a written case tracker on which ‘the SHAFI investigation was listed.’” Prosecutors have described that tracker as privileged and internal work product and, according to the defense claim, declined to turn it over on that basis.
Underlying email exhibits were filed under seal or as sealed exhibit slip sheets, so the public cannot independently inspect the originals. The FBI declined to comment. Choi did not respond to a request for comment.
IRL organized and connected people through events. A board-directed investigation concluded that 95% of its users were likely bots. Shafi disputed that finding. The company shut down in 2023.
The federal investigation into IRL predated Choi’s arrival at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Shafi was indicted in 2025 on federal fraud and obstruction charges. He faces counts of wire fraud, securities fraud, and obstruction.
Prosecutors allege he misled investors on user growth, used paid advertising then passed the growth off as organic, raised about $170 million, and misused funds on clothing, home furnishings, travel, hotels, and wedding-related costs. Charging came a few months after Choi left the office.
In related motion practice, the defense alleged Choi tried to get federal authorities to target Shafi to shield other stakeholders. The government denied that characterization. It acknowledged she advocated that the firm itself not be targeted, but disputed any claim that she wanted the government to go after Shafi.
As of the report, no court had ruled that Choi operated under a conflict of interest warranting dismissal of the charges. Choi had not been charged with any crime or disciplined for professional misconduct connected to the Shafi prosecution.
Criminal investigation referrals of this kind are uncommon. Defense attacks on prosecutors are routine. The Justice Department generally has no obligation to respond to referrals like this one.
Cully Stimson, a former federal prosecutor and acting director of the Heritage Foundation’s Legal Policy Center, told Fox News Digital the allegations matter if proven.
"Here, the defense's allegations are troubling if true, because if their allegations end up being true, there was spillage,"
Stimson said. He added:
"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."
He also cautioned against pinning alleged conduct on the Biden administration as a whole and noted the independence of U.S. Attorney’s Offices.
The referral turns on a basic accountability question: whether a senior prosecutor who once represented the company under scrutiny later minimized her contact with the same matter when federal agents asked. Wall-off rules exist for a reason. If screening fails and statements to the FBI do not match the paper trail, the integrity of the prosecution, and public trust in the office, takes the hit.
Shafi’s separately retained lawyer argues the alleged false statements and the prior-representation conflict taint the charges. Prosecutors maintain the screen held. The sealed exhibits and the unanswered referral leave the core dispute unresolved for now.
When prosecutors police markets, they answer to the same rules they enforce. A clean wall and a straight answer to the FBI are not optional extras, they are the job.
